Re: One Ring to Bind Them All

From: Tony Hollick (anduril@cix.compulink.co.uk)
Date: Fri Nov 21 1997 - 00:55:00 MST


      Hello, all!

      My friend jrt@cix wrote to me, after reading my comments to Carl
      Feynman, sayiong that he thought my dismissal of overly mathematical
      treatments of physics was a bit cavalier, and might make it more
      difficult for people to understand what I aim to get across.

      It is my contention that Classical Physics was misled by Huygens'
      'wave theory of light' diversion, and Maxwell's beautiful
      electromagnetism (as distinct from the particle theory of light; and
      the Continental and faradayan electromagnetic programmes of Weber,
      Helmholtz etc.). Alfred O'Rahilly's "Electromagnetics: A Discussion
      of Fundamentals' is excellent on this issue -- the book is described
      by Popper in his 'Postscript' as excelling in the literature
      critical of 'relativistic' theories.

      We now know that a particle theory of light can do all the 'wave'
      stuff anyway; amd that we can get Maxwell's handy equations as a
      first approximation from relational forces propagated at 'c'
      relative to their source. So we're back on track now (anyway, at
      least some of us are... >:-} ).

  It may assist understanding to think about Relational mechanics thusly:

[A] Take Classical Mechanics: (Start with T.W.B. Kibble's fine text):
[B] Add relational electric and magnetic and gravitational forces:
[C] Add a velocity of force propagation ('c'), which delays far-action:
[D] Add a full ballistic ('particle' or 'photon') theory of EM radiation.

      The _basic_ maths is straightforward, although some of the force
      interactions are fiendishly complex to calculate. That's why we use
      (say) statistically-based approximation methods like Quantum
      Mechanics. "The computer is your fiend!"

      There _is_ a long-standing rivalry between the 'world-picture'
      approach to physics and cosmology (i.e. my preference, and
      Popper's); and the instrumentalist 'reified' mathematical approach.

      However, my basic thesis is identical to Heisenberg's statement:

     "Classical Mechanics is everywhere exatly 'right' wherever its
      concepts can be applied." -- Werner Heisenberg.

     I propose that this means _everywhere_. Classical Mechanics is the
     most self-consistent, the conceptually clearest, the strongest, the
     most coherent, the most extendable and the most adaptable Scientific
     Research Programme the world has ever seen. And one theory does it
     all. Why use anything else, is all. "Simplify! Simplify!"

     As a matter of fact, I think it's actually _true_. I've never read a
     convincing refutation of Classical Mechanics. Someone would have to
     disprove one or more of the axioms; or break the deductive chains. I
     don't think that's actually possible. Does anyonwe here think that
     geometry is _empirically decideable_? I.e. Euclid vs. Minkowski or
     Euclid vs. Riemann ? Do tell!!! >:-}

     Classical Mechanics is certainly exactly accurate to the present
     limits of measurement, AFAICS. It shows every prospect of extension
     without limit - it scales cleanly from cosmic down to the microworld.

     What more can anyone possibly ask for?

                      ----------- * * * * * -----------

     Max:

     On 'Frame Dragging.' Insofar as gravitational force is propagated
     radially as an intrinsic property of mass, and with a finite velocity
     of propagation, we would expect something like 'frame dragging' to
     occur. Different ways of interpreting the same data, is all.

             ------------------- * * * * * ---------------

     Anton:

     Electrons held in orbit by a balance of radial electric force against
     inertial mass are in a condition analogous to 'free fall' or 'curved
     space.' They're not accelerating in a way which causes emission of
     photons. The radial distance between the positive and negative
     charges is _constant_, except for the periodic frequency fluctuation
     as they wiggle round in closed sinewave paths at self-equilibrating
     integer frequencies (See Beckmann [1987] for a complete explanation).

     If they absorb or emit a photon, they increase or decrease in mass,
     and the orbit adjusts. If they change theior angular velocity, they
     take up different orbits. The model works perfectly. Bohr's basic
     [1913] model works by ad hoc postulates, whereby I offer physical
     mechanisms and hence physical explanations. That makes RM a superior
     theory! More content! What's the problem supposed to be?

     All this 'electrons spiralling into the nucleus' stuff -- that is a
     hangover from aether-drag theory. There's no point in quoting
     Maxwell at us -- Maxwell's theory has a (non-existent) aether to
     transmit forces, whereas RM has relational -- Faradayan -- aetherless
     forces. See Berkson's 'Fields of Force' on this crucial point (he
     was a postgrad student of Popper's at LSE, BTW).

         / /\ \
      --*--<Tony>--*--

      Tony Hollick, LightSmith

http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/la-agora (LA-Agora Conference)
http://www.agora.demon.co.uk (Agora Home Page, Rainbow Bridge Foundation)
http://www.nwb.net/nwc (NorthWest Coalition Against Malicious Harrassment)



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:08 MST