PDA

View Full Version : Theoretical Physics Reviewed



Carel van der Togt
2006-Apr-12, 02:17 PM
Dear Sir/Madam,

Imagine that theoretical physicists are wrong and there is no relativity of time and space, just 3 dimensions and not 12, no parallel worlds etc. Would that not be the story of the century?

Theoretical physicists claim they understand people who try to comprehend Quantum Mechanics (QM) with the help of classical physics. They know this is not possible. Could it be that they are mistaken?

In principle a theory is based on axioms which are considered to be true. When a theory has been developing in the course of time, the theoretical conclusions are valid as long as the premises, on which the theory is based, are still holding. When one or more axioms are proven not to be valid anymore, scientists have to reconsider all conclusions the theory implies.

The simple article "Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of Ether" (www.paradox-paradigm.nl/van_der_Togt_stellarab-final.pdf) proves without doubt that the premise of nonexistence of dragged ether, a specific axiom of SRT, is false. And it states that the Michelson and Morley experiment (1887) disproves only absolute ether and not dragged ether. With dragged ether the exact stellar aberration of any star any time during the year is predicted; undeniable experimental evidence dragged ether exists.

The article is refused by physics journals with the argument that the article is not actual, not relevant. How can a paper that disproves SRT ever be not actual or not relevant!

Before Einstein discovered relativity QM accepted the premise that the electron, apart from the electromagnetic mass, must also have a mechanical mass. The paper "The Equivalence of Kinetic and Magnetic Energy" (www.paradox-paradigm.nl/Van_der_Togt_equiv2ckw.pdf) proves that this premise is false because the Energy Conservation Law is brutally violated. The mass of an electron is completely explained by classical physics; the Electromagnetic Theory. This article is again rejected. How can an article that disproves a premise at the core of QM ever be not actual or not relevant!

It is therefore, considered the above-mentioned, not surprising that the paper “Quantum Mechanics and the Ether: The Derivation of Planck’s constant” (www.paradox-paradigm.nl/Quantum%20Mechanics%20and%20the%20Ether.htm) explaining the quantification of subatomic physics is rejected. With the derivation of Planck’s constant the quantification by QM is explained with traditional physics.

Why do theoretical physicists reject these articles?

By accepting SRT Theoretical Physics introduced many contradictions. These contradictions have never been solved. To stop the ever-lasting demand for explanations science elevated SRT to the absolute truth (Positivism). Theoretical Physics found an easy way out.

Theoretical physicists claim that QM is the most successful theory ever. The mathematical solutions of QM are staggering. How can QM be so successful while a basic premise is false? The answer is that QM is more an experimental than a theoretical science. Many, many scientists search for years and years for mathematical solutions every day. Statistically now and then staggering mathematical solutions should be found. QM also implies many contradictions that cannot be explained. The so successful elevation of SRT to the absolute truth silenced all opposition, so this strategy is also applied to QM.

In the present situation RT and QM are both elevated to undeniable scientific truth. RT and QM have become indisputable. Science ends up with the unbelievable fairytale of relativity of time and space, 12 dimensions, parallel worlds, unacceptable contradictions etc. When each of both theories has a basic premise proven false, all theoretical conclusions should be reconsidered.

How can any self-respecting scientist admit that premises on which RT and QM are based are false when they have elevated these theories and therefore the premises to the absolute truth? How can they admit that the “truth” is just 3 dimensions and an independent natural constant (h) less? How can they admit that complete explanation by classical physics is possible after declaring that this is impossible? Theoretical physicists think they only can save their face when they ignore and deny the omissions occurred and therefore reject manuscripts on bogus arguments.

Probably you will think this impossible to believe, but consider that the mentioned relatively simple articles prove the premises are false. Simple math is undeniable. When premises are proven false all the conclusions based on it have to be reconsidered.

As the mentioned omissions occurred in the early days of RT and QM, it is not necessary to be a (theoretical) physicist or an expert to be able to comprehend the consequences. Time has come to reveal the incompetence of theoretical physicists. They refuse to address the omissions.

When you are a scientist and not a priest you should wonder why the omissions are not addressed. Save your profession from being ridiculed to the bone because that will happen when Theoretical Physics refuses to budge. All physic disciplines will suffer when the truth comes out.

The stubbornness of theoretical physicists will become a disgrace for all physic disciplines. The easiest and fastest way to get an impression is to read the chapter “Incompetence Science” of the book “From Paradox to Paradigm” (www.paradox-paradigm.nl). This chapter displays the correspondence with science and physic journals.

Forward this thhread to colleagues and friends so Theoretical Physics will be forced to budge and change their fairytale into something useful.

Sincerely,

Carel van der Togt

Melusine
2006-Apr-12, 03:25 PM
Dear Sir/Madam,

When you are a scientist and not a priest you should wonder why the omissions are not addressed. Save your profession from being ridiculed to the bone because that will happen when Theoretical Physics refuses to budge. All physic disciplines will suffer when the truth comes out.

The stubbornness of theoretical physicists will become a disgrace for all physic disciplines. The easiest and fastest way to get an impression is to read the chapter “Incompetence Science” of the book “From Paradox to Paradigm” (www.paradox-paradigm.nl) (http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl)). This chapter displays the correspondence with science and physic journals.

Carel, you've made some good points here, though I am not quite capable of addressing them with aplomb. I find it all very interesting, as I've been reading on the matter of parallel words via Kaku. I can't say I completely grasp the arguments you have noted above. But we of the English major variety (you know, the humanities), have our theories about theoretical physicists and mathematicians. It is simply this: sometimes (most notably) theoretical physicists are so busy counting and calculating the angles of a box, or creating strings where none exist, or can't readily admit they just don't really understand energy, that they don't see the answers that lie before them. We know this, of course, and we are often correct even though it's difficult to "quantify" why we are correct.

You are not so far off to suggest that theoretical physicists should not be so stubborn, lest they get egg on their face. That could hurt all branches of science--you are most right, Sir!

There's another way of explaining my thoughts on the matter, which a wonderful deceased Englishman said quite nicely:



O Attic shape! Fair attitude! with brede
Of marble men and maidens overwrought,
With forest branches and the trodden weed;
Thou, silent form, dost tease us out of thought
As doth eternity: Cold Pastoral!
When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st,
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.


Welcome, Carel, to BAUT!

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Apr-12, 04:07 PM
[Snip!]But we of the English major variety (you know, the humanities), have our theories about theoretical physicists and mathematicians. It is simply this: sometimes (most notably) theoretical physicists are so busy counting and calculating the angles of a box, or creating strings where none exist, or can't readily admit they just don't really understand energy, that they don't see the answers that lie before them. We know this, of course, and we are often correct even though it's difficult to "quantify" why we are correct.[Snip!]
Examples, please, of scientific answers that "English major types" discovered "lying before them" that theoretical physicists have missed. I'm really looking forward to hearing of a few. :think: :whistle:

Melusine
2006-Apr-12, 05:08 PM
Examples, please, of scientific answers that "English major types" discovered "lying before them" that theoretical physicists have missed. I'm really looking forward to hearing of a few. :think: :whistle:
Maybe later, Celestial, right now I have some photos to comment on and upload. Perhaps "lying before them" was not the most prudent choice of words; maybe it should be "lying within them." But you know, I did say that it is "difficult to quantify," and being that this is the ATM section, I don't have a lot of solid evidence to prove much to you. You just have to trust that I'm right. And of course, you won't do that. :D

I do trust the BA and Fraser, that they will not think my posts in this thread are some sudden, flippant anti-science-nonsense. My feet are definitely planted on the ground...like cows. :razz:

Tinaa
2006-Apr-12, 05:24 PM
Welcome to BAUT Carel van der Togt. Please read the rules here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864) and the special ATM rules here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=16242).

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Apr-12, 05:25 PM
Examples, please, of scientific answers that "English major types" discovered "lying before them" that theoretical physicists have missed. I'm really looking forward to hearing of a few.Maybe later, Celestial, right now I have some photos to comment on and upload. Perhaps "lying before them" was not the most prudent choice of words; maybe it should be "lying within them." But you know, I did say that it is "difficult to quantify," and being that this is the ATM section, I don't have a lot of solid evidence to prove much to you.
That's OK, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer in ATM. :)

You just have to trust that I'm right. And of course, you won't do that. :D
No, I won't. Not without the examples I asked for. :D

I do trust the BA and Fraser, that they will not think my posts in this thread are some sudden, flippant anti-science-nonsense.[Snip!]
I don't think your posts are, either, but one must not be taken in by the latest theoretical-physics-must-be-wrong-because-it-doesn't-make-sense-to-me physics wannabe who propounds some "final theory". I haven't looked at der Tog's site yet, I'll do it when I get home and can browse safely with Firefox under OS/2. But I am 99.9 percent sure that I will find the usual half-baked collection of theory and rhetoric with only a minimum of mathematics, and half of the math all wrong. ;)

nutant gene 71
2006-Apr-12, 06:04 PM
Very astute observations, Carel. I've often wondered why rational reasonable challenges to currently accept mainstream physics theories are rejected on unreasonable grounds, i.e., it doesn't agree with current theory, so kill it. Granted, this is a valid response in a field so plagued with bad alternative ideas too; who wants another bad idea to replace a bad idea? But it seems to me that good ideas get thrown out with the bath water, so it becomes a herculean task to unseat what look more like irrational beliefs than solid ideas. I think Einstein's first postulate is wrong, meaning the observer's reference frame is always preferred; I'm not sure about his second postulate, still open to much debate.

If I could make an observation, it is far more difficult to dislodge a bad idea with reason than holding onto it through passionate pursuits. I think this is the error current physics has stumbled into, and there is no reasonable hope of dislodging this error. Of course, the alternative, that we appeal to passions to unseat it is not acceptable either, so it is once again a conundrum.

In my view, which I cannot validate (without 'stealing' this thread), I suspect that once we examine gravity better at some meaningful distance from our known Earth, we will be surprised that Newton was wrong to (naively) assume his gravity G constant is a universal constant. And if it proves so, empirically, then much of current confusion in physics will evaporate like a bad deleterious fog, and return once again to the cold light of reason, to what is real science.

I also suspect that the 'ether dragging' experiment with gravity probe-b will yield disappointing results. However, none of this means anything, no matter how well argued and modeled with or without math, until gravity is actually tested. That will be the empirical 'proof in the pudding', which will either leave the old new-physics as truly ATM in the new physics, or the newer-new physics leaves ATM in the dust. Facts, only facts, will clear up the confusion... and narrow eyes are carefully watching. :) Once the G 'universal constant' drops out (if so proven with real data), watch a whole structure of ill conceived ideas, starting with cosmic light redshift (non-Doppler space expansion), the BBT, multiverse string theory, the Twins paradox, so-called neutron stars gravity energy interactions, or falling (stretched) into (time stopping) black holes , all go through very serious revisions; ending with why Mercury precesses as observed, all crumbling quietly. Then we may have to start from scratch all again, but we will be on a path to physics that will evolve beyond its current impasse. That new-new physics will be not only much simplified but also completely intuitive without having to (observational transference) jiggle the rulers of time and space. Perhaps then reason will finally unseat the passions of today's 'fairtales' in physics, and by extension in astronomy.

Remember the word "theoretical" in Theoretical Physics. Until there is proof, real data proof from real falsifiable tests, it is all merely theory, and conversation, no matter what the mainstream tells you to believe. But now I must beg off, since I neither have the necessary proof to change the plot in the accepted oft repeated story. ;)

clj4
2006-Apr-12, 06:08 PM
I also suspect that the 'ether dragging' experiment with gravity probe-b will yield disappointing results.

You must be meaning "frame dragging", something totally different from "ether dragging". Ether dragging, an amtirelativistic concept has been disproven by the Hammar experiment. Long ago. See here:

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v48/i5/p462_2

And since the GP-B results have not been yet analyzed and published, you can only speculate. So fat, all the tests of SR and GR have turned up overhelmingly in favor of SR and GR. See here:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0103/0103036.pdf

nutant gene 71
2006-Apr-12, 06:15 PM
You must be meaning "frame dragging", something totally different from "ether dragging". Ether dragging, an amtirelativistic concept has been disproven by the Hamar experiment. Long ago. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamar_experiment
Yes, frame dragging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_dragging) is the correct term, where 'space and time' are pulled by accelerating rotations. My above reference to "ether dragging" was meant as dragging the SRT postulated "space-time", what replaced the 'space ether'. Here's Wiki's:

Rotational frame-dragging (Lense-Thirring effect) is the inevitable result of the general principle of relativity, applied to rotation. The relativisation of rotational effects means that a rotating body ought to pull light around with it, in a manner somewhat reminiscent of old "aether-dragging" models. It is now the best-known effect, partly thanks to the Gravity Probe B experiment.
They are related, both addressing the same space-time-ether pehonomenon, but not strictly the same, as you point out. Thanks.

clj4
2006-Apr-12, 06:26 PM
Yes,

They are related, both addressing the same space-time-ether pehonomenon, but not strictly the same, as you point out. Thanks.

You are welcome.

P.Asmah
2006-Apr-12, 06:43 PM
The article is refused by physics journals with the argument that the article is not actual, not relevant. How can a paper that disproves SRT ever be not actual or not relevant!
Call me a cynic, but this doesn't surprise me. To question SRT can be to declare yourself insane in the eyes of many!

Thank you for some interesting links. I look forward to studying them further when I have more time.

Oh, and I don't buy into the MM null result claim...

papageno
2006-Apr-12, 07:19 PM
Very astute observations...

What is so abstute about misrepresenting the scientific community, accusing physicists of covering up their incompetence?

How did engineers miss that GPS does not actually work when they use relativistic formulas?
How did engineers miss that microelectronic devices designed using band-structure engineering do not actually work?




The simple article "Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of Ether" (http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/van_d...arab-final.pdf) proves without doubt that the premise of nonexistence of dragged ether, a specific axiom of SRT, is false. And it states that the Michelson and Morley experiment (1887) disproves only absolute ether and not dragged ether. With dragged ether the exact stellar aberration of any star any time during the year is predicted; undeniable experimental evidence dragged ether exists.


Under the assumption that a luminiferous ether exists:
1. Stellar aberration implies that the ether is not dragged by the Earth's surface.
2. Michelson-Morley experiment implies that the ether is dragged by the Earth's surface.
This is a paradox as bad as Gibbs' paradox in classical Statistical Mechanics.
So, how do you solve it?

agingjb
2006-Apr-12, 07:38 PM
I'm not quite certain what is being claimed here, so please correct me if I'm wrong or misrepresenting this.

We can make an aesthetic judgement about the nature of the world in which we find ourselves, but also that judgement must not require specialised knowledge. The world is, despite many puzzles, such that an average person with an average education will be able to comprehend it, and it is so because it does, it must, conform to a generally acceptable standard of beauty.

I'm moderately sure I got these claims wrong, but I think I need the underlying philosophy to be spelled out a little more.

nutant gene 71
2006-Apr-12, 08:04 PM
What is so abstute about misrepresenting the scientific community, accusing physicists of covering up their incompetence?

How did engineers miss that GPS does not actually work when they use relativistic formulas? Nice to hear from you, paps!

I think it is 'astute' of a humanist layman to peer into the exogenous world of theoretical physics and resolve that this physics is beyond comprehension except by a select cadre of the accepting few who will not suffer any dissent even from their own. :wall: The challenge to physicists is to simplify the thousands of confusing mathematical equations into something an intelligent mind can understand, even if not part of the initiates. What I find so astute in Carel's observation is that the con-theories are squashed and not given a voice because the accepted form only allows for agreement, with accepted premises, and does not allow for expressions in dissent (challenging these basic premises). His voice, as are many more like him, are a cry for sanity and clarity, for clear reason, and not off hand rebuff, viz., "you don't understand it, so you think it must be wrong."

On the second, yes GPS yields relativistic results, but so do slowing oscillations in traveling cesium atomic clocks. My highschool math teacher, that ancient white haired Mr. Woods, said there are two ways to do geometric proofs, either direct or Germanic. The Germanic got the same answer but only through many circuitous unnecessarily complicated steps; while direct proof could be done simply. And what made that especially memorable was that the more direct proof was understandable! So, perhaps GPS time factor adjustments are due to 'Germanic' Einsteinian-Lorentzian mathematical metrics, or perhaps they happen for the simply 'direct' reason that atomic oscillations slow while traveling in a gravitational field, any gravitational field, and always. ;) The insane (change the rulers) reasoning that time slows will still give the same results as the sane (not changing the rulers) reasoning that atomic oscillations slow.

Metricyard
2006-Apr-12, 08:12 PM
We can make an aesthetic judgement about the nature of the world in which we find ourselves, but also that judgement must not require specialised knowledge. The world is, despite many puzzles, such that an average person with an average education will be able to comprehend it, and it is so because it does, it must, conform to a generally acceptable standard of beauty.

Why should everything in the world around us be simple?

I look out my window now and see that the lilac bushes are starting to bud. Can you explain in simple to understand terms why? Is it because it's spring time and they're expected to? For alot of people that is enough of an explanation. For others, they want to know about the chemical reactions involved, how photosynthesis works, etc. Should the scientists just stop looking at these processes just because it gets more complex, or should they just except the fact that it's springtime and move on?

Nature, by it's very nature, is very complex. There are no simple answers when you start looking at things at the quantum level or the larger galactic level. Why should there be? The more we learn, the more we grow as a species.

Let's put things into a different perspective. At one time, Galileo, Newton, Einstein and others were all considered ATM'ers of their generation. There were plenty of people that questioned and down right refused to except their theories. Obviously, people still do. And other scientists in the future will come up with more complex theories. Some will be correct, others tossed aside. It may take decades, even centuries to see if they are valid. Look at Einsteins theories. They're still being tested to this day, with more accurate and more sophisticated equipment. And for the most part, Einsteins theories have been proven successful. Same with quantum mechanics. To this day, there probably hasn't been a theory with such a successful history as QM.

agingjb
2006-Apr-12, 09:47 PM
Why should everything in the world around us be simple? ...

Well indeed I don't think it should. I happen to suspect that the world is, what was it, more complex that we can imagine. It's certainly more complex than I can imagine. I'm numerate; I'm even a graduate with maths as a component; but General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are beyond me. Yet I accept them; I think that between them they describe what we know; and I believe that a full description of the world will contain, reconcile and transcend them both.

No, what we have in this thread is something different. "Beauty is truth, truth beauty, - that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know". The problem is just how hard it is for ordinary mortals to access that beauty, and I'd like those who believe that access to be generally accessible to expand and explain their intuitions.

papageno
2006-Apr-12, 10:48 PM
I think it is 'astute' of a humanist layman to peer into the exogenous world of theoretical physics and resolve that this physics is beyond comprehension except by a select cadre of the accepting few who will not suffer any dissent even from their own. :wall:
Where is the evidence to support this claim?




The challenge to physicists is to simplify the thousands of confusing mathematical equations into something an intelligent mind can understand, even if not part of the initiates.
How do you know that this can be done?




What I find so astute in Carel's observation is that the con-theories are squashed and not given a voice because the accepted form only allows for agreement, with accepted premises, and does not allow for expressions in dissent (challenging these basic premises).
Are you referring to the premises of the theories that have withstood all experimental tests to date?
Where is the evidence that "con-theories" are squashed out of hand, instead of being examined and found to be wrong?
Where is the evidence that dissenting opinions are not allowed to be expressed?




His voice, as are many more like him, are a cry for sanity and clarity, for clear reason, and not off hand rebuff, viz., "you don't understand it, so you think it must be wrong."
He is yet another ATM proponent who thinks he found simple proofs refuting the most succesfully tested theories in Physics and claims there is a big-bad-conspiracy in the scientific "mainstream" to squash dissent, because they won't allow him to publish his ideas.
Yes, we have seen many more like him, and usually the thought they might be wrong does not occur to them.

I would like to see him support his claim that a "complete explanation by classical physics is possible", considering that Gibbs' paradox shows clearly that classical mechanics it is not self-consistent.




On the second, yes GPS yields relativistic results, but so do slowing oscillations in traveling cesium atomic clocks. My highschool math teacher, that ancient white haired Mr. Woods, said there are two ways to do geometric proofs, either direct or Germanic. The Germanic got the same answer but only through many circuitous unnecessarily complicated steps; while direct proof could be done simply. And what made that especially memorable was that the more direct proof was understandable! So, perhaps GPS time factor adjustments are due to 'Germanic' Einsteinian-Lorentzian mathematical metrics, or perhaps they happen for the simply 'direct' reason that atomic oscillations slow while traveling in a gravitational field, any gravitational field, and always. ;) The insane (change the rulers) reasoning that time slows will still give the same results as the sane (not changing the rulers) reasoning that atomic oscillations slow.
You do know that GPS has special-relativistic corrections, as well as general-relativistic corrections, don't you?

Also, you might want to explain how band-structure engineering works with quantum mechanics being based on wrong premises.

Tensor
2006-Apr-12, 11:49 PM
The challenge to physicists is to simplify the thousands of confusing mathematical equations into something an intelligent mind can understand, even if not part of the initiates.

What you mean is something that a mind inside a lazy person can understand. If you want to understand GR or QM, you have to work at it.

Tossing aside modesty, I'd say (and those who know me personally have said) I'm fairly intelligent. I've continued to study both GR and QM on my own. But, it took 5 years of hard work (and quite a few college classes)to get to the point where I could begin to understand either of those theories. I don't claim to be an initiate, much less someone who has a complete grasp on the theories, so I continue to work on it. Notice, I am still working on it, but can understand a lot of it.

So, I would say that physicists have met that challenge. But those who want to learn, have their own challenge to meet. They have to work at learning it, not expecting it to drop into their lap.

If all you want is a condensed verison of the theory, don't be surprised that there are ideas that don't seem to make sense. Almost all of the ATM challenges here (and from what I've seen elsewhere) use that condensed, simplified version as a takeoff point to show the actual theory has a problem. Those people then cannot show, within the theory, what is wrong, because they don't fully understand it.

What probably gets to a lot of people here (especially those who have bothered to actually work at it) are those who haven't worried about studying the theory itself (beyond some popularized version of it) who then spout off about how a particular theory is wrong, without being able to show, within the actual theory, what is wrong, except for some vague handwaving. At that point, they usually claim suppression, failure to understand their point, or some other thing, without realizing where they went wrong.

nutant gene 71
2006-Apr-13, 03:28 AM
How do you know that this can be done?
History had done this before. When James Clerk Maxwell first wrote out his mathematical equations for electricity and magnetism, they were unwieldy and subsequently simplified by both himself and Hertz, so they became the useful math in today's electronics. This can happen to our equations for relativistic physics, which is what I would expect should we find empirical evidence that we don't have gravity right. Ockham's razor would dictate that. We may have made the universe unnecessarily complicated. I trust in a simplicity that will unify all the forces, in the future. I repeat, in the future.


Are you referring to the premises of the theories that have withstood all experimental tests to date? Where is the evidence that "con-theories" are squashed out of hand, instead of being examined and found to be wrong? Where is the evidence that dissenting opinions are not allowed to be expressed?
I'll defer this to those who feel wronged. Their fight.


He is yet another ATM proponent who thinks he found simple proofs refuting the most succesfully tested theories in Physics and claims there is a big-bad-conspiracy in the scientific "mainstream" to squash dissent, because they won't allow him to publish his ideas.
No, not conspiracy. To fight to hang onto what one had spent years of study to (almost) understand will naturally generate its own resistance to change. That is merely human nature. When you have invested heavily in understanding something based on questionable premises, you are less likely to go back and check those premises. In effect, like Tensor (above), you will stand your ground on the basis that you have committed great effort to (almost) understanding this, and it does not serve to question the postulates on which the whole structure is built. What Carel points out is that even questioning the premises, objectively, is forbidden. Just human nature, no blame, and certainly not conspiracy. We as a species hang onto what we have come to believe as true, and it takes a lot of work to undo that. In the old days, they burned you at the stake for even trying. But I do not wish to engage in theology here.


You do know that GPS has special-relativistic corrections, as well as general-relativistic corrections, don't you?

Also, you might want to explain how band-structure engineering works with quantum mechanics being based on wrong premises.
Yes, I know of the GPS corrections, but no, they do not have to be only for the reasons stated in relativity. I made my point clear above, that atomic oscillations slowing while traveling in a gravity field happen. Same as comic light redshift, it happens. These may be totally natural phenomenon, where the relativistic interpretations are spurious, if not self serving.

On the band-structure engineering stuff, I have no idea what you are talking about, too lazy, so cannot answer that one. :)


I am very curious to see what they find in the Gravity Probe-B experiment, so can't wait for them to show their results. Frame Dragging Confirmed (http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/frame_dragging_confirmed.html), article in Universe Today, they make a case that this experiment was already confirmed. This is why I am interested in Probe-B's results. It may be possible, real ATM here, that the observed frame dragging of the LAGEOS spacecraft may happen for reasons more to do with planet's momentum transfer than 'frame dragging', since the drag was in the direction of Earth's spin. But I don't know. I don't know lots of things. That's why empirical evidence, all delightful modeling aside, is so important to confirm modern physics. Or, to disprove it, no matter how beautiful and elegant the math may be. Like I said before... in the future.

swansont
2006-Apr-13, 11:27 AM
No, not conspiracy. To fight to hang onto what one had spent years of study to (almost) understand will naturally generate its own resistance to change. That is merely human nature. When you have invested heavily in understanding something based on questionable premises, you are less likely to go back and check those premises. In effect, like Tensor (above), you will stand your ground on the basis that you have committed great effort to (almost) understanding this, and it does not serve to question the postulates on which the whole structure is built. What Carel points out is that even questioning the premises, objectively, is forbidden. Just human nature, no blame, and certainly not conspiracy. We as a species hang onto what we have come to believe as true, and it takes a lot of work to undo that. In the old days, they burned you at the stake for even trying. But I do not wish to engage in theology here.


Questionable premises that are questioned. It seems fairly obvious that many of the ATM crowd have no appreciation of the "trial by fire" nature of science. Both by the attitude that scientists are defending the orthodoxy out of human nature, and the contention that questioning is not permitted. "Sorry but you are wrong" is not saying that you can't question, it's saying that the question you have asked is flawed.

You have an alternate theory for whatever phenomenon? Great! But a make it a real theory: give me experimental evidence that supports it, and tell me how it can be tested (and possibly falsified) by making predictions.

Carel van der Togt
2006-Apr-13, 12:51 PM
Dear nutant gene 71,

You are correct, there is no conspiracy of mainstream against dissident physics.

The main problem dissident physics encounters are the mathematical “proof” mainstream science claims it has. For any experimental data mathematical solutions can be found whether there is no theory, a correct theory or a false theory.

When mainstream science finds a mathematical solution this is considered validation of the mainstream theories; math is undeniable. How can the theory be wrong when the derived mathematical solutions appear to be correct?

The general argument is therefore that QM and RT must be correct because the math describes the observations stunningly well. We have to consider that empirical science is also capable of deriving stunning mathematical solutions. As far as we know Newtons’s gravity equation is empirical “stunningly” correct. Does this formula describe the fundamental causes of gravity? The answer is: No. Yet it is beautiful pure empirical science.

Most QM’s solutions are beautiful and practical. But do these equations also describe the physical processes? Theoretical Physics claims they do. We know that Theoretical Physics is plagued by inconsistencies and contradictions. These inherent problems of TP are put aside dogmatically with the argument that anything is possible (Positivism). Science ends up with a stunning fairytale.

I’m blamed that in my articles there are no references to recent science. So the physics journals are correct in refusing the articles as being not actual or not relevant! When an omission occurs in theory all conclusions based on the omission have to be reconsidered from that point on.

To make my case I argue that QM concluded unjustly that the EM-properties of the electron cannot be explained by a charged sphere.

J.J. Thomson (1881) derived with help of the EM-theory that the electron couldn’t be a charged bulb (4/3-probem). Thomson’s derivation convinced science until today that his derivation, and therefore the conclusion that an electron cannot be a charged bulb, is correct. However Thomson wrongly interpreted the EM-theory and violated the energy conservation law. This mistake is copied until today.

There is no other conclusion, despite the empirical correctness of the QM-equations, that the theoretical conclusions based on QM-formulas are seriously flawed. But then again you get the argument: “This is impossible because QM-math is so stunning”.

To be able to defuse this bogus argument the following argumentation is necessary:

1) QM incorrectly concluded that the mass of an electron cannot be totally electromagnetic (See www.paradox-paradigm.nl/Van_der_Togt_equiv2ckw.pdf and
Feynman, Lectures on Physics Volume II chapter 28 “The Electromagnetic Mass”) This is undisputable when you check these articles.
2) QM (Feynman), in conjunction with Thomson, concluded that the total momentum p of a moving charge could only explain 2/3 of the impulse of an electron.
3) This meant 1/3 of the mass/energy had to be explained by an unidentified “mechanical” mass.

The argumentation of QM is that it is impossible that the assumption of a “mechanical” is invalid because the math of QM would not be able to produce such stunning formulas. This is not true. Despite the false assumption correct (empirical) mathematical equations can be found.

4) By violating the energy conservation law QM “missed” 1/3 of the electrostatic mass of the charged bulb electron. By adding this 1/3 “missing” mass in the form of a presumed “mechanical” mass, QM “corrected” the “energy loss” and closed the books.
5) The total energy/mass QM accredited to the assumed QM-electron is therefore equal to the mass of the real electron. QM compensates the violation of the energy conservation law by means of adding the missing mass with the concocted “mechanical mass”.

Despite the violation of the energy conservation law the QM-accountant can close the books because the missing part of the mass was “corrected”. Mathematically the mass of the QM-electron has become equal to the mass of the real electron. However this was only achieved with a trick. Other accountants who checked the books did not find something was missing and QM and all conclusions became based on a false premise.

Assumed mathematical incorrect physical properties can be mathematically corrected or compensated. The physical inconsistencies related to the incorrect mathematical assumptions however cannot be corrected in a “proper” way. It becomes possible you need “theoretically” 12 dimensions, parallel worlds etc etc etc. These theoretical conclusions based on the correct emperical math have become totally incorrect.

Carel

tusenfem
2006-Apr-13, 01:51 PM
I think it is 'astute' of a humanist layman to peer into the exogenous world of theoretical physics and resolve that this physics is beyond comprehension except by a select cadre of the accepting few who will not suffer any dissent even from their own. :wall: The challenge to physicists is to simplify the thousands of confusing mathematical equations into something an intelligent mind can understand, even if not part of the initiates.


Oh, boohoohoo, I want to do and understand physics, but I don't want to learn math. That is as stupid as saying I want to speak and write chinese, but I don't want to learn the language. I think the chinese should simplify their characters so than more than only the 1 billion initiated know how to pronounce them.

Apart from this trite rebuttal, it should be pointed out that there are numerous popular scientific books and magazines, where excellent physicists explain for the general public what they do. But if you really want to talk to Lau Shi, you need to learn chinese.

Tensor
2006-Apr-13, 02:27 PM
To fight to hang onto what one had spent years of study to (almost) understand will naturally generate its own resistance to change. That is merely human nature. When you have invested heavily in understanding something based on questionable premises, you are less likely to go back and check those premises. In effect, like Tensor, you will stand your ground on the basis that you have committed great effort to (almost) understanding this, and it does not serve to question the postulates on which the whole structure is built.

LOL, This is so funny. How often do you see ATM types ignore observational evidence or refuse to accept where they have been shown to be wrong. What I have learned in my continued study, are the actual shortcomings of the theory, not some half-baked ATM idea of what is wrong. You'd probably be surprised to find some of the ATM ideas I hold, based on evidence. Gravitationally, I've looked into Whitehead's and Brans-Dicke among others. Celestial Mechanic, who defends GR quite well, has said he would prefer a scalar-tensor gravitational theory. I'm quite interested in QLG, simply because it has the promise of solving those problems that GR actually has.

What I (And maybe CM and others, I don't pretend to speak for them) object to (and probably where you think all we are doing is standing our ground) is that the ATM objections to current theory are almost always based on some misunderstanding of what the actual theory says. The funniest thing I've seen was on Van Flandern's (who is nowhere near a mainstream supporter) website. An ATM type was making some objection to GR and Van Flandern was put in the uncomfortable (for him) position of defending GR, simply because the ATM type didn't understand GR. Listen, make all the objections you want to any theory, just make sure you understand the theory and make sure your objection is actually within the theory, and you have some kind of actual observational evidence that the premise the theory is based on is faulty. And don't think were standing our ground when we point out where your idea is faulty.


What Carel points out is that even questioning the premises, objectively, is forbidden.

Again, this is so funny and ignores any kind of science history. All those advances in history have come from people with ATM(at the time) ideas. What most current ATM types either ignore or don't know, is that those people thoroughly understood the current (at the time) ideas that they were overturning. I have yet to see, on these forums, ATM types questioning premises objectively. Most of the time the ATM types want us to accept their ideas blindly, either based on their faulty understanding of the theory or against observational evidence that refutes their idea.


Yes, I know of the GPS corrections, but no, they do not have to be only for the reasons stated in relativity. I made my point clear above, that atomic oscillations slowing while traveling in a gravity field happen. Same as comic light redshift, it happens. These may be totally natural phenomenon, where the relativistic interpretations are spurious, if not self serving.

Well, see that's a problem, for me. Right now we have one theory that can predict both (and match observation) and you would have us ignore that. Isn't it a bit of a stretch to think that all these disparate observations just happen to match the predictions for GR for no reason?


I am very curious to see what they find in the Gravity Probe-B experiment, so can't wait for them to show their results. Frame Dragging Confirmed (http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/frame_dragging_confirmed.html), article in Universe Today, they make a case that this experiment was already confirmed. This is why I am interested in Probe-B's results. It may be possible, real ATM here, that the observed frame dragging of the LAGEOS spacecraft may happen for reasons more to do with planet's momentum transfer than 'frame dragging', since the drag was in the direction of Earth's spin. But I don't know. I don't know lots of things.

That's why empirical evidence, all delightful modeling aside, is so important to confirm modern physics.

LOL. If this is the case, then why do so many ATM types ignore such evidence? In the above case, you have a prediction of a theory, an observation that matches that prediction (within current error bars) and also makes predictions that match many other observations, (and BTW, frame dragging is always in the direction of spin), yet you won't accept it and resort to a handwaving idea, with no kind of actual support for that idea.


Or, to disprove it, no matter how beautiful and elegant the math may be.

Let's go a bit further. In the past, (and I'm assuming currently) you've pushed the idea that G may not be universal and we need to check it deep space. Again, here, you ignore observational evidence. 25,000 light years away, there is a double binary, whose observations match predictions of a theory that uses a universal G. In that binary, you have two objects, both around 1.4 solar masses, their orbital separation varies from 1.1 to 4.8 solar radii. The conditions within that system and ours couldn't be more different, yet GR predictions (which include a univeral G) match observations in both systems. So why don't you accept it?

Who, exactly, is hanging on to ideas? The big difference as I see it, is I am(along with almost all other mainstream types) completely willing to accept something else, if there is irrefutable evidence against current theory or for the ATM idea. ATM types seem to want to hang on to their ideas, even against evidence.

clj4
2006-Apr-13, 02:58 PM
Dear nutant gene 71,

You are correct, there is no conspiracy of mainstream against dissident physics.

The main problem dissident physics encounters are the mathematical “proof” mainstream science claims it has. For any experimental data mathematical solutions can be found whether there is no theory, a correct theory or a false theory.

When mainstream science finds a mathematical solution this is considered validation of the mainstream theories; math is undeniable. How can the theory be wrong when the derived mathematical solutions appear to be correct?

The general argument is therefore that QM and RT must be correct because the math describes the observations stunningly well. We have to consider that empirical science is also capable of deriving stunning mathematical solutions. As far as we know Newtons’s gravity equation is empirical “stunningly” correct. Does this formula describe the fundamental causes of gravity? The answer is: No. Yet it is beautiful pure empirical science.

Most QM’s solutions are beautiful and practical. But do these equations also describe the physical processes? Theoretical Physics claims they do. We know that Theoretical Physics is plagued by inconsistencies and contradictions. These inherent problems of TP are put aside dogmatically with the argument that anything is possible (Positivism). Science ends up with a stunning fairytale.

I’m blamed that in my articles there are no references to recent science. So the physics journals are correct in refusing the articles as being not actual or not relevant! When an omission occurs in theory all conclusions based on the omission have to be reconsidered from that point on.

To make my case I argue that QM concluded unjustly that the EM-properties of the electron cannot be explained by a charged sphere.

J.J. Thomson (1881) derived with help of the EM-theory that the electron couldn’t be a charged bulb (4/3-probem). Thomson’s derivation convinced science until today that his derivation, and therefore the conclusion that an electron cannot be a charged bulb, is correct. However Thomson wrongly interpreted the EM-theory and violated the energy conservation law. This mistake is copied until today.

There is no other conclusion, despite the empirical correctness of the QM-equations, that the theoretical conclusions based on QM-formulas are seriously flawed. But then again you get the argument: “This is impossible because QM-math is so stunning”.

To be able to defuse this bogus argument the following argumentation is necessary:

1) QM incorrectly concluded that the mass of an electron cannot be totally electromagnetic (See www.paradox-paradigm.nl/Van_der_Togt_equiv2ckw.pdf and
Feynman, Lectures on Physics Volume II chapter 28 “The Electromagnetic Mass”) This is undisputable when you check these articles.
2) QM (Feynman), in conjunction with Thomson, concluded that the total momentum p of a moving charge could only explain 2/3 of the impulse of an electron.
3) This meant 1/3 of the mass/energy had to be explained by an unidentified “mechanical” mass.

The argumentation of QM is that it is impossible that the assumption of a “mechanical” is invalid because the math of QM would not be able to produce such stunning formulas. This is not true. Despite the false assumption correct (empirical) mathematical equations can be found.

4) By violating the energy conservation law QM “missed” 1/3 of the electrostatic mass of the charged bulb electron. By adding this 1/3 “missing” mass in the form of a presumed “mechanical” mass, QM “corrected” the “energy loss” and closed the books.
5) The total energy/mass QM accredited to the assumed QM-electron is therefore equal to the mass of the real electron. QM compensates the violation of the energy conservation law by means of adding the missing mass with the concocted “mechanical mass”.

Despite the violation of the energy conservation law the QM-accountant can close the books because the missing part of the mass was “corrected”. Mathematically the mass of the QM-electron has become equal to the mass of the real electron. However this was only achieved with a trick. Other accountants who checked the books did not find something was missing and QM and all conclusions became based on a false premise.

Assumed mathematical incorrect physical properties can be mathematically corrected or compensated. The physical inconsistencies related to the incorrect mathematical assumptions however cannot be corrected in a “proper” way. It becomes possible you need “theoretically” 12 dimensions, parallel worlds etc etc etc. These theoretical conclusions based on the correct emperical math have become totally incorrect.

Carel


Carel,

I think this is your paper in discussion:

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/cvdteq.pdf

I think that this guy noticed some math errors and you stopped answering him:

http://www.wbabin.net/comments/westra.htm

Carel van der Togt
2006-Apr-13, 03:36 PM
Carel,

I think that this guy noticed some math errors and you stopped answering him:

http://www.wbabin.net/comments/westra.htm

Dear CLJ4,

You say this guy noticed some math errors. Did you confirm that?

The argumentation that I make math errors is solely based on his argument that normally with vector product calculations the angle between the vectors is involved.

I quote here what he said:

D. B. Westra: Apr. 9, 2006:
”The paper of "Carel van der Togt" with the title "The equivalence of magnetic and kinetic energy" contains calculational errors. See page 2 for example: the norm of the outer product between e_v and e_r does not contain the familiar Sin(theta) and the volume element given on the same page also does not contain the Sin of an angle. Therefore this paper, with all its allegations against Quantum Mechanics is erronous and its conclusions are false. ”

He says that the outer product does not contain the familiar Sin(theta). Yes sin(theta) it FAMILIAR but that does not mean that it is always correct.
I referred to chapter 4. of the article “The electromagnetic mass” where it is clear that in this case the FAMILIAR sin(theta) violates the energy conservation law.

I stopped answering because he wants his FAMILIAR sin(theta) just because he is used to that!
Just mindless applying math is not ALWAYS correct. His answer to my comment starts with:” Either there is an inner-product, or an outer-product.”

He did not even bother to look at this chapter 4, nor did you.
In chapter 4 it becomes very clear what happens. Physics is more than just the use of BRAINLESS MATH.

Carel

papageno
2006-Apr-13, 04:40 PM
I think it is 'astute' of a humanist layman to peer into the exogenous world of theoretical physics and resolve that this physics is beyond comprehension except by a select cadre of the accepting few who will not suffer any dissent even from their own.
Where is the evidence to support this claim?
So, where is the evidence to support your claim that "a select cadre of the accepting few who will not suffer any dissent even from their own"?
If you cannot support your claim, retract it.




History had done this before. When James Clerk Maxwell first wrote out his mathematical equations for electricity and magnetism, they were unwieldy and subsequently simplified by both himself and Hertz, so they became the useful math in today's electronics.
The modern version of Maxwell's equations still require a couple of semesters of calculus.
It seems that your "intelligent mind, even if not part of the initiates" still needs some College-level maths to understand Physics.
Now, what you have to do is to show that the same simplification can be done with modern theories in Physics.
So, go ahead and show us.



This can happen to our equations for relativistic physics, which is what I would expect should we find empirical evidence that we don't have gravity right.
GPS formulas are not simplified enough?




Ockham's razor would dictate that. We may have made the universe unnecessarily complicated.
What makes you think the we made the Universe complicated.
Isn't it possible that the Universe is complicated on its own?




I trust in a simplicity that will unify all the forces, in the future. I repeat, in the future.
But in the meantime you are happy ranting against modern Physics.






Are you referring to the premises of the theories that have withstood all experimental tests to date?
Where is the evidence that "con-theories" are squashed out of hand, instead of being examined and found to be wrong?
Where is the evidence that dissenting opinions are not allowed to be expressed?
I'll defer this to those who feel wronged. Their fight.
You are dodging the question.
Either support your claim that "the con-theories are squashed and not given a voice because the accepted form only allows for agreement, with accepted premises, and does not allow for expressions in dissent (challenging these basic premises)", or retract it.






He is yet another ATM proponent who thinks he found simple proofs refuting the most successfully tested theories in Physics and claims there is a big-bad-conspiracy in the scientific "mainstream" to squash dissent, because they won't allow him to publish his ideas.
No, not conspiracy. To fight to hang onto what one had spent years of study to (almost) understand will naturally generate its own resistance to change. That is merely human nature.
As is grudge against the people that you feel wronged you.
But then, this is under the assumption that the resistance is unjustified, not due to the new ideas being wrong.

In the scientific community there is more glory to come up with a new theory that explains observations better well-established theories, than to defend acritically established theories.



When you have invested heavily in understanding something based on questionable premises, you are less likely to go back and check those premises. In effect, like Tensor (above), you will stand your ground on the basis that you have committed great effort to (almost) understanding this, and it does not serve to question the postulates on which the whole structure is built.
You assume that the premises are questionable.
But current theories have withstood decades of experimental tests, and each of them could have refuted the premises they are based on.
You are simply misrepresenting how the scientific community operates, because you like considering ATM proponents as modern day Galileos, who will be vindicated "in the future".



What Carel points out is that even questioning the premises, objectively, is forbidden. Just human nature, no blame, and certainly not conspiracy.
But this is not how science actually works: it's just a strawman.
Every experiment that tests a theory, implies questioning the premises.
The scientists consider the premises strong, but not unquestionable, because the theories have withstood the experimental tests so far.



We as a species hang onto what we have come to believe as true, and it takes a lot of work to undo that. In the old days, they burned you at the stake for even trying. But I do not wish to engage in theology here.
Oh no! You are just trying to paint ATM proponents as modern day Galileos, fighting against the evil establishment who is trying to squash all questioning of the mainstream.
You missed the part where Galileo supported his claims with sound science, unlike many of the modern ATM proponents.






You do know that GPS has special-relativistic corrections, as well as general-relativistic corrections, don't you?

Also, you might want to explain how band-structure engineering works with quantum mechanics being based on wrong premises.
Yes, I know of the GPS corrections, but no, they do not have to be only for the reasons stated in relativity. I made my point clear above, that atomic oscillations slowing while traveling in a gravity field happen. Same as comic light redshift, it happens. These may be totally natural phenomenon, where the relativistic interpretations are spurious, if not self serving.
I see the claim, but nothing that supports it.




On the band-structure engineering stuff, I have no idea what you are talking about, too lazy, so cannot answer that one.
Yet you feel to be in the position to criticize modern theories in Physics.
How can you criticize something you don't know?




I am very curious to see what they find in the Gravity Probe-B experiment, so can't wait for them to show their results. Frame Dragging Confirmed, article in Universe Today, they make a case that this experiment was already confirmed. This is why I am interested in Probe-B's results. It may be possible, real ATM here, that the observed frame dragging of the LAGEOS spacecraft may happen for reasons more to do with planet's momentum transfer than 'frame dragging', since the drag was in the direction of Earth's spin. But I don't know. I don't know lots of things. That's why empirical evidence, all delightful modeling aside, is so important to confirm modern physics. Or, to disprove it, no matter how beautiful and elegant the math may be. Like I said before... in the future.
You don't know a lot of things, yet you presume you can tell if modern theories make sense.
And experimental results have been testing successfully the current theories for decades.

How come ATM proponents tend to ignore observations that disprove their ideas, and say "I'll be vindicated... in the future!" ?

papageno
2006-Apr-13, 04:44 PM
Carel van der Togt,
you seem to think that a "complete explanation by classical physics is possible".
Would you mind solving Gibbs' paradox then?

Also, it would be good if you adressed this:


How did engineers miss that GPS does not actually work when they use relativistic formulas?
How did engineers miss that microelectronic devices designed using band-structure engineering do not actually work?

Eta C
2006-Apr-13, 04:48 PM
This web page (http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html) has some commentary that would appear to be germane to some of the topics discussed here including:

* Mathematical inconsistencies in GR/SR
* Judging the quality of a theory on purely aesthetic grounds
* The need for mathematics in a physical theory
* The perceived "close mindedness" that ATM types attribute to scientists.

And so on. Some of you will find this amusing. Unfortunately, not all will.

Tensor
2006-Apr-13, 05:04 PM
And so on. Some of you will find this amusing. Unfortunately, not all will.

LOL. That was great.

nutant gene 71
2006-Apr-13, 07:40 PM
To all, what I am seeing here in the collective of your (non-ATM) posts is a rejection of challenges to TMS (the mainstream) because those who (perhaps with only a humanist-layman perspective) have not understood all the complexities of the mathematics involved. The challenges, and oft heard complaint, to those TMSrs is to simplify, to make your theories more understandable, and to take them away from the ivory structures in which they had become enshrined. This is a question of either alienation of the general public, the humanist-laymen, or the TMS demand that they conform, through extensive study, to the currently accepted physics theory. This complaint from the mainstream of humanity is universal, while the response from the cadre of initiates (who had heavily invested in current physics) is that mainstream physics is correct, and they are not trying hard enough to lean it. Remember we are talking here about “theoretical” physics, what we use to interpret the events of the heavens, and not “real” physics, such as used in bridge construction, or the electronics that run so much of our technologies. So there is a distinction here, between the real and the theoretical, which the non-ATM respondents are quick to mix together. But that is evasive action, since we are talking about two very different types of physics here. I don’t think the humanist-laymen crowd has any problems with mainstream physics when it comes to real physics; I hear the complaint, however, from a growing crowd of rational and intelligent people saying that the premises, and mathematics, on which the theoretical physics rests may be a closed circle, a kind of circular reasoning, where the resulting observations are taken only within the context of the math involved. In effect, like Einstein’s relativity, it works within its “domain of application” where the math is used to explain what the math says we observe. I think the objection, and what this thread titled “Theoretical Physics Reviewed” is hoping to reveal, is that we had become “married” to the math side, which may obscure some real physics at both the quantum scale as well as in astronomical scales. Does anyone object to my phrasing it this way? In other words, our theoretical physics may be masking what reality is really doing with itself, and they are crying foul, that the current explanations are not good enough. Is this largely an “intuitive” response by the un-initiated? Yes, but we should be mindful of the fact that no bridges are being built with “theoretical” physics.

So when I see the above chorus of rebuttals by Tensor, or papageno, or Metricyard, Celestial Mechanic, Swansont, clj4, tusenfem; is that there is an implied acceptance, nay nearly a belief, that the underlying mathematics of this theoretic physics has been shown to be correct through countless tests and observations of real phenomena. Implied in this is that the universe works mathematically, so that if the math balances out, and is exact in its self defined formalism, then it reflects reality. Furthermore, based on the evidence collected by science, all the evidence points to the mathematics being correct, so that it verifies the assumed premises. This would include conservation of energy (which once was believed was conservation of both mass and energy), the first and second postulates of Einstein’s relativity, and the assumed premise that Newton’s G is a universal constant. Within the context of these premises the mathematics then makes predictions that are verified experimentally and observationally to prove the premises are correct. But this once again reverts back to how the universe is a mathematically defined reality, so if the math is correct, it must be correct in real terms as well. What the laymen mainstream find, intuitively, objectionable here is the premise that this is so, that a mathematically correct context validates the reality it strive to describe. Hence, in my examples above, if atom oscillations and light redshift are natural phenomena, rather than look for a deeper cause and effect of these phenomena, we default to the math. Because it is believed, implicitly, that if the math is correct and it correctly describes what we observe, i.e., GPS time corrections, then it must be right, and we should look no further. The other objection that follows is that once we are content with the accepted premises, including the premise that the math correctly reflect reality, we stop looking for other, viz. ATM causes. I think it is this point that this thread represents, and the TMSr responses it elicits, to prove this point, is that once we know what we know, we need not know it differently, because our math says it works. End result is that TMS tells the layety to learn the math. But this obscures the real problem for ATMrs, that for them to present an alternative explanation for observed phenomena, they must, I repeat must, invoke the mathematical explanations in order to make their case, or it will be ignored. So what we see (I’m not a physicist) as the collective rebuttal to any lay questions in theoretical physics is “learn the math!”, or at the very least rewrite all the known physics. That is unacceptable. Nor is it a fully valid response, not because one is unwilling to learn the math, but because this response assumes of necessity that only through this math can the secrets of nature be revealed. This is an implied premise, that you must use math to challenge doctrine, and one which no argument can vault over in any reasonable way, unless that premise is accepted in advance. So if I say that GPS adjustments are not because time slows down but because cesium atoms slow down, that statement falls on deaf ears. Of if I say that we need to test in situ for Newton’s G anomalies, that too falls on deaf ears because we had ‘poven’ through myriad pathways that it is a universal constant. (Conveniently, flat galactic rotation curves, Pioneer anomaly, atmospheric densities for outer solar bodies, Bouquer gravitational anomalies, are all forgotten because the neutron star gravitational dynamics –which were figured using a constant G- prove that even thousands of lightyears away, physics is isotropic and homogenous.) But this is a closed circle! The rebuttals fall back upon the same accepted premise, that if the math is right, then it is right. So, what about dark matter?

So if Carel suggests that perhaps there is some violation in QM to energy conservation which was circumnavigated with a fix, that too falls on deaf ears, and will not be published. I repeat, it will not be published, because no one wants to hear it. Why? Because it violates the basic premise that if the math was right, the rest of the theoretical physics must be right too. And they have reems of data on smashed atoms to prove it.

Now, I’m giving you a humanist-laymen response here, a challenge to theoretical physicists to check your premises. If your response is “do better” or "learn the math", I must advise that it is not a suitable response. Make yourself more transparent to the outside world, or the outside world may turn its back on you. Finally, the only real proof is not the math, nor the observations validating this math, but the actual data that comes from dedicated scientific tests. Real data will always be the bottom line. And if these tests show a basic premise, like Newton’s G or some other constant, or that conservation of energy is adjusted somehow; if this is different from what we had assumed mathematically, it cannot be ignored; because then the ‘isotropic and homogenous’ universe begins to look like crumb cake.

BTW, I am most greatful to real physics for all the wonderful things we enjoy in the world, from the great pyramids to my hybrid electric-gasoline SUV, with its GPS navigation so I don't get lost. :) And I don't know the math that runs it! But that is the real physics, isn't it?

I trust in my above, lengthy discussion, that I have answered your collective rebuttals, that they are in essence the same rebuttal, and that I need retract nothing. Do I hear a Greek chorus?

The Second Solipsist
2006-Apr-13, 09:17 PM
nutant gene, I'm not entirely sure what you're proposing here. Are you saying that physics shouldn't use math? Then how else would you suggest it be done? I also don't get your distinction between "real physics", which you don't mind having difficult math, and the "theoretical physics", which you seem to be saying shouldn't use math. Where do you draw the line, and why are they different?

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Apr-13, 09:28 PM
[Snip!]The challenges, and oft heard complaint, to those TMSrs is to simplify, to make your theories more understandable, and to take them away from the ivory structures in which they had become enshrined.
That is what popular presentations, such as Elegant Universe by Brian Greene are for. But please understand that not all of t's are going to be crossed and i's dotted in such a book; you will not be able to argue fine points with those who can cross the t's and dot the i's.

[Snip!]Remember we are talking here about “theoretical” physics, what we use to interpret the events of the heavens, and not “real” physics, such as used in bridge construction, or the electronics that run so much of our technologies.
The term you are looking for is "engineering", the name of an honorable profession. But please understand that there is considerable theory even under civil and electrical engineering; just not the "way-out there" stuff like general relativity and string theory.

[Snip!]I hear the complaint, however, from a growing crowd of rational and intelligent people saying that the premises, and mathematics, on which the theoretical physics rests may be a closed circle, a kind of circular reasoning, where the resulting observations are taken only within the context of the math involved. In effect, like Einstein’s relativity, it works within its “domain of application” where the math is used to explain what the math says we observe. I think the objection, and what this thread titled “Theoretical Physics Reviewed” is hoping to reveal, is that we had become “married” to the math side, which may obscure some real physics at both the quantum scale as well as in astronomical scales. Does anyone object to my phrasing it this way? In other words, our theoretical physics may be masking what reality is really doing with itself, and they are crying foul, that the current explanations are not good enough.
It is a possibility, but then any explanation that is better is going to have to give as good or better numerical results, otherwise it is just so many pretty words.

[Snip!]So when I see the above chorus of rebuttals by Tensor, or papageno, or Metricyard, Celestial Mechanic, Swansont, clj4, tusenfem; is that there is an implied acceptance, nay nearly a belief, that the underlying mathematics of this theoretic physics has been shown to be correct through countless tests and observations of real phenomena.
And indeed this is true; what would you put in its place? Dialectic?

Implied in this is that the universe works mathematically, so that if the math balances out, and is exact in its self defined formalism, then it reflects reality.
Very true; what would you put in its place?

Furthermore, based on the evidence collected by science, all the evidence points to the mathematics being correct, so that it verifies the assumed premises. This would include conservation of energy (which once was believed was conservation of both mass and energy), the first and second postulates of Einstein’s relativity, and the assumed premise that Newton’s G is a universal constant. Within the context of these premises the mathematics then makes predictions that are verified experimentally and observationally to prove the premises are correct.
But every now and then something doesn't add up; Uranus strays from its orbit; Mercury's perihelion precesses. Sometimes the result is the discovery of a new planet and the old physics stays; sometimes new physics is invoked.

But this once again reverts back to how the universe is a mathematically defined reality, so if the math is correct, it must be correct in real terms as well. What the laymen mainstream find, intuitively, objectionable here is the premise that this is so, that a mathematically correct context validates the reality it strive to describe.
And what do "mainstream laymen" have that is any better? Philosophy?

Hence, in my examples above, if atom oscillations and light redshift are natural phenomena, rather than look for a deeper cause and effect of these phenomena, we default to the math. Because it is believed, implicitly, that if the math is correct and it correctly describes what we observe, i.e., GPS time corrections, then it must be right, and we should look no further. The other objection that follows is that once we are content with the accepted premises, including the premise that the math correctly reflect reality, we stop looking for other, viz. ATM causes. I think it is this point that this thread represents, and the TMSr responses it elicits, to prove this point, is that once we know what we know, we need not know it differently, because our math says it works.
But only until something shows up where the math doesn't quite work. Then the fun of trying to explain it with existing theory ("did we forget something?") and when that seems to go nowhere then it's time to question the foundations.

[Snip!]Now, I’m giving you a humanist-laymen response here, a challenge to theoretical physicists to check your premises.
But we do, NG71. There is "doubly special relativity", there are searches for violations of Lorentz symmetry, and even searches for that beloved "variable G" of yours.

Finally, the only real proof is not the math, nor the observations validating this math, but the actual data that comes from dedicated scientific tests. Real data will always be the bottom line.[Snip!]
Too bad that you see to ignore so much of it. The stuff is out there in the literature.

papageno
2006-Apr-13, 11:54 PM
Remember we are talking here about “theoretical” physics, what we use to interpret the events of the heavens, and not “real” physics, such as used in bridge construction, or the electronics that run so much of our technologies.
So when I studied Analytical Mechanics or Thermodynamics or Electromagnetism, it was not actually Theoretical Physics.
What are engineers actually doing when they design systems?

nutant gene 71
2006-Apr-14, 02:53 AM
nutant gene, I'm not entirely sure what you're proposing here. Are you saying that physics shouldn't use math? Then how else would you suggest it be done? I also don't get your distinction between "real physics", which you don't mind having difficult math, and the "theoretical physics", which you seem to be saying shouldn't use math. Where do you draw the line, and why are they different?
Mathematics is a precise and exceptionally useful language that one must master if to connect with much of what reality does with itself. That is the greatness of math, but only up to a point. The pragmatic applications in using math, what I call the "real" physics, is well proven with its successes in all our technological works. But where we overstep this language, and my point in the long piece above, is where it is raised to such lofty heights that it takes on an existence of its own, where even challenging its axioms becomes problematic. This is where I think "theoretical" physics found itself, where the worship of the language becomes more important than the fact that it is only a language. If it fails to deliver on its promise, unlike the pragmatism of real physics, we find outselves entertaining increasingly irrationally absurd ideas, and then some people will say "stop!" And that is the correct response when the math is used to validate itself without the benefit of useful applications, and becomes immune from truly falsifiable tests.

I fear much of modern physics, and its offspring astrophysics, has reached this lofty level of the absurd. And once there, it becomes difficult to challenge because the math has taken on a life of its own, for its own sake, masquerading as being representative of reality. Those on the inside, who believe in this mathematical formalism, are then powerless to unseat it. They can no longer see how they got there. Thus it takes an outsider, someone not imbued with its nearly magic qualities, to call them on it, and say "do you really know what you are doing?"

So, in answer to papageno, yes we really know what engineers are doing, and when the math delivers, it is a useful language.

And to answer the many points raised by Celestial Mechanic, it is not mathematical formalism that should rule the day, because it is only a language used by men and women, but what this mathematical language is used for. Anyone, given enough time and effort, can master math same as they can master any exotic foreign language. But not everyone will fall to the spell of it, where the language is allowed to tell incredible tall tales beyond the realm of reason. The controlling factor here should always be what the language yields, and not what the language says itself to be. Reality is still reality, and if there are parallel ways to model what reality is doing, then the truth may appear as one model, while it really rests in another. The proof is always in the final data, what is usable, and what predictive power the equations will have. Otherwise it falls into the mysterious, the fantastic, where its usefulness is only the validation of its own formalism. I think this where relativity, perhaps unwittingly, has taken us beyond usefulness as an observational technique, into its self indulgences to predict a fabulous universe. The big baby Huie of all this is the Big Bang, and its twin String or Brane theory. But is it real, or have we overlooked something obvious? Adherent theorists will argue that what we see is what it is, per its relativistic interpretation. Realists will say that instead we have saddled ourselves with a theory of no usefulness except as a fantastic magical view of what reality really is about. The same math can be used to a better purpose, one that actually yields results to explain reality. The way we know the language of math yields real results is when we get breakthroughs in what we can do. This computer on which I write is one such breakthrough, for example.

What I think rational minds should look for is where math does bring about real results, such that engineers can then put to application successufully. Then math is totally validated by reality. But when math is raised to such high status that it validates only its own formalism, and the results paint a fantastically magical universe, then it is okay to hit the brakes, even by us non-physicists who are not fully conversant in its language. I hope I helped clarify, rather than confuse. Test and verify, and find use, and then math is a language worthy of difficult study. Otherwise we get saddled with the irrational, where "you're not supposed to understand this", and Brian Greene's or Paul Davies' universe, where even to challenge them becomes something akin to asking a stupid question. I say we can, and must, do better. That is what leads to new breakthroughs in science.

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Apr-14, 05:38 AM
Let me turn things around and give an example from the "humanist layman" viewpoint. Let's talk about Shakespeare. Now I've read Shakespeare, I've seen plays, movies, and even operas based on his works. But I do not understand Shakespeare in minute detail, in particular I do not understand it well enough to discuss the finer points with a Shakespeare scholar.

Why? Well, one of the things that puts many people off (including me) about Shakespeare is the language. It is English, but not as it has been spoken (if it was ever spoken like that) for four hundred years. It is difficult to understand: some words are unfamiliar; some familiar words are used in unfamiliar ways; the meanings of some words have changed; some words have very different connotations in the plays. As an example of a different connotation, when Hamlet tells Ophelia, "Get thee to a nunnery!", he is not telling her to go to a convent. (When I say "Get thee to a libary!" I really do mean a library, preferably a university library if possible.) Many of the references that were common knowledge then are obscure to us now. There is a reference in one of the plays to Colly Cibber, who was a poet laureate of the time.

Let's say that I wished to enter the arena of literary criticism and make a worthy contribution to Shakespeare scholarship. What should I do, given my observations above? Learn the language, of course! Learn about the time and its culture and understand those references. Don't ask for a translation of Shakespeare into contemporary colloquial English, it will only destroy the poetry that is an essential part of Shakespeare. There are no royal roads to anything.

Likewise, if you want to understand science at a level above the popularizations, you will have to learn the math. You will have to learn the history and culture of what went before in science to understand which ideas are taken to be the premises and why, to understand which ideas have been found wanting and why, and to understand what the current speculative ideas are and what is needed to verify or refute them. To repeat: there are no royal roads to anything.

Carel van der Togt
2006-Apr-14, 09:50 AM
Dear fellow BAUT’s,

Most reactions on my thread are no different then those I received from mainstream scientists over the last 7 years: denial

The denial is motivated with intuitive impulsive arguments like “GPS needs relativistic corrections”. End of discussion.

If you think that SRT is the only possible explanation for observed relativistic phenomena the discussion is over even before it started. An open mind is essential.

I think most of us are not satisfied with the answers Theoretical Physics provides. We seek other possibilities. If we want to succeed at least we have to try to find answers.

If we want to achieve anything with our discussion there must be some kind of structural approach. With my thread I suggested some omissions have occurred. Because the omissions happened at the very beginning of SRT and QM in principle all theoretical conclusions of TP should be checked and reconfirmed when the omissions really occurred.

What I expected, also from mainstream scientists, was an approach like “taking the bull by the horns”. Two relatively very simple articles form the basis of my objections against the theoretical conclusions of TP. Should the discussion not start with whether the articles are correct or false?

Is there someone who read one of the articles? If so, what is your conclusion and why. There is no constructive debate possible when only is referred to conclusions of contemporary science. To be able to solve the problem we have to start at the beginning.

I noticed most of you think or believe or feel that the omissions I suggest did not occur, so let not waste our time with intuitive impulsive responses but give our doubt some foundation.

I propose the following. The article "The Equivalence of Kinetic and Magnetic Energy" (http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/Van_der_Togt_equiv2ckw.pdf), just 5 pages of simple high school physics and math, suggests QM violated the energy conservation law. Is it not obvious to start with defusing this article that suggests TP is wrong? I already wait 7 years for someone to tell me: “There you make this mistake” and substantiated with arguments.

When I receive a validated argument why my article is false my quest is over. This can be the only fruitful approach. Otherwise this debate is nothing more then “birthday party conversation”.

Carel

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Apr-14, 03:15 PM
Dear fellow BAUT’s,

Most reactions on my thread are no different then those I received from mainstream scientists over the last 7 years: denial. The denial is motivated with arguments like “GPS needs relativistic corrections”. End of discussion. If you think that SRT is the only possible explanation for observed relativistic phenomena the discussion is over even before it started. An open mind is essential.
SR may not be the only explanation, but right now it is the best. All of the alternatives presented by anti-relativists are deeply flawed and fail to match all of the predictions that SR (and GR) makes.

I think most of us are not satisfied with the answers Theoretical Physics provides. We seek other possibilities. If we want to succeed at least we have to try to find answers.
I think most of us are satisfied, even about the things we don't quite understand. Your "other possibilities" are usually less than satisfying.

If we want to achieve anything with our discussion there must be some kind of structural approach. With my thread I suggested some omissions have occurred. Because the omissions happened at the very beginning of SRT and QM in principle all theoretical conclusions of TP should be checked and reconfirmed when the omissions really occurred.
And these omissions are? Could you please cite a few?

What I expected, also from mainstream scientists, was an approach like “taking the bull by the horns”. Two relatively very simple articles form the basis of my objections against the theoretical conclusions of TP. Should the discussion not start with whether the articles are correct or false? Is there someone who read one of the articles? If so, what is your conclusion and why. There is no constructive debate possible when only is referred to conclusions of contemporary science. To be able to solve the problem we have to start at the beginning.
I am reading the articles. I have not completely read and checked them yet. When I do I won't hesitate to give my opinion here.

[Snip!]I already wait 7 years for someone to tell me: “There you make this mistake” and substantiated with arguments. When I receive a validated argument why my article is false my quest is over. This can be the only fruitful approach. Otherwise this debate is nothing more then “birthday party conversation”.
I suspect that you have been told, by countless referees and any professors you may have spoken to about your theories. Being told is one thing, listening and learning is another. :)

Carel van der Togt
2006-Apr-14, 04:22 PM
I think most of us are satisfied, even about the things we don't quite understand. Your "other possibilities" are usually less than satisfying.

And these omissions are? Could you please cite a few?

I thought that was clear. The article about stellar aberration and the article "The Equivalence of Kinetic and Magnetic Energy" both refer to omissions.


I am reading the articles. I have not completely read and checked them yet. When I do I won't hesitate to give my opinion here.

That is a promise you have to keep. The only thing I want is a discussion.

Carel

papageno
2006-Apr-14, 06:33 PM
Most reactions on my thread are no different then those I received from mainstream scientists over the last 7 years: denial

The denial is motivated with intuitive impulsive arguments like “GPS needs relativistic corrections”. End of discussion.
So far, your posts have only been rants against the scientific community, motivated by grudge.
Where have you shown that the rejection of your work is due to bias, and not to errors in your work?
What have you done to ensure that your work is not flawed?
Is your mind open enough to consider that you might be wrong?
Are you prepared to accept that you might be wrong, if given proof of it?




With my thread I suggested some omissions have occurred. Because the omissions happened at the very beginning of SRT and QM in principle all theoretical conclusions of TP should be checked and reconfirmed when the omissions really occurred.
Basically, you are accusing several generations of physicists worldwide of being incompetent.
Do you have any evidence to back this up?

Einstein's paper on the Special Theory of Relativity solved a serious problem in Physics.
His General Theory of Relativity extended the Special Theory to include gravity, solving problems he classical theory of gravitation had.
Quantum Mechanics was a revolutionary theory that overturned some of the strongest convictions of the physicists.
What makes you think that they would have been accepted without having been thoroughly checked?
If these theories have withstood all the experimental testes thrown at them, even tests that had not even been conceived at the time they were developed, what makes you think that there can be simple errors or omission in their premises?



When I receive a validated argument why my article is false my quest is over.
Let's see: post #25 (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=724063&postcount=25).


The argumentation that I make math errors is solely based on his argument that normally with vector product calculations the angle between the vectors is involved.

I quote here what he said:

D. B. Westra: Apr. 9, 2006:
”The paper of "Carel van der Togt" with the title "The equivalence of magnetic and kinetic energy" contains calculational errors. See page 2 for example: the norm of the outer product between e_v and e_r does not contain the familiar Sin(theta) and the volume element given on the same page also does not contain the Sin of an angle. Therefore this paper, with all its allegations against Quantum Mechanics is erronous and its conclusions are false. ”

He says that the outer product does not contain the familiar Sin(theta). Yes sin(theta) it FAMILIAR but that does not mean that it is always correct.
I referred to chapter 4. of the article “The electromagnetic mass” where it is clear that in this case the FAMILIAR sin(theta) violates the energy conservation law.

I stopped answering because he wants his FAMILIAR sin(theta) just because he is used to that!
Just mindless applying math is not ALWAYS correct. His answer to my comment starts with:” Either there is an inner-product, or an outer-product.”

He did not even bother to look at this chapter 4, nor did you.
In chapter 4 it becomes very clear what happens. Physics is more than just the use of BRAINLESS MATH.

It is clear what happens.


We refer to R.P. Feynman's Lectures on Physics, part II, chapter 28, "The Electromagnetic Mass". In this chapter the electromagnetic mass of the electron is derived by means of the momentum density g (Equation 27.21 in Feynman).

g = epsilon0 ExB

According to the QM approach in (28-2) the magnitude of vector g is:

g = (epsilon0 v/c2) E2sin(theta)

because the momentum density vector is directed obliquely toward the line of motion.(*)
There is nothing QM about this: it is just classical electrodynamics.



Furthermore, and I quote (28-2):
"The fields are symmetric about the line of motion, so when we integrate over space, the transverse components will sum to zero, giving a resultant momentum parallel to v.
The component of g in this direction is g sin(theta), which we must integrate all over space." (**)

In the above argumentation (*) and (**), vector g is thought to be partly compensated by the opposite vector g. Vector summation is allowed in static situations, where the vectors for example express the magnitude and direction of a static force. The g is however a dynamic vector, presenting the impulse of the moving mass/energy density at a certain point.
Vector summation is done in dynamic situations as well.

That is routine in mechanics when dealing with the motion of masses.
For example, if we throw an object on Earth, we separate the equation of motion in a component parallel to the gravity and a component perpendicular to gravity:
the first component gives a uniformly accelerated motion, the second gives a uniform motion.
To get the net motion of the mass, we do a vectorial sum of the two components.
Galileo introduced this approach and every first-year undergraduate student knows this and does homework exercises on this.

It is unexcusable for somebody who wants to question the basis of modern physical theories to have such a misunderstanding of the fundaments.



The total momentum p, according to the QM approach is then:
[snip!]

p = (2/3)(e2/ac2)v (Equation 28.3 Feynman).

This equation, expressed in the symbols used in this article, gives the impulse:

p = (4/3)(1/8pi epsilon0 c2 RC)v.
I suppose that the last equation should be:

p = (4/3)((Qe)2/8pi epsilon0 c2 RC)v

And let me point out that the integral gives that result for v << c, when E is spherically symmetric:


We can show that the field momentum is in the direction of the velocity v of the charge and is, for small velocities, proportional to v.



Although the QM approach differs from the approach in this article, the outcomes should be consistent with each other. Because there is no consistency between the outcomes of the approaches, there must be an omission.
You have not described the quantum approach, but the classical approach.



By integrating the momentum density g around the charge all over space, the physical interpretation of the integration is the calculation of the mass of the electrostatic field surrounding the charge.
By integrating g = epsilon0 ExB over the whole space, we get the total momentum of the electromagnetic field.
This momentum is attributed to the moving electron, which is the source of the electromagnetic field. So far so classical.



A mass is a scalar and therefore the correction of the magnitude of the momentum density vector with factor sin2(theta) becomes an omission, by which the conservation law for energy is violated. Part of the mass of the electrostatic field is unjustly ignored.
Except that we are integrating the vectorial quantity momentum.
What part of the momentum of the electromagnetic field has been ignored?




The magnitude of g presents the magnitude of the mass density impulse of the moving electrostatic field E in the direction of v.
A moving electrostatic field? Don't you mean an electromagnetic field?



The direction of vector g does not represent the direction of the mass/energy density movement of the electric field, and therefore not the direction of the impulse.
So, you do not accept the classical interpretation of the Poynting vector.
What is your alternative?
How do you define the momentum of an electromagnetic field?



Compensation of the magnitude of g with factor sin2(theta) violates the energy conservation law because part of the mass/energy of the electrostatic field is then ignored.
You keep saying that, but where do you prove it?
After all, the dreaded sin2(theta) factor comes from the vector product.



The momentum density g at P as a result of the electrostatic field/energy E(r) moving with speed v at r should be:

g = Mrv

where Mr = (epsilon0/c2)E(r)2 represents the mass density (kg/m3) of the electrostatic field.
Why don't you show us that this last equation is correct and can be reconciled with Classical Electromagnetism?

After all the original g can be written as follows:

g = epsilon0 ExB = epsilon0 Ex(vxE/c2) = (epsilon0/c2) Ex(vxE).

Therefore your assumption becomes: Ex(vxE) = E2v, for any E.
The physical meaning of your assumption is that the electric field E, spherically symmetric with respect to the electron, is everywhere perpendicular to the velocity v.
Can you show the evidence supporting this, or at least post a drawing illustrating it?



Should the discussion not start with whether the articles are correct or false?

Is there someone who read one of the articles? If so, what is your conclusion and why.
The one I have seen is trivially wrong (see above).
It sets up a strawman of Quantum Mechanics and refutes it based on an unjustifiable assumption.
It betrays a severe lack of understanding of Classical Electromagnetism and the author has clearly no idea what Quantum Mechanics is.
It is obvious that the author introduced this arbitrary assumption only to reach a preconceived conclusion.
Considering that the purpose is to refute the most successful theories in the history of Physics, he is displaying an astounding lack of rigour.
I am not surprised that Galilean Electrodynamics accepted that paper: to satisfy the bias of their editorial policy, they tend to publish garbage.



I already wait 7 years for someone to tell me: “There you make this mistake” and substantiated with arguments.
As we can see above, when somebody pointed out the error in your paper, you just ignored him.
It does not help if you stick your fingers in your ears and pretend everything is fine.



When I receive a validated argument why my article is false my quest is over.
Your quest is over.
You should now go to a library and start learning real physics.

papageno
2006-Apr-14, 06:36 PM
nutant gene 71,


So, where is the evidence to support your claim that "a select cadre of the accepting few who will not suffer any dissent even from their own"?
If you cannot support your claim, retract it.

[...]

The modern version of Maxwell's equations still require a couple of semesters of calculus.
It seems that your "intelligent mind, even if not part of the initiates" still needs some College-level maths to understand Physics.
Now, what you have to do is to show that the same simplification can be done with modern theories in Physics.
So, go ahead and show us.

[...]

Either support your claim that "the con-theories are squashed and not given a voice because the accepted form only allows for agreement, with accepted premises, and does not allow for expressions in dissent (challenging these basic premises)", or retract it.

[...]



Yes, I know of the GPS corrections, but no, they do not have to be only for the reasons stated in relativity. I made my point clear above, that atomic oscillations slowing while traveling in a gravity field happen. Same as comic light redshift, it happens. These may be totally natural phenomenon, where the relativistic interpretations are spurious, if not self serving.
I see the claim, but nothing that supports it.
are you going to support your claims, or will you keep misrepresenting modern science?

nutant gene 71
2006-Apr-14, 07:57 PM
are you going to support your claims, or will you keep misrepresenting modern science?
Papageno, would you have me rewrite physics, at the very least, to satisfy your question? :)

I leave the proposition open, as a humanist-layman, that other explanations better than current ones will be discovered, with surprsing simplicity, and that when they are, we will laugh. The inivitation remains open, if you wish, to rewrite all the known physics to date, and make yourself a place in history.

I wrote:
Reality is still reality, and if there are parallel ways to model what reality is doing, then the truth may appear as one model, while it really rests in another. The proof is always in the final data, what is usable, and what predictive power the equations will have. Otherwise it falls into the mysterious, the fantastic, where its usefulness is only the validation of its own formalism. The rest is not for satisfying my ego, nor yours, but for history.

Cheers. :lol:

Ps: nice analysis of Carel's equations, though beyond my ability to follow, so must leave it as is.

papageno
2006-Apr-14, 08:20 PM
Papageno, would you have me rewrite physics, at the very least, to satisfy your question? :)
If this means that you cannot support your claims, why don't you just say so?




I leave the proposition open, as a humanist-layman, that other explanations better than current ones will be discovered, with surprsing simplicity, and that when they are, we will laugh.
Better explanations will be found, sooner or later.
They will not refute current theories, but simply redefine the correct domain of application. Exactly as happened to Classical Physics.

Do you see physicsts laugh at Classical Mechanics? No, because they know when they can use it correctly.



The inivitation remains open, if you wish, to rewrite all the known physics to date, and make yourself a place in history. I already have my place.

nutant gene 71
2006-Apr-14, 08:30 PM
If this means that you cannot support your claims, why don't you just say so?
The whole point of my above is very simple, not a rebuttal to yours, but a general statement in relation to "Theoretical Physics Reviewed", as it applies to the word "theoretical". Let me simplify further:

Math proves useful = Bingo! -- i.e., real physics

Math weaves fairytales = no good --i.e., it's 'theoretical' only


I hope this satisfies to your satisfaction. I made no other claims I need to "support" as you claim.

...narrow eyes are still carefully watching. ;) I will follow what ensues with interest.

Metricyard
2006-Apr-14, 09:03 PM
The whole point of my above is very simple, not a rebuttal to yours, but a general statement in relation to "Theoretical Physics Reviewed", as it applies to the word "theoretical". Let me simplify further:

Math proves useful = Bingo! -- i.e., real physics

Math weaves fairytales = no good --i.e., it's 'theoretical' only


I hope this satisfies to your satisfaction. I made no other claims I need to "support" as you claim.

...narrow eyes are still carefully watching. ;) I will follow what ensues with interest.

And if that fairy-tale theory proves to have real world applications, what then?

At one time lasers were a mathematical QM fairy-tale theory. Funny how many real world applications there are for it now. cd/dvd's, surgical lasers, lasers for manufacturing, etc.

E=mc^2 was a fairy-tale theory to some, of course I'm sure that there a few people alive still in Japan that can verify that this theory had very real-world applications, not to mention all the nuclear reactors running around the world today.

Frame dragging was a theory that was predicted by general relativity almost a century ago. Now we are at the technological stage to actually measure it and verify it. And so far the results look promising. Does it still remain a fairy tale when the theories are proven to exist?

That's what makes theoretical physics so exciting. It may take years, decades, even centuries to be able to test them. That's not a flaw in the mathematics, just our current technology not up to the task of measuring them. If that were the way scientists treated theoretical physics, we would still be using slide rules and vinyl records instead of computers and cd's and electron microscopes.

nutant gene 71
2006-Apr-14, 09:39 PM
And if that fairy-tale theory proves to have real world applications, what then? Remember those famous Ptolemeic epicycles?

When something better comes along, it replaces the old stuff, and not always builds on the foundations of previous theory. I suspect, without being ready and able to rewrite modern day physics theory, that the now much lauded and famous Relativity interpretations of physical phenomena will in the end go the way of those once lauded and famous epicycles. We may be fooling ourselves, and so someday may have to laugh. :lol: But I do not wish to digress further from Carel's original intent of this thread, and am interested in seeing more of that discussion instead. Cheers.

Nereid
2006-Apr-14, 09:43 PM
[snip]

The simple article "Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of Ether" (www.paradox-paradigm.nl/van_der_Togt_stellarab-final.pdf) proves without doubt that the premise of nonexistence of dragged ether, a specific axiom of SRT, is false. And it states that the Michelson and Morley experiment (1887) disproves only absolute ether and not dragged ether. With dragged ether the exact stellar aberration of any star any time during the year is predicted; undeniable experimental evidence dragged ether exists.
[snip]Perhaps I misunderstood this paper, but it seems to me all you have shown is that, for the kind of stellar aberration examined in the paper, a (particular) 'dragged ether' hypothesis and SR produce predictions that are identical.

Is this so?

Building on this, what predictions can be made, from this particular 'dragged ether' hypothesis, that are different from the corresponding predictions from SR? (I'm considering 'in principle testable' predictions; it may be that our technology, today, cannot actually perform the tests).

Nereid
2006-Apr-14, 09:53 PM
[snip]

Before Einstein discovered relativity QM accepted the premise that the electron, apart from the electromagnetic mass, must also have a mechanical mass. The paper "The Equivalence of Kinetic and Magnetic Energy" (www.paradox-paradigm.nl/Van_der_Togt_equiv2ckw.pdf) proves that this premise is false because the Energy Conservation Law is brutally violated. The mass of an electron is completely explained by classical physics; the Electromagnetic Theory. This article is again rejected. How can an article that disproves a premise at the core of QM ever be not actual or not relevant!
[snip]Who knows why this paper was rejected, by editors/publishers!

Let's look at the ATM idea that is being proposed here.

What, specifically, does this idea predict?

I'm interested in any prediction that differs from the corresponding prediction of mainstream (QED?) physics. Such predictions may not be testable, with today's technology. However, they should be testable - in principle (to meet the criterion of my question); in particular, I want to be sure we're not discussing an alternative that is purely 'philosophical' - i.e. makes no difference, in terms of anything anyone could find, in a lab or with a telescope.

RussT
2006-Apr-14, 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
I leave the proposition open, as a humanist-layman, that other explanations better than current ones will be discovered, with surprsing simplicity, and that when they are, we will laugh.

[QUOTE=Papageno]
Better explanations will be found, sooner or later.
They will not refute current theories, but simply redefine the correct domain of application. Exactly as happened to Classical Physics.

Both of you are correct.

Papageno, it depends on what you mean by...They will not refute current theories? Do you mean the Big Bang or do you mean GR in general?
Because the real problem is that the Big Bang is not the correct application of GR.

[redefine the correct domain of application.] And this is all about the 'singularities' that are in the black holes that are at the center of the galaxies, the 'only' ones (VS the Big Bang one) that we are relatively sure (pun intended) exist (and they do)!

Nereid
2006-Apr-14, 10:10 PM
LOL. That was great.I particularly liked the story of the professor who sent one quack's paper to another quack!

How amazing that quacks (well, at least one quack) have a finely tuned sense of what's quackery!

(and, conversely, that there is such a craving for validation from someone they vilify - a 'mainstream' physics professor - how does one spell 'hypocrite'?).

RussT
2006-Apr-14, 10:15 PM
that the now much lauded and famous Relativity interpretations of physical phenomena will in the end go the way of those once lauded and famous epicycles. We may be fooling ourselves, and so someday may have to laugh.

Okay, I take it back, I guess you both weren't correct.

Nutant, GR is correct...see my above post.

Nereid
2006-Apr-14, 10:58 PM
I know several people have already responded to this, and my response may, in several places, merely repeat what has already been said; apologies.
To all, what I am seeing here in the collective of your (non-ATM) posts is a rejection of challenges to TMS (the mainstream) because those who (perhaps with only a humanist-layman perspective) have not understood all the complexities of the mathematics involved. The challenges, and oft heard complaint, to those TMSrs is to simplify, to make your theories more understandable, and to take them away from the ivory structures in which they had become enshrined.If you - or anyone else - would like to provide an 'understandable' interpretation of the experimental results that tested the EPR paradox, I have no doubt that a great many people would be extremely interested.

Of course, a precondition is that your interpretation needs to be consistent with all good, relevant experimental and observational results.
This is a question of either alienation of the general public, the humanist-laymen, or the TMS demand that they conform, through extensive study, to the currently accepted physics theory. This complaint from the mainstream of humanity is universal, while the response from the cadre of initiates (who had heavily invested in current physics) is that mainstream physics is correct, and they are not trying hard enough to lean it.How can I say 'nonsense' politely?

If we're discussing ATM ideas (we are, aren't we?), then surely the appropriate question is something like "is it possible to explain the best theories we have, in non-mathematical form?" (and the answer is, of course, "yes!").

Or, perhaps, "is it possible for an alternative view of physics to be developed without numbers, math, equations and stuff?" (and the answer is, of course, "no!").
Remember we are talking here about “theoretical” physics, what we use to interpret the events of the heavens, and not “real” physics, such as used in bridge construction, or the electronics that run so much of our technologies. So there is a distinction here, between the real and the theoretical, which the non-ATM respondents are quick to mix together. But that is evasive action, since we are talking about two very different types of physics here.OK, so would you be kind enough to explain how the CD/DVD player/writer in your PC was developed, without any reference to 'theoretical physics' (I mean, with honesty)?

Or is your target much narrower - only those regimes involving gravitational/magnetic fields/temperatures/etc unattainable (today) in earthly labs?
I don’t think the humanist-laymen crowd has any problems with mainstream physics when it comes to real physics; I hear the complaint, however, from a growing crowd of rational and intelligent people saying that the premises, and mathematics, on which the theoretical physics rests may be a closed circle, a kind of circular reasoning, where the resulting observations are taken only within the context of the math involved. In effect, like Einstein’s relativity, it works within its “domain of application” where the math is used to explain what the math says we observe. I think the objection, and what this thread titled “Theoretical Physics Reviewed” is hoping to reveal, is that we had become “married” to the math side, which may obscure some real physics at both the quantum scale as well as in astronomical scales. Does anyone object to my phrasing it this way?I do.

Not only have you, in one stroke, effectively consigned almost all astronomers to the role of mindless slaves, but you have also declared that (for example) the award of a Nobel Prize (in Physics!) to Davis et al. was a fraud.

But perhaps I'm too hasty - where, in your view, do 'neutrino oscillations' fit?
In other words, our theoretical physics may be masking what reality is really doing with itself, and they are crying foul, that the current explanations are not good enough. Is this largely an “intuitive” response by the un-initiated? Yes, but we should be mindful of the fact that no bridges are being built with “theoretical” physics.So why are so many experimentalists looking for SUSY particles? To what extent are the scientific rationales for the LHC merely cynicism?
So when I see the above chorus of rebuttals by Tensor, or papageno, or Metricyard, Celestial Mechanic, Swansont, clj4, tusenfem; is that there is an implied acceptance, nay nearly a belief, that the underlying mathematics of this theoretic physics has been shown to be correct through countless tests and observations of real phenomena. Implied in this is that the universe works mathematically, so that if the math balances out, and is exact in its self defined formalism, then it reflects reality. Furthermore, based on the evidence collected by science, all the evidence points to the mathematics being correct, so that it verifies the assumed premises.Then perhaps you haven't read their responses correctly?

Or perhaps they haven't had a chance to comment, within the framework you have prescribed?

I can't answer for the others, but there is no 'implication' that 'the universe works mathematically' ... all any physicist can do is discuss the degree to which a theory (or theories) is consistent with good experimental and observational results (within the domain of applicability of the theory of course; observational results on the trade balance of China are not relevant to the Standard Model of particle physics).

Perhaps you are confusing the success of (physics) theories with (wild) claims about the nature of reality?
This would include conservation of energy (which once was believed was conservation of both mass and energy), the first and second postulates of Einstein’s relativity, and the assumed premise that Newton’s G is a universal constant. Within the context of these premises the mathematics then makes predictions that are verified experimentally and observationally to prove the premises are correct. But this once again reverts back to how the universe is a mathematically defined reality, so if the math is correct, it must be correct in real terms as well.To me, this is a broad, and astonishing, claim.

Before I proceed to challenge it, would you mind - please - restating it?

Also, please confirm that you are, indeed, making this claim.
What the laymen mainstream find, intuitively, objectionable here is the premise that this is so, that a mathematically correct context validates the reality it strive to describe. Hence, in my examples above, if atom oscillations and light redshift are natural phenomena, rather than look for a deeper cause and effect of these phenomena, we default to the math. Because it is believed, implicitly, that if the math is correct and it correctly describes what we observe, i.e., GPS time corrections, then it must be right, and we should look no further.Perhaps a quick perusal of some papers in ArXiV might serve to disabuse you of this view?

If you'd like, I'd be happy to recommend some reading (as, no doubt, many other BAUT member would too).
The other objection that follows is that once we are content with the accepted premises, including the premise that the math correctly reflect reality, we stop looking for other, viz. ATM causes. I think it is this point that this thread represents, and the TMSr responses it elicits, to prove this point, is that once we know what we know, we need not know it differently, because our math says it works. End result is that TMS tells the layety to learn the math.Yep, some papers from ArXiV will certainly send this notion to its grave.
But this obscures the real problem for ATMrs, that for them to present an alternative explanation for observed phenomena, they must, I repeat must, invoke the mathematical explanations in order to make their case, or it will be ignored.If they wish to present an ATM theory, of course!

The opportunity to present an empirically-based ATM idea is also, always, open (did you overlook this?)
So what we see (I’m not a physicist) as the collective rebuttal to any lay questions in theoretical physics is “learn the math!”, or at the very least rewrite all the known physics. That is unacceptable. Nor is it a fully valid response, not because one is unwilling to learn the math, but because this response assumes of necessity that only through this math can the secrets of nature be revealed. This is an implied premise, that you must use math to challenge doctrine, and one which no argument can vault over in any reasonable way, unless that premise is accepted in advance.This is easy to address - show that your ATM idea can account for the combined total of all (relevant) good observational and experimental results, and you will get a hearing.

Should your ATM idea not include any math, then you must be prepared to answer challenges to that idea .... not least wrt any claims that you may make concerning the degree to which your idea is, in fact, consistent.

If you can do that without math, I'd be astonished (and delighted).
So if I say that GPS adjustments are not because time slows down but because cesium atoms slow down, that statement falls on deaf ears. Of if I say that we need to test in situ for Newton’s G anomalies, that too falls on deaf ears because we had ‘poven’ through myriad pathways that it is a universal constant. (Conveniently, flat galactic rotation curves, Pioneer anomaly, atmospheric densities for outer solar bodies, Bouquer gravitational anomalies, are all forgotten because the neutron star gravitational dynamics –which were figured using a constant G- prove that even thousands of lightyears away, physics is isotropic and homogenous.)I must have missed it - where is the idea that all these can be accounted for (within the limits of observational error, of course), by some ATM idea?

Or is this (yet another) case of "Mainstream science cannot account for {insert favourite set of observations/experiments here}, THEREFORE {insert your pet ATM idea here} MUST BE RIGHT!!!!!!" ?
But this is a closed circle! The rebuttals fall back upon the same accepted premise, that if the math is right, then it is right. So, what about dark matter?Indeed, what about it?
So if Carel suggests that perhaps there is some violation in QM to energy conservation which was circumnavigated with a fix, that too falls on deaf ears, and will not be published. I repeat, it will not be published, because no one wants to hear it.Or, perhaps, because it is internally inconsistent? it is inconsistent with the theories that it (claims to) rely on? it is inconsistent with relevant, good observational/experimental results?
Why? Because it violates the basic premise that if the math was right, the rest of the theoretical physics must be right too. And they have reems of data on smashed atoms to prove it.

Now, I’m giving you a humanist-laymen response here, a challenge to theoretical physicists to check your premises. If your response is “do better” or "learn the math", I must advise that it is not a suitable response. Make yourself more transparent to the outside world, or the outside world may turn its back on you.Really? You mean that apples will start to 'fall' up?
Finally, the only real proof is not the math, nor the observations validating this math, but the actual data that comes from dedicated scientific tests. Real data will always be the bottom line. And if these tests show a basic premise, like Newton’s G or some other constant, or that conservation of energy is adjusted somehow; if this is different from what we had assumed mathematically, it cannot be ignored; because then the ‘isotropic and homogenous’ universe begins to look like crumb cake.Good.

Now, please show that these 'real data' are completely, absolutely, positively untainted by any 'theoretical physics'.

papageno
2006-Apr-14, 11:08 PM
The whole point of my above is very simple, not a rebuttal to yours, but a general statement in relation to "Theoretical Physics Reviewed", as it applies to the word "theoretical". Let me simplify further:

Math proves useful = Bingo! -- i.e., real physics

Math weaves fairytales = no good --i.e., it's 'theoretical' only

I hope this satisfies to your satisfaction. I made no other claims I need to "support" as you claim.

You must have a very short memory span: post #26 (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=724093&postcount=26).
It is time for you to back up your claims or retract them.

Metricyard
2006-Apr-14, 11:25 PM
Remember those famous Ptolemeic epicycles?

When something better comes along, it replaces the old stuff, and not always builds on the foundations of previous theory. I suspect, without being ready and able to rewrite modern day physics theory, that the now much lauded and famous Relativity interpretations of physical phenomena will in the end go the way of those once lauded and famous epicycles. We may be fooling ourselves, and so someday may have to laugh. :lol: But I do not wish to digress further from Carel's original intent of this thread, and am interested in seeing more of that discussion instead. Cheers.

Ah, but epicycles were created on the basis of wrong observations. The math itself was correct, for what was observed (or thought to be observed.) That is the reason that epicycles were replaced, not because of bad math, but of incorrect observations.

Sorry for the hi-jack, I'm still reading the papers in question. :)

nutant gene 71
2006-Apr-14, 11:59 PM
You must have a very short memory span: post #26 (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=724093&postcount=26).
It is time for you to back up your claims or retract them. Yes, you are right, and if I were to answer further I could be accused of 'hijacking this thread', which is against forum rules. To be drawn into your silly "retract it" stuff is nonesensical and not worthy of reply, without rewriting the known physics by atributing cosmic redshift and slowing atomic oscillations to natural causes.


Sorry for my diversion. I'm more interested in seeing how Carel's "Equivalence of Magnetic Energy and Kinetic Energy" paper resolves, pg. 3:

W(magnetic energy) = M(electrostatic mass) * V^2(electron) with

W(electron magnetic-energy?) = 1/2 M(electron) * V^2(electron)

...which is where I'm stuck in that paper...

Tensor
2006-Apr-15, 02:09 AM
Yes, you are right, and if I were to answer further I could be accused of 'hijacking this thread', which is against forum rules. To be drawn into your silly "retract it" stuff is nonesensical and not worthy of reply, without rewriting the known physics by atributing cosmic redshift and slowing atomic oscillations to natural causes.



Well, how about we have a moderator break out your comments and our answers into a different thread then? Moderators? Something like nutant gene's ideas on science? It looks to me that labeling a request to retract something you can't support as "silly", or worrying about hijacking the thread at this point is simply a way of leaving your claim out there, without supporting it.

nutant gene 71
2006-Apr-15, 02:51 AM
Well, how about we have a moderator break out your comments and our answers into a different thread then? Moderators? Something like nutant gene's ideas on science? It looks to me that labeling a request to retract something you can't support as "silly", or worrying about hijacking the thread at this point is simply a way of leaving your claim out there, without supporting it.
I don't follow your gist Tensor. Are you claiming that I must honor someone's call to "retract" a statement because someone has disapproved of it? Pardon if I misunderstand what this "against the mainstream" is about, but I do not see this as a holy inquisition where I have to retract, or recant, on any statement. Every reader on this forum is free to form his or her own judgement of any statement made, and I think this is a freedom that should be honored. As far as starting a new forum, I see no need to pursue this discussion further, since I have no interest in doing so. Let each reader form their own opinion of any idea's worth That's how it's done in America, end of discussion.

BTW, I'd rather stay on topic, as per Carel's earlier:
When I receive a validated argument why my article is false my quest is over. This can be the only fruitful approach. Otherwise this debate is nothing more then “birthday party conversation”.

Tensor
2006-Apr-15, 03:27 AM
I don't follow your gist Tensor. Are you claiming that I must honor someone's call to "retract" a statement because someone has disapproved of it? Pardon if I misunderstand what this "against the mainstream" is about, but I do not see this as a holy inquisition where I have to retract, or recant, on any statement.


Then I suggest you review rule 13. The rules for BAUT are a bit different from the old BA board. You made an ATM statement, you are required to defend it. If you don't want to defend it, you probably should retract it.


As far as starting a new forum, I see no need to pursue this discussion further, since I have no interest in doing so. Let each reader form their own opinion of any idea's worth That's how it's done in America, end of discussion.

But this is BAUT, with an international contingent. BAUT also has rules, USA or not, which posters must follow. I was simply suggesting that if you don't want to retract the statement, you must defend it. As that is different subject from this thread, it should be broken out to another thread, so you can defend it.

nutant gene 71
2006-Apr-15, 04:27 AM
Then I suggest you review rule 13. The rules for BAUT are a bit different from the old BA board. You made an ATM statement, you are required to defend it. If you don't want to defend it, you probably should retract it.


But this is BAUT, with an international contingent. BAUT also has rules, USA or not, which posters must follow. I was simply suggesting that if you don't want to retract the statement, you must defend it. As that is different subject from this thread, it should be broken out to another thread, so you can defend it.
You are pressing me into responding to an offtopic request, which I don't appreciate. I stand by what said earlier:
Every reader on this forum is free to form his or her own judgement of any statement made, and I think this is a freedom that should be honored. As far as starting a new forum, I see no need to pursue this discussion further, since I have no interest in doing so. Let each reader form their own opinion of any idea's worth. To force me into a further discussion on this matter is counterproductive, and it violates the spirit of allowing readers to decide for themselves. If you find that unacceptable, then PM me and we can discuss it further, as I do not wish to take up more of this space to argue over freedom of speech, and the freedom for the reader to decide.

Papageno, this applies to you too. If you wish to further discuss any off topic statement, please PM me, and I would be happy to continue a dialogue on the side. Now, I hope this discussion can carry on properly.

Carel van der Togt
2006-Apr-15, 09:01 AM
Perhaps I misunderstood this paper, but it seems to me all you have shown is that, for the kind of stellar aberration examined in the paper, a (particular) 'dragged ether' hypothesis and SR produce predictions that are identical.

Is this so?

In the 18th, 19th and the beginning of the 20th century scientists were looking for a medium that was responsible for the propagation of light.

The ether in absolute rest was dismissed by the measurements of Michelson and Morley (1887). These measurements do not disprove dragged ether in any way.

Lorentz, Lord Raleigh etc were not able to imagine how dragged ether could explain the observed stellar aberration. Their conclusion was therefore that dragged ether was not reconcilable with stellar aberration. The only (scientific) argument for the rejection of dragged ether is that scientists were not able to do that.

The denial of both possible ethers made Einstein's SRT inevitable because the denial of both possible ether meant vacuum had to be absolutely empty.

SRT however implies numerous inconsistencies nowadays for convenience called paradoxes. When you look at the explanation of SRT for stellar aberration this explanation is very poor and inconsistent. But without something better science embraced SRT.

The article proves that with dragged ether stellar aberration is exactly predicted for any star any time in the year. Very strong empirical evidence dragged ether has to exist. This compared to the still, after 100 years SRT, very poor and inconsistent explanation of SRT makes dragged ether much more likely.

The overlooking or missing of the explanation of dragged ether is an omission. Was this article published before 1905 Einstein would never have written or published his articles concerning SRT.

Carel

czeslaw
2006-Apr-15, 12:29 PM
In the 18th, 19th and the beginning of the 20th century scientists were looking for a medium that was responsible for the propagation of light.

The ether in absolute rest was dismissed by the measurements of Michelson and Morley (1887). These measurements do not disprove dragged ether in any way.

Lorentz, Lord Raleigh etc were not able to imagine how dragged ether could explain the observed stellar aberration. Their conclusion was therefore that dragged ether was not reconcilable with stellar aberration. The only (scientific) argument for the rejection of dragged ether is that scientists were not able to do that.

The denial of both possible ethers made Einstein's SRT inevitable because the denial of both possible ether meant vacuum had to be absolutely empty.

SRT however implies numerous inconsistencies nowadays for convenience called paradoxes. When you look at the explanation of SRT for stellar aberration this explanation is very poor and inconsistent. But without something better science embraced SRT.

The article proves that with dragged ether stellar aberration is exactly predicted for any star any time in the year. Very strong empirical evidence dragged ether has to exist. This compared to the still, after 100 years SRT, very poor and inconsistent explanation of SRT makes dragged ether much more likely.

The overlooking or missing of the explanation of dragged ether is an omission. Was this article published before 1905 Einstein would never have written or published his articles concerning SRT.

Carel

There are many new evidence for the space structure.
Astronomers observe a space distortion around a Black Hole - Black Hole Puts Dent In Space-time
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060124_spacetime_dent.html

This is known as a Frame Dragging around moving (rotating) masses.
"Rotational frame-dragging (Lense-Thirring effect) is the inevitable result of the general principle of relativity, applied to rotation. The relativisation of rotational effects means that a rotating body ought to pull light around with it, in a manner somewhat reminiscent of old "aether-dragging" models. It is now the best-known effect, partly thanks to the Gravity Probe B experiment. (This experiment has almost wrapped up) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging .

Many theories - Loop Quantum Theory, Heim Theory, M-Theory (at least) and others based on a space structure.

The only difference between old ether and novadays space-time is that it is discrete and it is not in absolute rest but this ether is dragged.
This STELLAR ABERRATION is very good example.

In my web site http://www.blackholes.int.pl - I want to prove that there is a maximal concetration of the energy according to the ether structure and a point singularity in a Black Hole is not possible.
It is difficult to search a space (ether) alone but we have more and more indications it is not absolute empty.
Emptines is not empty.
Czeslaw

Carel van der Togt
2006-Apr-15, 01:09 PM
Who knows why this paper was rejected, by editors/publishers!

Let's look at the ATM idea that is being proposed here.

What, specifically, does this idea predict?

The article "The Equivalence of Kinetic and Magnetic Energy" shows that while QM was “proving” that the electron could not be a simple charged bulb the energy conservation law was violated.

The most simple solution for the electron, a spinning charged bulb, was therefore unjustly denied and that is one big omission. This omission introduced many contradictions in contemporary physics.

Carel

Nereid
2006-Apr-15, 01:42 PM
Perhaps I misunderstood this paper, but it seems to me all you have shown is that, for the kind of stellar aberration examined in the paper, a (particular) 'dragged ether' hypothesis and SR produce predictions that are identical.

Is this so?In the 18th, 19th and the beginning of the 20th century scientists were looking for a medium that was responsible for the propagation of light.

The ether in absolute rest was dismissed by the measurements of Michelson and Morley (1887). These measurements do not disprove dragged ether in any way.

Lorentz, Lord Raleigh etc were not able to imagine how dragged ether could explain the observed stellar aberration. Their conclusion was therefore that dragged ether was not reconcilable with stellar aberration. The only (scientific) argument for the rejection of dragged ether is that scientists were not able to do that.

The denial of both possible ethers made Einstein's SRT inevitable because the denial of both possible ether meant vacuum had to be absolutely empty.

SRT however implies numerous inconsistencies nowadays for convenience called paradoxes. When you look at the explanation of SRT for stellar aberration this explanation is very poor and inconsistent. But without something better science embraced SRT.

The article proves that with dragged ether stellar aberration is exactly predicted for any star any time in the year. Very strong empirical evidence dragged ether has to exist. This compared to the still, after 100 years SRT, very poor and inconsistent explanation of SRT makes dragged ether much more likely.

The overlooking or missing of the explanation of dragged ether is an omission. Was this article published before 1905 Einstein would never have written or published his articles concerning SRT.

CarelA much longer answer than I had expected.

And an answer that opens up a lot more questions.

However, my question is much simpler than the answer seems to be.

From the paper you provided a link to (the one on Stellar Aberration), I see a claim concerning stellar aberration and a 'dragged ether' idea.

It is my understanding that the scope of this paper is 'stellar aberration', as narrowly defined.

The paper seems to claim that the observed 'stellar aberration' can be accounted for by a 'dragged ether' idea.

My question is this: What differences are there between the predictions (observables) of this 'dragged ether' idea and Special Relativity, with respect to the stellar aberration mentioned in the paper?

Let's look at one part of your answer:
When you look at the explanation of SRT for stellar aberration this explanation is very poor and inconsistent. But without something better science embraced SRT.

The article proves that with dragged ether stellar aberration is exactly predicted for any star any time in the year. Very strong empirical evidence dragged ether has to exist. This compared to the still, after 100 years SRT, very poor and inconsistent explanation of SRT makes dragged ether much more likely.I interpret this to mean "Special Relativity is inconsistent with the observed stellar aberration."

Is this what you are claiming?

Nereid
2006-Apr-15, 01:45 PM
[snip]
SRT however implies numerous inconsistencies nowadays for convenience called paradoxes.Would you please list the top ten such 'inconsistencies'?

Please list only those that you are prepared to defend.

Please be prepared to provide (links to) good observational and experimental results that show the inconsistencies are between theory and observation (and not between one theory and another - the inconsistencies between classical physics and relativity are well known).

Nereid
2006-Apr-15, 01:55 PM
The article "The Equivalence of Kinetic and Magnetic Energy" shows that while QM was “proving” that the electron could not be a simple charged bulb the energy conservation law was violated.

The most simple solution for the electron, a spinning charged bulb, was therefore unjustly denied and that is one big omission. This omission introduced many contradictions in contemporary physics.

CarelLet's see if I understand this answer ... you claim that the paper shows an inconsistency between classical physics and QM. If so, that's no surprise - the consistency between the two occurs 'in the limit' (QM 'reduces to' classical physics 'in the (macroscopic) limit').

(I note that you have not yet addressed papageno's post (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=724795&postcount=39), which points to numerous inconsistencies in your paper).

To what extent are you claiming that QM is inconsistent with good observational and experimental results?

TravisM
2006-Apr-15, 01:55 PM
Just from reading this:


When you look at the explanation of SRT for stellar aberration this explanation is very poor and inconsistent. But without something better science embraced SRT.


I take it to mean that SRT is poor and inconsistent... with what I'm not sure, but I don't think there's any shots at the numbers it generates. Just some ill defined "poor and inconsistent..."

papageno
2006-Apr-15, 02:23 PM
Yes, you are right, and if I were to answer further I could be accused of 'hijacking this thread', which is against forum rules. To be drawn into your silly "retract it" stuff is nonesensical and not worthy of reply, without rewriting the known physics by atributing cosmic redshift and slowing atomic oscillations to natural causes.
See Tensor's post in reply.
You are simply dodging the issue.



Sorry for my diversion. I'm more interested in seeing how Carel's "Equivalence of Magnetic Energy and Kinetic Energy" paper resolves, pg. 3:

W(magnetic energy) = M(electrostatic mass) * V^2(electron) with

W(electron magnetic-energy?) = 1/2 M(electron) * V^2(electron)

...which is where I'm stuck in that paper... He resolves it with an arbitrary assumption, which results in a unphysical electric field.
See my post about the paper.

nutant gene 71
2006-Apr-15, 03:15 PM
See Tensor's post in reply.
You are simply dodging the issue.

He resolves it with an arbitrary assumption, which results in a unphysical electric field.
See my post about the paper.
Thanks, I see where in your response you said:
A moving electrostatic field? Don't you mean an electromagnetic field? I think this was where I was stuck, shifting electrostatic field to electromagnetic field, which left we head scratching, not knowing why. It looks like he equates momentum density by using this substitution. But being somewhat above my head here, I am not able to make any significant contributions.

On the 'dodged issue', I'd like to move on, though I appreciate and noted both yours and Tensor's responses.

Carel van der Togt
2006-Apr-15, 05:15 PM
Let's look at one part of your answer:I interpret this to mean "Special Relativity is inconsistent with the observed stellar aberration."

Is this what you are claiming?

What I claim is that SRT only gives a poor explanation that even is inconsistent with SRT itself.

For the SRT-math explaining stellar aberration I refer to an article of Michel Janssen (http://www.tc.umn.edu/~janss011/) an assistant professor and an Einstein editor who sent me this PDF-file ( www.paradox-paradigm.nl/Michel%20Janssen%20aberratie-doppler-SRT.pdf ). I have put this file on my website so you can read it.. On top of page 24 you see the derived SRT-stellar aberration EM-field tensor.

Shortcomings of the SRT-explanation for Stellar Aberration:

1) SRT only gives a "possible" explanation for stellar aberration. On page 24 you see the theoretical stellar aberration matrix according to SRT. Note that the relativistic SRT correction/calculation (EM field tensor) is dependant on the angle of inclination (sin(alpa)). The calculated theoretical relativistic SRT aberration is therefore not only dependant on the velocity but also dependant of the inclination angle.

This observation is contradicting SRT itself because the relativistic effects should only be dependant on the relative speed v. The theoretical explanation of stellar aberration is therefore inconsistent with the theory itself. So not only the speed but also the angle of observation determines the stellar aberration effects!

SRT therefore supplies a very poor and inconsistent explanation for stellar aberration.

2) When SRT is valid the relative movement of the Earth and the observed star should be completely dependant on the relative speed of the Earth to the star. The observed stellar aberration of all stars is equal. This means that the own movement of stars (also double stars) is not observed in the measured stellar aberration.

This observation actually disproves SRT as a theory to explain stellar aberration, because the theoretical implications of SRT should be applied consistently; the own movement of the stars should also be measurable in the stellar aberration and this is not the case. You cannot apply the already weak explanation of SRT for stellar aberration only for the Earth's movement around the sun and ignore the movement of the star. The conclusion must be that the observed stellar aberration disqualifies SRT (=experimental observation that disproves SRT).

The experimental theoretical support of stellar aberration concerning dragged ether:

1) No axiom's and/or premises like with SRT are necessary. The possible dragged ether is present in vacuum and therefore must have the physical properties of vacuum: Constant speed of light c and the inability of vacuum to alter the impulse of a photon (impulse of photon is a scientific fact) must be the physical properties of dragged ether when this ether exists.
2) The calculated stellar aberration with the real physical properties of vacuum is exact the observed stellar aberration under all circumstances. This implies that the actual observed stellar aberration profoundly supports dragged ether.
3) With dragged ether the own velocity of the star should not be of any influence. So dragged ether stellar aberration is consistent with the fact that there is no measurable stellar aberration effect from the own movement of the stars.

The dragged ether explanation of dragged ether is completely consistent with observations while the theoretical SRT stellar aberration is inconsistent with SRT itself and the observed stellar aberration. The conclusion must be that the experimental evidence for dragged ether is overwhelming compared to SRT.

There are more very important circumstantial aspects that supports (dragged) ether. In theoretical physics the Field Theory is widely accepted. In the field theory scientists assume that in vacuum there are gravitational-, magnetic- and electrostatic fields. This implicit assumption of the Field Theory assumes therefore that there is some kind of medium (ether) in vacuum. This assumption of the Field Theory as part of Theoretical Physics is contradicting the absolute empty space necessary for SRT to conclude time and space are relative.

Carel

Carel van der Togt
2006-Apr-15, 05:21 PM
Would you please list the top ten such 'inconsistencies'?

Please list only those that you are prepared to defend.

Please be prepared to provide (links to) good observational and experimental results that show the inconsistencies are between theory and observation (and not between one theory and another - the inconsistencies between classical physics and relativity are well known).

I claim I can defend that all explanations for paradoxes are bogus, even "The Twin Paradox".

You give me the mainstream explanation of any paradox I show you the inconsistencies in the explanation.

Carel

Carel van der Togt
2006-Apr-15, 05:28 PM
Let's see if I understand this answer ... you claim that the paper shows an inconsistency between classical physics and QM. If so, that's no surprise - the consistency between the two occurs 'in the limit' (QM 'reduces to' classical physics 'in the (macroscopic) limit').

The inconsistency has nothing to do with 'in the limit' QM 'reduces to' classical physics 'in the (macroscopic) limit'


(I note that you have not yet addressed papageno's post (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=724795&postcount=39), which points to numerous inconsistencies in your paper).

The answer Papageno's post will come. Yours and others have my first priority.

Carel

Carel van der Togt
2006-Apr-15, 05:51 PM
Except that we are integrating the vectorial quantity momentum.
What part of the momentum of the electromagnetic field has been ignored?

Dear Papageno,

By introducing sin^2 in the integration all over space of the total momentum p of the moving electron the physical consequences are that the addition of sin^2 reduces the integration all over space to only part of space. In section 4 of the article this is proven.

I do not want to put all the arguments here because the message becomes unreadable. I refer to the chapter "Incompetent Science" of the website www.paradox-paradigm.nl where you can read the argumentation of journals like Physics Review A etc. The argumentation of physics journals to reject the paper was never that my claim in the article we discuss now is false.

The article was accepted by Galilean Electrodynamics (GED) and will be published in June/July 2006. GED is a dissident but respected journal and they only publish it because I proved in section 4 of the article that the QM approach (Feynman) violates the energy conservation law.

Carel

papageno
2006-Apr-15, 06:32 PM
By introducing sin^2 in the integration all over space of the total momentum p of the moving electron the physical consequences are that the addition of sin^2 reduces the integration all over space to only part of space. In section 4 of the article this is proven.
The sin2(theta) comes from the vectorial product ExB, with B~vxE.
It takes into account the fact that the vectorial field E is spherically symmetric with respect to the electron, while the vector v is not.

By dropping it you are implicitly assuming that sin(theta)=1 everywhere, which physically implies that the vector E is perpendicular to the vector v everywhere, contradicting the fact E is spherically symmetric with respect to the electron.

If you do not like the definition of vectorial product, which yields that dreaded factor sin(theta), you will have to build the maths for Electromagnetism from scratch.

If you want to use the maths that is already there, you will have to accept that you cannot drop factors without justification.

If you do not accept the Poynting vector as the energy density flow vectorial field, then you will have to find another one and justify its use.




I do not want to put all the arguments here because the message becomes unreadable. I refer to the chapter "Incompetent Science" of the website www.paradox-paradigm.nl (http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl) where you can read the argumentation of journals like Physics Review A etc. The argumentation of physics journals to reject the paper was never that my claim in the article we discuss now is false.
This point is moot.
Your paper is seriously flawed and betrays your lack of understanding of the maths and the physics involved.

I read the comments, and the rejections are justified.
You have displayed little to no understanding of physics, but you won't admit it.
The referees have tried to explain the problems in your work politely, giving you far more credit than you deserve.




The article was accepted by Galilean Electrodynamics (GED) and will be published in June/July 2006. GED is a dissident but respected journal and they only publish it because I proved in section 4 of the article that the QM approach (Feynman) violates the energy conservation law.
I already explained my opinion about Galilean Electrodynamics: they have a clearly biased publication policy, but they do not compensate for the bias with a rigorous review of the papers. Hence they end up publishing papers of very low quality, earning little respect from real physicists.

The only thing you have proven is that you have no idea what you are doing. But you cannot accept rejection and blame others for your incompetence.
I think it is time for you to get over yourself.

lyndonashmore
2006-Apr-15, 08:11 PM
I already explained my opinion about Galilean Electrodynamics: they have a clearly biased publication policy, but they do not compensate for the bias with a rigorous review of the papers. Hence they end up publishing papers of very low quality, earning little respect from real physicists.


Perhaps it is time I tried out my new found ammnesty.
When is peer reviewed peer reviewed?
Is it when ones peers review a paper?
Or is it when peers review a paper and decide that it agrees with what they already believed?
One cannot cherry pick peer review.

The editorial board of Galilean Electrodynamics consists of scientists of note. If they have peer reviewed a paper, then so be it, it is peer reviewed.

Galilean Electrodynamics does not charge one iota for papers to be published.
Lets look at another journal (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/ApJ_2006Authorrates.pdf):


Please be advised of a new AAS policy: We cannot publish papers until we have received completed and signed page charge forms from every institution contributing to the page charges. One institution can no longer fill out a page charge form including information for any other institution.
Page charges can be as high as 110 dollars per page. If I remember correctly, some scientists (though I don't want to Arp on about it) have postulated that this is why some ATM papers have not been published - the fear of losing page charges.
My question is Papageno, me old mate, is why do you reject a journal with editors from esteemed academia who ask for no money to publish papers and prefer those who charge for publication?
Cheers,
Lyndon.
With appologies to ApJ who have been nothing but helpful to me. I quote them only as a respected and leading journal as an example of those who charge

Nereid
2006-Apr-15, 09:17 PM
Let's see if I understand this answer ... you claim that the paper shows an inconsistency between classical physics and QM. If so, that's no surprise - the consistency between the two occurs 'in the limit' (QM 'reduces to' classical physics 'in the (macroscopic) limit').The inconsistency has nothing to do with 'in the limit' QM 'reduces to' classical physics 'in the (macroscopic) limit'
[snip]What is its basis then?

Nereid
2006-Apr-15, 09:22 PM
Perhaps it is time I tried out my new found ammnesty.
When is peer reviewed peer reviewed?
Is it when ones peers review a paper?
Or is it when peers review a paper and decide that it agrees with what they already believed?
One cannot cherry pick peer review.

The editorial board of Galilean Electrodynamics consists of scientists of note. If they have peer reviewed a paper, then so be it, it is peer reviewed.

Galilean Electrodynamics does not charge one iota for papers to be published.
Lets look at another journal (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/ApJ_2006Authorrates.pdf):


Page charges can be as high as 110 dollars per page. If I remember correctly, some scientists (though I don't want to Arp on about it) have postulated that this is why some ATM papers have not been published - the fear of losing page charges.
My question is Papageno, me old mate, is why do you reject a journal with editors from esteemed academia who ask for no money to publish papers and prefer those who charge for publication?
Cheers,
Lyndon.
With appologies to ApJ who have been nothing but helpful to me. I quote them only as a respected and leading journal as an example of those who chargeWelcome (back), lyndonashmore!

BAUT is not the same as either of its parents (BABB, UT), and while the specific rules for this ATM section (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864) are similar (in some respects) with both parents', there are differences.

Please take the time to review them.

In particular, please note that this thread is a discussion of Carel's ATM ideas, as they are presented, by proponents of those ideas, here in this thread. So, for example, unless and until Carel (or Carel idea proponent) explicitly raises the issue of editorial policy of ApJ (or any other publication), such topics are OT (and I will tend to regard them as 'hijacking').

papageno
2006-Apr-15, 10:21 PM
Lyndon,
have a look at Carel's paper, and see if you can spot the errors.
Don't cheat by looking at my posts.

I am curious to see if an ATM proponent can see the mistakes made by another ATM proponent.

(This actually happens with conspiracy theorists.)


By the way, Prof. Josephson, who got the Nobel prize for discovering the effect that has his name, is also working on an ATM project (the Mind-Matter Unification Project (http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/)).
So much for having scientists of note on an editorial board.

P.Asmah
2006-Apr-15, 11:38 PM
Can I ask a question that will probably seem very silly, please?

What is the difference between the ether, perhaps disproven by the MM exp., and dragged ether?

Thank you
P. Asmah

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Apr-16, 05:57 AM
Here are my comments on Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of Ether by Carel van der Togt.

The main impression I get from the paper is that of an extreme clumsiness in notation. The paper could be helped considerably through the use of simple vector analysis. I will now proceed to: 1) give his calculation in a more standard notation; 2) give a calculation of aberration using special relativity; 3) compare the two.

Here is an overview: let n be a unit vector pointing in the direction of a star. The light from this star then travels in direction -n and enters the Solar System where it encounters the Earth traveling with velocity b. I would rather use the Greek letter beta here, and similarly gamma for g=1/sqrt(1-b2), but I think you'll get the idea. The light ray is deflected into a different direction, -n' where n' is then the direction where the star is seen.

The vector n' will be shown to have the form An+Bb, where A and B are functions of n and b to be determined. We are interested in another way of expressing n', namely as a part projected onto n and a part orthogonal to it. The part projected onto n is (n'*n)n and the part orthogonal to it is then n'-(n'*n)n. If we have n'=An+Bb then the part orthogonal to n is simply B(b-(b*n)n)=Bb', where I have defined b' as that part of b that is orthogonal to n. Now to the calculations.

In van der Togt's dragged ether theory light comes in on a unit vector -n and has the velocity of the Earth's dragged ether subtracted from it. He hypothesizes that this resulting vector must be normalized to unity so that the speed of light shall be constant. I think that there are many inconsistencies here, such as boundary conditions at the ether boundary, but I will ignore these and grant the hypothesis solely for the purpose of performing the calculation. In effect van der Togt says that:

n' = (n+b)/sqrt(1+2b*n+b2).

From this we see that the aberration vector orthogonal to n will be (1/sqrt(1+2b*n+b2))*b'.

Now for special relativity. Light comes into the Solar System with a four-vector proportional to (1, -n) and encounters Earth with a four-velocity of (g, gb). We immediately see that the frequency will be Doppler shifted to (1, -n)*(g, gb)=g(1+b*n). This differs from the Doppler shift claimed by van der Togt of sqrt(1+2b*n+b2).

This four-vector needs to be transformed into the instantaneous inertial frame of the Earth. The full Lorentz transformation is a bit complicated, but not too much so. For a boost in the b direction, the transformation may be written as a 4x4 matrix as follows:

(g gb )
(gb 1+(g2/(g+1))bb)
Although this looks like a 2x2 matrix, it really is a 4x4 matrix written in a more compact form. The gb appearing in the top row is a row matrix with three elements, the gb appearing on the second row is a column matrix with three elements, and the second term in the second row is actually a 3x3 matrix. In this notation the boost of the four-vector (1, -n) in the -b direction is:

(g -gb )( 1) = (g(1+b*n) )
(-gb 1+(g2/(g+1))bb)(-n) = (-n-g(1+g/(g+1)b*n)b)
Whew! Notice that the Doppler shift factor comes out in the energy component. It is also the magnitude of the momentum part since E2=p2 for a photon and this does not change under Lorentz transformations. The reader should verify this by squaring the momentum part and obtaining g2(1+b*n)2. This is left to the student as an exercise! :)

But back to the calculation of aberration. Under special relativity we obtain:

n'=(n+g(1+g/(g+1)b*n)b)/(g(1+b*n)).

The aberration vector will be ((1+g/(g+1)b*n)/(1+b*n))b'.

Now b has a magnitude of about 10-4 which is a small quantity of the first order. If we restrict ourselves to the second order in b we can simplify the two expressions for aberration as follows:

van der Togt: (1-b*n)*b'.

Special Relativity: (1-(1/2)b*n)*b'.

Since the maximum magnitude of aberration is about 20.5 arcseconds, the maximum difference between these two theories is about 1 milliarcsecond. Perhaps observations from the HIPPARCOS satellite could decide between the two.

Carel van der Togt
2006-Apr-16, 11:02 AM
The sin2(theta) comes from the vectorial product ExB, with B~vxE.
It takes into account the fact that the vectorial field E is spherically symmetric with respect to the electron, while the vector v is not.

By dropping it you are implicitly assuming that sin(theta)=1 everywhere, which physically implies that the vector E is perpendicular to the vector v everywhere, contradicting the fact E is spherically symmetric with respect to the electron.

If you do not like the definition of vectorial product, which yields that dreaded factor sin(theta), you will have to build the maths for Electromagnetism from scratch.

Papageno do you really not get it that the vector interpretation of EM-theory is not correct. Yes it is really unfortunately a mistake of this magnitude is incorporated. You can keep denying but that will not change the facts.

Carel

Carel van der Togt
2006-Apr-16, 11:41 AM
Can I ask a question that will probably seem very silly, please?

What is the difference between the ether, perhaps disproven by the MM exp., and dragged ether?

Thank you
P. Asmah

Dear Asmah,

The ether that is disproved by MM is the ether in absolute rest. The ether in absolute rest is than the absolute reference system for electromagnetic waves; all electromagnetic waves will propagate with speed c in all directions relative to its reference system.

When you move relative to the absolute ether the speed of light cannot be the same for you anymore in all directions. So only if the Earth is by coincidence static in regard to the absolute ether than on Earth we always will measure the same speed of light.

Michelson and Morley brilliantly concluded that because the Earth moves around the sun and absolute ether exists the movement of the Earth around the sun should be measurable. The MM measures does not register any movement compared to a proposed absolute ether so the conclusion must be that ether in absolute rest does not exist.

Now dragged ether is quite comparable with the air around us. The speed of sound is always the same in air approx. 1,200 km/h. When an airplane travels through the air we notice that the speed of the sound waves always reach us with the same speed whether the plane travels towards us or away from us.

The Doppler-effect of the sound waves we observe is with the aberration effect the only indication the plane is moving away or towards us. The relative movement of the plane cannot be retracted from the speed of the sound wave.

Dragged ether for electromagnetic waves is very much comparable as air is for sound waves. Imagine we cannot measure the air around us. Would we conclude then that because we always measure the same speed of sound that time and space must be relative? I don’t think so.

Carel

Nereid
2006-Apr-16, 01:59 PM
It seems, from Celestial Mechanic's post, that this kind of stellar aberration cannot be used - with today's technology* - to distinguish between SR and this particular 'dragged ether' hypothesis.

But I'm still puzzled by this:
2) When SRT is valid the relative movement of the Earth and the observed star should be completely dependant on the relative speed of the Earth to the star. The observed stellar aberration of all stars is equal. This means that the own movement of stars (also double stars) is not observed in the measured stellar aberration.

This observation actually disproves SRT as a theory to explain stellar aberration, because the theoretical implications of SRT should be applied consistently; the own movement of the stars should also be measurable in the stellar aberration and this is not the case. You cannot apply the already weak explanation of SRT for stellar aberration only for the Earth's movement around the sun and ignore the movement of the star. The conclusion must be that the observed stellar aberration disqualifies SRT (=experimental observation that disproves SRT).What puzzles me is absolute expressions (such as "The observed stellar aberration of all stars is equal" - no error bars, no qualifications about the expected size of the effect compared to the error bars, etc).

Do you have a source which derives the expected size of the SR stellar aberrations (including the extent to which they will vary due to "the own movement of the stars")?

P.Asmah
2006-Apr-16, 02:02 PM
Dragged ether for electromagnetic waves is very much comparable as air is for sound waves. Imagine we cannot measure the air around us. Would we conclude then that because we always measure the same speed of sound that time and space must be relative? I don’t think so.

Carel
That's great. Thank you. :D

Nereid
2006-Apr-16, 02:13 PM
[snip]
Since the maximum magnitude of aberration is about 20.5 arcseconds, the maximum difference between these two theories is about 1 milliarcsecond. Perhaps observations from the HIPPARCOS satellite could decide between the two.A quick check of the HIPPARCOS documentation (http://www.rssd.esa.int/Hipparcos/) suggests that this is correct.

For the brighter stars in the HIP catalogue, the mean standard errors are uniformly <~1 mas.

Given that stellar aberration is a systematic effect, with well-characterised dependence on well-established spacecraft parameters, it would seem possible (in principle) to analyse the HIPPARCOS dataset to pull out any <SR-CvdT predictions> signal, at many sigma above the noise.

papageno
2006-Apr-16, 03:01 PM
Papageno do you really not get it that the vector interpretation of EM-theory is not correct.
Good that engineers manage to build devices that actually work, despite the fact that the theory they use to design them is wrong!

Do you have actual evidence to support your claim?




Yes it is really unfortunately a mistake of this magnitude is incorporated. You can keep denying but that will not change the facts.
You keep claiming that it is wrong, but you have given no proof.
The facts are that the theory is tested successfully every time you use your computer to send e-mails or post in forums such as this; every time you watch TV or listen to the radio; every time you open your eyes to look around you.

You are denying the fact that you don't understand the theory and project your incompetence on the people who point out your mistakes.

So, what evidence do you have showing that the vectorial version of Electromagnetism is wrong?

What about addressing the rest of my post (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=724795&postcount=39)?

nutant gene 71
2006-Apr-16, 03:16 PM
The Doppler-effect of the sound waves we observe is with the aberration effect the only indication the plane is moving away or towards us. The relative movement of the plane cannot be retracted from the speed of the sound wave.

Dragged ether for electromagnetic waves is very much comparable as air is for sound waves. Imagine we cannot measure the air around us. Would we conclude then that because we always measure the same speed of sound that time and space must be relative? I don’t think so.
Carel, the Doppler effect shows up as 'frequency' difference, a blue or redshift, though the velocity of the waves are the same. Is this not the simplest way to account of relativistic observations of dragged ether, by measuring this Doppler related frequency? Would this not simplify the relativistic effect, but yield equal results, for a dragged ether? ... Or am I asking a foolish question?


[Snip] van der Togt: (1-b*n)*b'.

Special Relativity: (1-(1/2)b*n)*b'.

Since the maximum magnitude of aberration is about 20.5 arcseconds, the maximum difference between these two theories is about 1 milliarcsecond. Perhaps observations from the HIPPARCOS satellite could decide between the two.
Very impressive, CM, that the difference is 'splitting hairs' down to milliardseconds. :) I wish I could follow the math, though, since that would make it more interesting. Thanks.

In either case, it appears to my limited understanding that we are seeing two separate and nearly equal calculations. So what remains, if these are parallel: which is better?

Nereid
2006-Apr-16, 05:00 PM
Carel, the Doppler effect shows up as 'frequency' difference, a blue or redshift, though the velocity of the waves are the same. Is this not the simplest way to account of relativistic observations of dragged ether, by measuring this Doppler related frequency? Would this not simplify the relativistic effect, but yield equal results, for a dragged ether? ... Or am I asking a foolish question?


Very impressive, CM, that the difference is 'splitting hairs' down to milliardseconds. :) I wish I could follow the math, though, since that would make it more interesting. Thanks.

In either case, it appears to my limited understanding that we are seeing two separate and nearly equal calculations. So what remains, if these are parallel: which is better?At one level, it's easy to answer ... SR predicts a great deal more than just stellar aberration, and it predicts effects that can be made to be far, far more easily observed (in the lab) than mere mas.

I imagine any competing theory would also make clear predictions, for similar phenomena/in similar regimes.

You then have a 'bake-off' - set up an experiment whose purpose is to measure something for which the competing ideas have predictions that differ by many, many sigmas. A good example might be the Bell Inequality, and the EPR paradox ... experiments have now been done that can measure the competing predictions, to what?, 10 sigmas? (Einstein 0, quantum weirdness 1). Another is GPB.

My intention for this thread is (includes) to ask Carel about these sorts of things, assuming that he puts them on the table (this is the ATM section - we can only challenge claims that an ATMer is willing to defend). He has already started to do, in several posts (though there are only two explicit ATM claims at the moment).

Carel van der Togt
2006-Apr-17, 08:09 AM
Good that engineers manage to build devices that actually work, despite the fact that the theory they use to design them is wrong!

Do you have actual evidence to support your claim?

You keep claiming that it is wrong, but you have given no proof.
The facts are that the theory is tested successfully every time you use your computer .....................................

Maybe someone can help me. Is Papageno really lost or is he trying to ....?

His arguments and questions are not clear to me. It is very difficult to give an answer to questions or remarks when the meaning is dubious.

For example Papageno disagrees with my claim that the energy conservation law is violated. His argument is “The facts are that the theory is tested....." What can I answer on a question like that. It is not addressing the issue.

Papageno compares "apples" and "oranges". In the article "The Equivalence ..." I prove that introducing sin^2 in the integration of the electric field all over space violates the energy conservation law. Oke Papageno does not agree.

Then he argues
….. The facts are that the theory is tested successfully every time you use your computer .....................................

This is totally a different interpretation of the same vector calculation rule when he refers to the use by engineers. Engineers do not violate the energy conservation law. They use the calculations for mechanical purposes. Their use is correct.

The difference is that engineers in calculating the electromagnetic properties of the fields calculate the electromagnetic force and the power the engine should yield under normal circumstances. The calculations are under normal circumstances correct. The mentioned incorrect use of vector calculations by engineers would occur when these engineers use their calculations for a normally operating electromotor and claim that the calculations still are valid when the engine is blocked.

The EM-calculations of the engineers will be totally wrong when they use the calculations of a proper running electromotor and state that these calculations have to be valid too for a blocked engine. In the case of blocked engines the electromagnetic fields do not yield force and power according to the applied EM-theory.

When we block an engine all electromagnetic energy is “lost” and the EM-vector calculations will not add up. When an electro engine blocks this is then proof for Papageno the EM-theory is false?
When I argue the way Papageno is arguing the calculations should determine that the engine is still running properly!

Any electric engineer knows this is absolute bull. Papegano is trying to disrupt the discussion or he has no idea what in reality is going on.

An engineer would never make this mistake. He knows the EM-calculations are not valid when the engine is blocked. Papageno argues the situation has not changed.

The difference between the engineer and a theoretical physicist is possible that an engineer knows when he is allowed to apply math while the theoretical physicist brainless decides he can apply at all circumstances the vector calculations rules.

By the way I’m a physics engineer.

P.Asmah
2006-Apr-17, 12:34 PM
Maybe someone can help me. Is Papageno really lost or is he trying to ....?

His arguments and questions are not clear to me. It is very difficult to give an answer to questions or remarks when the meaning is dubious.
Papageno's tactice are well known to a number of us who take an interest in ATM ideas. IMHO he gets away with far too much negative innuendo.

Keep up the good work, Carel.

Fascinating thread.

papageno
2006-Apr-17, 01:41 PM
Maybe someone can help me. Is Papageno really lost or is he trying to ....?

His arguments and questions are not clear to me. It is very difficult to give an answer to questions or remarks when the meaning is dubious.

For example Papageno disagrees with my claim that the energy conservation law is violated. His argument is “The facts are that the theory is tested....." What can I answer on a question like that. It is not addressing the issue.


You said:


Papageno do you really not get it that the vector interpretation of EM-theory is not correct.

My point in response to your claim is:
1. The theory of Electromagnetism, in its vectorial version, is used by engineers to design and build systems.
2. Every time any of these systems is used, the theory on which the design is based is tested.
3. Since the systems perform as designed, the tests of the theory are successful.
4. Such systems include computers, telecommunications, satellites, radio, TV, etc.

Now, do you have evidence that the vectorial version of Electromagnetism is not correct?



Papageno compares "apples" and "oranges". In the article "The Equivalence ..." I prove that introducing sin^2 in the integration of the electric field all over space violates the energy conservation law. Oke Papageno does not agree.

You claimed that, since the electromagnetic mass of the electron as calculated using from Classical Electromagnetism does not equal the measured mass of the electron, the Quantum Mechanics approach (not actually used in Feynman, II-28-2) implies a violation of energy conservation.
You claimed that the reason is the sin(theta) factor in the vectorial product defining the Poynting vector.
You then dropped the factor sin(theta) without a real justification to get the result you desired, with the result of giving the electron an electric field which has nothing to do the actual electric field.

Bottom line, you set up a series of strawmans and proceeded refuting the result by using an unjustified assumption.

Therefore I told you:


If you do not like the definition of vectorial product, which yields that dreaded factor sin(theta), you will have to build the maths for Electromagnetism from scratch.

If you want to use the maths that is already there, you will have to accept that you cannot drop factors without justification.

If you do not accept the Poynting vector as the energy density flow vectorial field, then you will have to find another one and justify its use.

You cannot cherrypick what part of the maths you can use, and expect to have a self-consistent theory.




This is totally a different interpretation of the same vector calculation rule when he refers to the use by engineers. Engineers do not violate the energy conservation law. They use the calculations for mechanical purposes. Their use is correct.

The difference is that engineers in calculating the electromagnetic properties of the fields calculate the electromagnetic force and the power the engine should yield under normal circumstances. The calculations are under normal circumstances correct. The mentioned incorrect use of vector calculations by engineers would occur when these engineers use their calculations for a normally operating electromotor and claim that the calculations still are valid when the engine is blocked.

This is totally a different interpretation of the same vector calculation rule when he refers to the use by engineers. Engineers do not violate the energy conservation law. They use the calculations for mechanical purposes. Their use is correct.

The difference is that engineers in calculating the electromagnetic properties of the fields calculate the electromagnetic force and the power the engine should yield under normal circumstances. The calculations are under normal circumstances correct. The mentioned incorrect use of vector calculations by engineers would occur when these engineers use their calculations for a normally operating electromotor and claim that the calculations still are valid when the engine is blocked.

When we block an engine all electromagnetic energy is “lost” and the EM-vector calculations will not add up. When an electro engine blocks this is then proof for Papageno the EM-theory is false?
When I argue the way Papageno is arguing the calculations should determine that the engine is still running properly!

Any electric engineer knows this is absolute bull. Papegano is trying to disrupt the discussion or he has no idea what in reality is going on.

An engineer would never make this mistake. He knows the EM-calculations are not valid when the engine is blocked. Papageno argues the situation has not changed.

Yet another strawman.
I never said we should apply a theory when it cannot be applied, or apply it with the wrong conditions.

You argue that the theory of Electromagnetism is not correct, and I showed that you don't understand it.
I would suggest you read the rest of Feynman's book, before making bold claims that physicists are incompetent.




The difference between the engineer and a theoretical physicist is possible that an engineer knows when he is allowed to apply math while the theoretical physicist brainless decides he can apply at all circumstances the vector calculations rules.

Don't blame the maths for your failure to understand the physics.




By the way I’m a physics engineer.

And on this board are practicing scientists and engineers. And they don't agree with you.

Now, instead of projecting on others your incompetence, why don't you address my post (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=724795&postcount=39)?
A real engineer would face the responsibility of his errors.

papageno
2006-Apr-17, 01:47 PM
Papageno's tactice are well known to a number of us who take an interest in ATM ideas. IMHO he gets away with far too much negative innuendo.

EDIT to add: My tactics consist in addressing the content of the posts and point out the eventual errors.

I don't need to make innuendo. I point out what is wrong with unsupported claims. It is not my fault if some ATM proponents cannot face criticism.

And if you feel that my behavior is not appropriate, either contact me or report me to a moderator.

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Apr-17, 03:48 PM
Papageno's tactics are well known to a number of us who take an interest in ATM ideas. IMHO he gets away with far too much negative innuendo.[Snip!]
Sounds like a bit of negative innuendo to me, hmmmm.... :think:

Keep up the good work papageno! :clap:

Carel van der Togt
2006-Apr-17, 04:38 PM
"The observed stellar aberration of all stars is equal" - no error bars, no qualifications about the expected size of the effect compared to the error bars, etc).
Dear Nereid,

The theoretical calculated aberration should be "exact." The difference between measured and theoretical value should only be dependant on the introduced errors in the measured speed of Earth around the sun, the error of the inclination angle etc.


Do you have a source which derives the expected size of the SR stellar aberrations (including the extent to which they will vary due to "the own movement of the stars")?
With SRT the relative movement of the star should be added to calculate the real relative speed. The own movement of a star is different for all stars. Therefore according to SRT the stellar aberration should differ continuously.

The empirical measured stellar aberration is however totally independent of the stars own movement. That is why the SRT explanation is contradicting itself. Only the movement of the Earth around the sun and the inclination angle determine stellar aberration.

Carel

Carel van der Togt
2006-Apr-17, 05:13 PM
Carel, the Doppler effect shows up as 'frequency' difference, a blue or red shift, though the velocity of the waves are the same. Is this not the simplest way to account of relativistic observations of dragged ether, by measuring this Doppler related frequency? Would this not simplify the relativistic effect, but yield equal results, for a dragged ether? ... Or am I asking a foolish question?
No not a foolish question at all. With dragged ether the speed effect is directly transferred to Doppler and stellar aberration effect.

However with SRT the Doppler effect and stellar aberration are indirect consequences, because with SRT the contraction of space and relative time difference are the primary effects.


In either case, it appears to my limited understanding that we are seeing two separate and nearly equal calculations. So what remains, if these are parallel: which is better?
They are not the same and certainly not for astronomical calculations. For example the slight difference in the relativistic effects will yield substantial difference in the calculated age of the universe. It is possible that the calculated age of the universe with dragged ether calculations will be much more consistent and not vary between 7 to 20 billion years depending on the way the age of the universe is calculated. This can however only be verified with the help of astronomers and they probably will not oblige as long as SRT is thought to be correct.

Carel

Carel van der Togt
2006-Apr-17, 05:35 PM
Here are my comments on Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of Ether by Carel van der Togt.
The main impression I get from the paper is that of an extreme clumsiness in notation. The paper could be helped considerably through the use of simple vector analysis. I will now proceed to: 1) give his calculation in a more standard notation; 2) give a calculation of aberration using special relativity; 3) compare the two.

van der Togt: (1-b*n)*b'.

Special Relativity: (1-(1/2)b*n)*b'.

Since the maximum magnitude of aberration is about 20.5 arcseconds, the maximum difference between these two theories is about 1 milliarcsecond. Perhaps observations from the HIPPARCOS satellite could decide between the two.

Sorry Celestial Mechanic but your formulas for the aberration shown above are insufficient. The stellar aberration of the inclination is dependant on the angle of inclination. Although your presentation is not extreme clumsy the presented formulas do not describe the effect of the inclination angle.

Please give us your not clumsy formulas for both approaches as a function of the inclination angle so we can discuss the influence of the SRT approach and its dependence on the inclination angle.

This is essential because when I use the theoretical formulas for the SRT effect on stellar aberration I cannot properly calculate the stellar aberration according to SRT when the inclination angle approaches 90 degrees.

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Apr-17, 07:40 PM
Sorry Celestial Mechanic but your formulas for the aberration shown above are insufficient.
Prove it. :evil:

The stellar aberration of the inclination is dependent on the angle of inclination. Although your presentation is not extremely clumsy the presented formulas do not describe the effect of the inclination angle.
What do you mean by "inclination angle"? Do you mean the latitude in ecliptic coordinates? Please learn the proper astronomical and physical terminology before presuming to correct us for our "omissions".

The latitude isn't the only coordinate that matters; the difference in ecliptic longitudes also matters. My formula includes this and is valid at any time of year; yours is only valid when the longitude of the star minus the longitude of the Earth is 90 degrees. That is why I have described your derivation as clumsy.

Please give us your non-clumsy formulas for both approaches as a function of the inclination angle so we can discuss the influence of the SRT approach and its dependence on the inclination angle.
You have been given the most compact and elegant presentation that I can give at the moment. This isn't to say that I or someone else won't come along someday and give an even better one. (I look forward to it!) It is incumbent upon you to understand. It should be easy for you; you must have had vectors in your engineering classes. If not, get thee to a library and learn about vectors. (They're an engineer's best friend! :) )

This is essential because when I use the theoretical formulas for the SRT effect on stellar aberration I cannot properly calculate the stellar aberration according to SRT when the inclination angle approaches 90 degrees.
It is your problem if you cannot interpret and use the formulas that are in the literature or that have been given to you. As for the formulas I have given, it is easy to see what happens as the ecliptic latitude goes to 90 degrees: n gets closer to being orthogonal to b and hence b' gets closer to b. At the pole b*n is zero at all times, b'=b and the aberration vector is b in both theories. If you understood vectors and their use, you could have deduced this yourself.

antoniseb
2006-Apr-18, 01:07 AM
Nereid has withdrawn from this thread for the time being as someone has questioned her actions as moderator in this thread. I will not be taking over as a full participant, but I am here to moderate.

Flaney
2006-Apr-18, 05:38 AM
Hello CM,



Here is an overview: let n be a unit vector pointing in the direction of a star.The light from this star then travels in direction -n and enters the Solar System where it encounters the Earth traveling with velocity b.
Where is the relativity in the equations here? Does b change meaning?

Now for special relativity. Light comes into the Solar System with a four-vector proportional to (1, -n) and encounters Earth with a four-velocity of (g, gb).
...the Earth Traveling with velocity b. Prefered coordinates? My guess is that your b is with respect to the wrong star [Sun].

This is the confusing part about aberration for me. Can you help?

Flaney

czeslaw
2006-Apr-18, 07:54 AM
They are not the same and certainly not for astronomical calculations. For example the slight difference in the relativistic effects will yield substantial difference in the calculated age of the universe. It is possible that the calculated age of the universe with dragged ether calculations will be much more consistent and not vary between 7 to 20 billion years depending on the way the age of the universe is calculated. This can however only be verified with the help of astronomers and they probably will not oblige as long as SRT is thought to be correct.

Carel

The dragging frame is well known in our space.
Black Hole Puts Dent In Space-time
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060124_spacetime_dent.html

We'll soon know the answer: A NASA/Stanford physics experiment called Gravity Probe B (GP-B) recently finished a year of gathering science data in Earth orbit. The results, which will take another year to analyze, should reveal the shape of space-time around Earth--and, possibly, the vortex. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/051117_space_time.html
NASA do it earlier then cold Atom Gyro HYPER. May be we will not wait till 2010 to know if our time-space rotate.

Do you have any calculations how strong is dragged our space around the Earth ?

Carel van der Togt
2006-Apr-18, 09:09 AM
Do you have any calculations how strong is dragged our space around the Earth ?
No I have not. There are many questions I have not yet an answer to. I try to find them. If possible with help of others. What I have are legitimate questions concerning the dogmatic attitude of mainstream science.

Even in the ATM discussion groups on this site the mainstream scientists are doing everything to frustrate the discussion when mainstream "knowledge" is questioned. Their questions and answers appear to have the only purpose to confuse laymen who visit this website to read alternative non-contemporary views.

Laymen should wonder why there are so many like them (me) who seek the logic in physical science and why the mainstream participants only post messages unreadable for laymen. Their Mumbo Jumbo only increases the confusion while the purpose of the discussions should be a better understanding.

I started this thread to begin an open discussion. I find the discussion very soon totally frustrated. Laymen, with good legitimate questions, hold back because the discussion is frustrated by posts even less clear and understandable. I have to conclude this Thread is a waste of time.

In principle I do not want to exclude anyone from the discussion, but if it is not possible to have a constructive discussion everybody is wasting their time. Maybe we should start a restricted discussion group. The interference of mainstream scientists in this stage appears only to be contra productive.

In the end it is inevitable to confront mainstream science anyway but at this early stage of the discussion their contribution seems only to have a negative impact.

Maybe we can start a restricted discussion group? Formulate our questions together and confront science afterwards as a group they cannot dismiss with Mumbo Jumbo?

Carel

antoniseb
2006-Apr-18, 01:00 PM
Maybe we can start a restricted discussion group? Formulate our questions together and confront science afterwards as a group they cannot dismiss with Mumbo Jumbo?

You are welcome to do that, but not here. Your concerns that mainstream people are attacking your idea says that you are probably not ready to present it here in the ATM section of the BAUT forum.

I wish you much good fortune in collecting th right people to discuss your ideas in a way that is productive toward accounting for the phenomena without getting bogged down in the need for higher math.

I'm going to close the thread now. If you, Carel, want it reopened, all you have to do is ask me via private message. This is not a punative closure. I am trying to follow your request.