Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

On frames of reference

Expand Messages
  • c.h.thompson
    Dear Jack and everyone ... That s the kind of question you just have to make the most reasonable decision on! My physics is all concerned at root with what
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 1, 2001
      Dear Jack and everyone

      > > I was trained as mathematician, and use the ordinary mathematical ideas
      > > of ideas of length and time as if these are both absolute parameters.
      >
      > There's a problem with this notion. Say you walk into a room and
      > it seems to be growing. I.e., all lengths in the room remain
      > constant with respect to all the other lengths making up the room, but
      > to you the lengths of the room appear to be growing. The question
      > is, is the room growing or are you shrinking.

      That's the kind of question you just have to make the "most reasonable"
      decision on!

      My physics is all concerned at root with what happens on our own scale, with
      the ambition to extend it to a scale where I can help explain how
      semiconductors really work, how photosynthesis really works, etc.. The
      idea is that other more practical people can use my way of seeing things as
      a framework when they try and find new cleaner and renewable sources of
      energy etc.. Also, I very much want to save future generations of physics
      students from having to twist their minds around Einstein's notions, which
      are largely wrong or irrelevant.

      > Then consider that all you need to define a ruler are two distinguishable
      > points. There are some interesting consequences to this line of
      reasoning.

      To me this seems a problem for philosophers, not physicists.

      > > I think that there is no problem with time, which really can be
      > > defined as absolute apart from scale
      > > and origin. Space is only a little more difficult. I think there is
      > > always a preferred frame, relevant to the study in question. It is
      > > not always obvious what this frame is, though.
      >
      > The choice is IMO, arbitrary. But some choices make the math and
      > reasoning simpler. The preference, I think is ours, rather than natures.

      Agreed.

      > > Despite the fact that aether may be
      > > drifting across a set of "particles", this may not be the best
      > > frame to work in. All this means is that you have to think
      > > about it and allow for motion of the aether.
      >
      > How are particles and the aether different?

      See my phi-waves paper (there's a link from the front page of my site). The
      particles are wave centres or groups of them. They are formed of aether,
      which can either flow right through them or move with them. I think it
      probably only moves with them to any significant extent when they are part
      of a large body. Quite how large remains to be discovered.

      Dayton Miller's experiments seem to tell us that a temperature-controlled
      container is likely to screen out most of the aether wind. My
      interpretation is that the wind has gradually been brought to a halt by
      interactions with phi-waves. Where this has the effect of pushing the
      phi-wave amplitudes up beyond a threshold, you could find extra wave centres
      being formed, i.e. the wind could be converted to a very weak "electric
      current".

      Cheers
      Caroline

      c.h.thompson@...
      http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat
    • Jack Martinelli
      ... From: c.h.thompson To: Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 1:08 AM Subject:
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 1, 2001
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "c.h.thompson" <c.h.thompson@...>
        To: <forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 1:08 AM
        Subject: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] On frames of reference


        > Dear Jack and everyone
        >
        > > > I was trained as mathematician, and use the ordinary mathematical
        ideas
        > > > of ideas of length and time as if these are both absolute parameters.
        > >
        > > There's a problem with this notion. Say you walk into a room and
        > > it seems to be growing. I.e., all lengths in the room remain
        > > constant with respect to all the other lengths making up the room, but
        > > to you the lengths of the room appear to be growing. The question
        > > is, is the room growing or are you shrinking.
        >
        > That's the kind of question you just have to make the "most reasonable"
        > decision on!

        ... kind of. (Both perspectives are actually correct.)

        What I realized is that the volume of our universe is mostly space and
        possibly exotic matter. Consequently a more general approach to physics
        might be to consider other kinds of rulers and clocks. I.e., treat these
        as abstractions.

        This is quite different from "traditional" math. Consider a model for a
        measured length. You can express measured length as:

        (measured length) = (target length)/(reference length)

        to get a magnitude or you can express this as a product as well:

        (measured length)*(reference length) = (target length)

        The left hand side is the more general. The right side is the length
        referred to in elementary geometry.

        And here's my nifty little animation: http://www.martinelli.org/ruler

        > My physics is all concerned at root with what happens on our own scale,
        with
        > the ambition to extend it to a scale where I can help explain how
        > semiconductors really work, how photosynthesis really works, etc..

        (I hope you don't mind if I critique you a little?)

        I'm dubious that this will help us understand -- our scale of things isn't
        nature's root. When you try to explain phenomena this way you run
        into questions about your system boundaries. These boundaries
        are conveniences to help explain, but this assumes that you fully
        understand the limitations of your boundaries and can work just as
        well without them. I.e., our scale of things can be used as training
        wheels that can later be dropped.

        There's a physics parable (I'm sure you've heard it) about six blind men
        and an elephant. Each tries to describe the elephant from their
        perspective,
        which of course comes from their experience. We are those blind men
        when it comes to micro-physics. We simply don't have the same kind
        of sensory experience at the atomic-level that we have at the macro-level.
        Some micro-phenomena may seem familiar to us -- comparable to everyday
        experience. But, can we conclude that micro-scale behaviors are best
        described using our macro-scale experiences?

        >The
        > idea is that other more practical people can use my way of seeing things
        as
        > a framework when they try and find new cleaner and renewable sources of
        > energy etc.. Also, I very much want to save future generations of physics
        > students from having to twist their minds around Einstein's notions, which
        > are largely wrong or irrelevant.

        Interesting... which notions of Einstein's are wrong?

        >
        > > Then consider that all you need to define a ruler are two
        distinguishable
        > > points. There are some interesting consequences to this line of
        > reasoning.
        >
        > To me this seems a problem for philosophers, not physicists.

        Well, how about this. If I choose two electrons to define the end-points
        of my ruler, then with respect to this ruler, is the speed of light
        constant?

        > > How are particles and the aether different?
        >
        > See my phi-waves paper (there's a link from the front page of my site).
        The
        > particles are wave centres or groups of them. They are formed of aether,
        > which can either flow right through them or move with them. I think it
        > probably only moves with them to any significant extent when they are part
        > of a large body. Quite how large remains to be discovered.

        Here's a question for you. How is it that a wave propagates?


        Regards

        Jack Martinelli

        http://www.martinelli.org
      • Adrian
        Dear Caroline, Adrian has all along been talking what you call frames of reference as Kepler s xyz grid with time entrant as Art of Memory devices which are
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 1, 2001
          Dear Caroline,

          Adrian has all along been talking what you call frames of reference as
          Kepler's xyz grid with time entrant as Art of Memory devices which are world
          models which do this mythic and symbolic fashion. It's written up as a paper
          on Karl Jaspers Forum. and a book "The glue and solvent of the Universe". As
          he worked out from myth one has it as;

          1: Let the world equal an Infinite Point,
          since it has no scale it can be anything from large to small. So to make a
          yardstick one declares it as small, as did Euclid too and not Pythagoras and
          which Democrius picked up on as the atom, and
          2: Let there be an infinity of such points.

          All we need now is a sacred geometry device, written up how to do in other
          books, made as follows. From pre-dawn heliacal sightings of locally relevant
          stars and planets one draws a circle and reverse half circle a "flower" on
          this and then contruct a square by Fibonacci proportions such that the
          square, by fractions 7 to 11 number base, equals the circle. By judiciously
          picking where certain lines cross one drops perpendiculars to a base line to
          devise any kind of yardstick whether it is yards, meters or wersts, now
          commensurate to a grand circle as the path of the sun such that a given
          length of time equals a given trace on the surface of the earth, which,
          because the earth is not a circle, will vary locally for distance, hence the
          variety of early measuring systems. BUT the method of construction is
          everywhere the same. I'll ignore here how one makes weight commensurate too.

          From this abstraction one takes a yardstick and declare that.

          3: for any given and uniform unit let it contain a same number of IPs.

          Now we can treat the world in both symbolic and numerical fashion but the
          snag is, inversely for circle to earth, that reality does not use uniform
          units, hence we get a variety of calendars to make that awkwardness
          disappear, by way of fractions, and of which it turned out the South
          American one is the more accurate..

          IN order to attain to a calendar one uses that Highest Common factor to
          Lowest common denominator trick which comes out as the Niniveh Constant
          Murice Chatelaine found to be 195,995,200,000,000 and into which one can
          park every planetary orbit in whole numbers by way of the second. From a
          minor error Maurice Chatelaine, deduced this was done in 84,000 BCE as the
          only time such an error could not have been detected. It's in "Our ancestors
          came from outer Space" Pan, chapter 1. Since he contributed several patents
          to the Nasa space jump he cannot be quite lunatic. And besides the numbers
          fit.

          So now we have a calendar system too, all which needed to start farming. The
          strange obsession to find out what it IS< arrived from Aristotle's Logic
          which takes A = B as a full identity when words came to be the main item on
          the menu which happened somewhere in the mid 2nd millenium BCE in the Middle
          East, most likely Egypt. Things can only be "absolute" when imagined as
          *perfect# and we are now finding out that our perfected method does not
          quite match how reality runs the show. The basic symbols of this Cross of
          Sacrifice as it was once called in epistemological mode are

          EMpathy to "identify and an-identify" symbols with parts of the universe .
          ANAlysis to make maps and pathways for events
          SYNthesis by way of beliefs, embedded in myths

          I won't bother you with the other assignations but its four corners of the
          universe are found as

          UNiversal, for the gleam in the eye of the beholder, as that A seems like a
          B
          Symbol, let's say it could be a B
          Metaphor and play around with whether that might work as a juggle fit.
          Simile By Jove it works so A = B and be done with it. as for the literal
          fact.

          I mean if we start from the ground up lets start there with nothing or 0 as
          the Orphic world egg.. I've also just posted a comment on KJF to show that
          archaic man could veryw ell think abstractly, still to be posted out.
          There's a lot more to it all but this is one basic angle on it. It might
          give you some fresh notions for looking at stone age drawings too as: How
          does one pour the universe into a pattern? Note that abstraction here equals
          "Idealised as" which changed into axiomatics..

          Adrian.

          > Dear Jack and everyone
          >
          > > > I was trained as mathematician,
        • c.h.thompson
          Dear Jack ... Not at all, but if you d just read a bit further you d know better the kind of understanding I m aiming at! It is a constructive kind. I want
          Message 4 of 6 , Feb 1, 2001
            Dear Jack

            > > My physics is all concerned at root with what happens on our
            > > own scale, with the ambition to extend it to a scale where I
            > > can help explain how semiconductors really work, how
            > > photosynthesis really works, etc..
            >
            > (I hope you don't mind if I critique you a little?)

            Not at all, but if you'd just read a bit further you'd know better the kind
            of "understanding" I'm aiming at! It is a constructive kind. I want to
            understand sufficiently to be able to hope to approach the problem of
            convering sunlight into energy in the most intelligent manner we can manage.
            Quantum theory has long outlived its usefulness in this kind of area.
            People play lip service to it and garnish their paper with sufficient
            "Hamiltonians" etc to get past the referees but ...

            > I'm dubious that this will help us understand -- our scale of things isn't
            > nature's root. When you try to explain phenomena this way you run
            > into questions about your system boundaries.

            I've tried to set my boundary just half a level below that of classical
            electromagnetism. I think that Maxwell's idea of "light" was unnecessarily
            complicated. By looking at the level just a tiny bit below that we can
            construct a simpler model.

            > >The idea is that other more practical people can use my way of
            > > seeing things as a framework when they try and find new cleaner
            > > and renewable sources of energy etc.. Also, I very much want
            > > to save future generations of physics students from having to
            > > twist their minds around Einstein's notions, which
            > > are largely wrong or irrelevant.
            >
            > Interesting... which notions of Einstein's are wrong?

            A great number of them! General and Special relativity for a start. The
            idea of the photon. Perhaps that's about it, but it's enough.

            He freely distorted facts in order to make them fit his theories.

            GR: He dismissed arguments such as Paul Gerber's of 1898 that gave
            alternative classical explanations for the change in perihelion of Mercury.

            SR: (1) He failed to understand (or actively disregarded?) Miller's proof
            that there was an aether wind. (See a paper I've just put on my site,
            written for the popular press:
            http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/Papers/Miller40.htm )
            (2) He swept Sagnac's experiments under the carpet.

            The Photon:
            He swept away all the successful classical theory of light just in order to
            follow a mathematical whim! Planck never wanted the photon. Neils Bohr was
            dead against it for several years. Einstein never realised it but the
            photon was in fact the root cause of many of quantum theory's "conceptual
            diffculties". SOME kinds of radiation MAY be emitted in discrete units,
            but not all, and when it has left the source it is doubtful if any kind of
            radiation remains in the same discrete packets.

            > > > Then consider that all you need to define a ruler are two
            > > > distinguishable points. There are some interesting
            > > > consequences to this line of reasoning.
            > >
            > > To me this seems a problem for philosophers, not physicists.
            >
            > Well, how about this. If I choose two electrons to define the end-points
            > of my ruler, then with respect to this ruler, is the speed of light
            > constant?

            How on earth could you get two electrons to stay still? How could you hope
            to know what the speed of light was -- it would depend on the motion and
            effective density of the aether.

            > Here's a question for you. How is it that a wave propagates?

            If you take a piece of string, the method of propagation, whether of
            transverse of longitudinal waves, is quite well understood. If you take a
            gas, it is similarly understood. You just apply known laws (though I would
            not be so sure there is not a little cheating going on!). If you take my
            phi-waves, though, the mechanism is unknown. I take the fact of their
            progation as given.

            Cheers
            Caroline
          • Jack Martinelli
            ... Mercury. Does Gerber s paper present any notion of light bending, time slowing or gravitational red-shift? ... end-points ... The practical problem of
            Message 5 of 6 , Feb 5, 2001
              > > Interesting... which notions of Einstein's are wrong?
              >
              > A great number of them! General and Special relativity for a start. The
              > idea of the photon. Perhaps that's about it, but it's enough.
              >
              > He freely distorted facts in order to make them fit his theories.
              >
              > GR: He dismissed arguments such as Paul Gerber's of 1898 that gave
              > alternative classical explanations for the change in perihelion of
              Mercury.

              Does Gerber's paper present any notion of light bending, time slowing or
              gravitational red-shift?

              > > > To me this seems a problem for philosophers, not physicists.
              > >
              > > Well, how about this. If I choose two electrons to define the
              end-points
              > > of my ruler, then with respect to this ruler, is the speed of light
              > > constant?
              >
              > How on earth could you get two electrons to stay still?

              The practical problem of using electrons as the endpoints of a ruler is a
              also a technical one. (And a distraction.) The point is that a ruler is
              line-like,
              something bound by two points. The question is, how do you decide
              (or should you), which two points in the universe define your ruler.

              > How could you hope
              > to know what the speed of light was -- it would depend on the motion and
              > effective density of the aether.

              How do you know if anything is in motion? (or not?!)

              > > Here's a question for you. How is it that a wave propagates?
              >
              > If you take a piece of string, the method of propagation, whether of
              > transverse of longitudinal waves, is quite well understood.

              And this is understood in terms of ...?

              > If you take a
              > gas, it is similarly understood. You just apply known laws (though I
              would
              > not be so sure there is not a little cheating going on!).

              Yes, most physicists know that the "laws" of physics are not known.

              > If you take my
              > phi-waves, though, the mechanism is unknown. I take the fact of their
              > progation as given.

              Lots -- probably most -- people accept this as a given. But, if you
              understood
              this and could clearly explain it you could awaken quite a few sleepy heads.

              Regards

              Jack Martinelli

              http://www.martinelli.org
            • c.h.thompson
              ... So far as I know, all it assumes is that gravity travels at speed c. I don t think the other matters come into the problem (the perihelion changes of
              Message 6 of 6 , Feb 5, 2001
                Re Einstein's GR:
                > Does Gerber's paper present any notion of light bending, time slowing or
                > gravitational red-shift?

                So far as I know, all it assumes is that gravity travels at speed c. I
                don't think the other matters come into the problem (the perihelion changes
                of Mercury).

                But that, of course, was one of Einstein's very worst errors, the idea that
                time slowed! Clocks may well run slow in certain conditions (though it is
                pretty certain that they will not obey Einstein's rule as it will all depend
                on their mechanism. It is quite obvious that a pendulum will behave
                differently from an atomic clock, for instance.)

                > The practical problem of using electrons as the endpoints of a ruler is a
                > also a technical one. (And a distraction.) The point is that a ruler is
                > line-like,
                > something bound by two points. The question is, how do you decide
                > (or should you), which two points in the universe define your ruler.

                I don't! I'm interested in constructing a realistic picture of the
                quantum-level world. It does not matter to me how I might in theory measure
                it. In practice no measurements whatsoever are possible.

                > How do you know if anything is in motion? (or not?!)

                You don't, but you usually know something that is sufficient for the problem
                in question. Where diffculties arise is when you try and generalise. Real
                problems only require you to know relative motion. A lot of them only
                require the relative motion of objects that are about to collide and so are
                in the same location. Instead of asking how I know if ANYTHING is in
                motion, ask me some specific question and let's see if there's a problem.

                > > > Here's a question for you. How is it that a wave propagates?
                > >
                > > If you take a piece of string, the method of propagation, whether of
                > > transverse of longitudinal waves, is quite well understood.
                >
                > And this is understood in terms of ...?

                See the text books! It's all to do with elastic forces and inertia and the
                oscillations of the individual elements into which you divide the thing. I
                can't remember the details. The speed of the wave seems to drop out of the
                calculations by magic!

                > > If you take my phi-waves, though, the mechanism is
                > > unknown. I take the fact of their propagation as given.
                >
                > Lots -- probably most -- people accept this as a given.
                > But, if you understood this and could clearly explain it
                > you could awaken quite a few sleepy heads.

                I've already spent enough sleepless nights, thank you! I've spent much time
                pondering on the details of how the aether works and this, as many before me
                have found to their cost, is exhausting and (in all cases to date?) futile.
                It is only when I actively decided to abandon this quest that I suddenly
                seemed to make progress. Perhaps when I've catalogued how all the phenomena
                of modern technology work in terms of phi-waves it will become obvious what
                the next layer down is like ...

                Cheers
                Caroline
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.