Craig Dilworth

Mr Skeptic: There are practially infinite resources in space, but we have to acquire them. And this demands more energy than the extraterrestrial resources would provide. So it's a losing game. (Like exploring for and pumping up oil when the total amount of energy required to do so is more than that provided by the oil pumped up.) I see no practical possibility of supporting human life other than on earth. (E.g. just think of the energy required per person to transport people into space.) Experiments done with isolated human habitats on earth (containing eight people or so) confirm this. The people occupying the habitat in question can't survive without terrestrial energy provided from outside. When the energy required for constructing solar panels/cells and transporting them to users is taken into account, more energy is consumed than produced - never mind what would be the case if they had to be transported into space. And the materials that go into making them are all finite, which means that solar power wouldn't be a sustainable alternative in any case. (You might look at Craig Dilworth, Too Smart for Our Own Good.) Best wishes, Quark

Swansontea, I’m afraid I’ve given you the wrong impression. I just happened across Science Forums yesterday and saw it as an opportunity to answer questions I need answered for a work I’m doing on the foundations of physics. I’ve tried to answer these question by googling on them, but so far without success (though I have succeeded in getting many other questions answered through Google). But I could go more into the details behind each question, explaining why they've arisen. My background is not that of a physicist, but a philosopher of science, though I have also done work in human ecology. Just now I am devoting my efforts to the foundations of physics, which means going back to the work of Römer, Newton, Huygens on up to Maxwell, Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Bohm, Bell and all the rest. If you know a ‘real’ physicist with an interest in these sorts of questions, you might mention me to him. Thanks! I’ll attach my ongoing work on the topic so you can see what I’m up to. It's not a short-term thing. I plan to devote the rest of my life to it. Best wishes, Craig Dear Mr Skeptic, This is a small number of questions compared to the number I have had. I thought I'd make them simple to start with, and then develop them more if I were to receive any replies. I assure you they constitute only the tip of the iceberg, the rest of the iceberg consisting of questions I have been able to answer through Google or Wiki. This is all in connection with a work I'm doing on the foundations of physics. I can send you my work in progress if you're interested. My background is that of a philosopher of science, a subject in which I've published a number of books. (Google me!) Thanks for taking the time to reply! Best wishes, Craig (Dilworth) Dilworth - Foundations of Physics.doc

This is not a homework problem and I'm not just curious. It got transferred from classical physics to homework by someone who obviously thought it was homework. I am investigating the foundations of modern physics, and this is one of the many questions I need an answer to. While I'm something of a neophyte in physics, I have a PhD in philosophy and have published a number of books in the philosophy of science. Craig

According to the vicious circle principle (VCP) the evolution of humans generally, and the development of Homo sapiens in particular, differ from what is the case for other species in that we are the only species to develop technology. Paradagmatically this development occurs in a situation of scarcity, and turns that situation into one of surplus. This surplus allows the human population to grow until it runs into the problem of scarcity again. And then, in certain cases, a new form of technology is invented/discovered, and the scarcity is once again transformed into a surplus, with subsequent population growth. And so on. This explains, among other things, why the human population has constantly grown, while the populations of all other species vacillate about a mean. Note that this is not to say that every instance of scarcity is overcome in this way. All that is necessary for the vicious circle to turn is that every now and then a technical/technological solution be found. Given the objective nature of technology, its use can and does then spread to other populations experiencing the same or similar situations of scarcity. Some examples: Between 25 and 12 thousand years ago we Homo sapiens used the relatively newly invented javelin to hunt large mammals. When the number of large mammals began to diminish (many becoming extinct due to our hunting prowess), we invented the bow and arrow, which supplied more meat (at least when it was introduced), overcoming the scarcity problem and allowing the population to grow. When, among other things, the growing population reduced the quantity of available game, we turned to a new technology, horticulture, which overcame the deficit and provided a surplus that allowed a huge increase in our population. And so on to the plough, metal tools, and technologies allowing us to master the energy in coal, oil and natural gas. Unfortunately this story doesn't have a happy ending, for every instance of our technological progress, particularly when we started using non-renewable resources about 6000 years ago, has meant a further diminution it the resources left which might be exploited by new technology. In fact it would definitely appear that at the present point in history we are arriving at, if we haven't just recently passed, the maximum our technology can extract from the environment, and the next situation of scarcity that arises will be global and beyond what technology can ameliorate. The result will be massive human dieoff resulting, in the worst of cases, in the extinction of our species.

What is the difference between field momentum and light pressure? Can both be equally well conceived independently of whether one adopts a wave or particle view?

What is the essence of Lorentz' electron theory? I know it presupposes a wave view (à la Maxwell), but, for example, does it conceive of electrons as particulate?

What is the difference between a magnetic and an electromagnetic field?

What is the difference between the (Biot-Savart) electromotive force and Maxwell's dialectric current?

Is the acceptance of the conservation of charge based on experiment? If so, which?

What is Walther Ritz' force formula, and what is the essential difference between it and Newton's, or Maxwell's?

How is polarisation depicted on a particle theory? Craig

What is the most basic way of determining a medium's refractive index, and what does that method presuppose (e.g. a wave theory)?

When was a method for determining electromagnetic wavelength first employed, and what did it presuppose? How is it referred to on a particle theory? Craig

I'm wondering if anyone can help me with the distinction between first-order and second-order experiments. Does it come down to the question of the relevance or not of quadratic equations? Craig