Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Posted March 25, 2008 Perpendicular how? There's more than one way to be perpendicular. Yep, but all these ways were found experimentally. The Maxwell's equations are just an formal regression of this fact. They doesn't explain, why they're working by their way. You don't know, why the magnetic field is phase shifted from the electrostatical one. You just have the equation, which is describing it. If you interpolate few point by curve, u will obtain a regression function. But this curve doesn't say about the way, these point are working. At the case of Maxwell's equation the punishment is obvious: you cannot explain the quantum phenomena or spin by such way. So you should choose the different model. How are they mathematically different? You should ask, how they're differing physically. Because what are you measuring is not math, but physical reality.
Klaynos Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 You should ask, how they're differing physically. Because what are you measuring is not math, but physical reality. Well actually no. What you measure is some mathematical output from your detector. Which itself is a function of the physical reality. So no you don't measure things physically you measure them mathematically and then you use your mathematical theories to look at the physical implications of this and make predictions from that.
ydoaPs Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 You should ask, how they're differing physically. Because what are you measuring is not math, but physical reality. Math IS how they are different in reality! Like our previous example, you just said they were perpendicular with NO direction furthermore. The equations I gave told EXACTLY how they relate. Mathematics is the beautiful language in which we describe the universe.
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Posted March 25, 2008 What you measure is some mathematical output from your detector.. Nope, what you're measuring is always some physical artifact or phenomena. You boys are completely mathematized. While I'm pretty sure, you cannot explain anything real by your math, in fact. The situation is very simple, though. In inertial environment we can have a two kinds of waves: the longitudinal and the transversal one. If the wave spreading is longitudinal, then the Aether environment would behave like gas, and the MM-experiment will be positive. If the waves will remain transversal, then the result of MM-experiment will remain always negative. Both environments are real and we can met with them in Nature.
ajb Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 Nope, what you're measuring is always some physical artifact or phenomena. You boys are completelly mathematized. While I'm pretty sure, you cannot explain anything real by your math, in fact. Come on. You don't mean that. I am sure Klaynos and the others can calculate many things that can be observed.
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Posted March 25, 2008 I am sure Klaynos and the others can calculate many things that can be observed. Calculate maybe, but to explain? You guys are all scrambled. From the Ptolemy's times we are all knowing, to compute something doesn't mean, we're understanding the subject. You're just filling variables in regression curves of different complexity, that's all. Can you explain by your math, why just the longitudinal model of Aether wave spreadin was considered in interpretation of MM-experiment, if we KNOW, the Maxwell's model was derived for transversal wave spreading?
ydoaPs Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 While I'm pretty sure, you cannot explain anything real by your math, in fact. Yea, we can't use an abstraction of the universe to successfully describe the universe. You caught us. If the wave spreading is longitudinal, then the Aether environment would behave like gas, and the MM-experiment will be positive. If the waves will remain transversal, then the result of MM-experiment will remain always negative.Why? Can you model this?
Klaynos Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 Pretty words don't mean anything, I can say it's just little gnomes doing it all... it doesn't make it true!
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Posted March 25, 2008 .. it doesn't make it true!.. I can say as well, the math coincidence doesn't says, whether the Earth is revolving the Sun or vice versa, because we have a perfect math model for both situations.
Klaynos Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 But we don't, there is other evidence and things you are ignoring from the maths.
ajb Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 Physics is a mix of calculation and explanation. But the explanations in "words" must reflect the mathematical frame work you use. Physical interpretation is in my opinion secondary. The aim of physics is to ultimately make calculations of things that we can measure. Sometimes, the interpretation can be helpful in that but generally it is not. This I think is most true of quantum physics and general relativity. It can even be misleading, unless you know the corresponding mathematical statements. This is one of the big pitfalls of "popular science" books. My work (so far) has not concentrated on doing such calculations. (phenomenology is the name given to this in high energy physics). I work mostly on studying the mathematical frame works needed in physics and their generalisations. So, most of my work does not resemble physics as you know it.
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Posted March 25, 2008 ..Why? Can you model this? You don't know, how the constant speed of light follows from Maxwell's equations? You don't know, how the Maxwell's equations were derived from transversal model of polarizable Hertz waves? So what all this math is good for? It's just you, who is ignoring the math, not me.
ydoaPs Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 What causes P to loop? Our maths do tell us that the second is wrong. [math]F=G\frac{Mm}{r^2}[/math] You don't know, how the constant speed of light follows from Maxwell's equations? You don't know, how the Maxwell's equations were derived from transversal model of polarizable Hertz waves? So what all this math is good for? It's just you, who is ignoring the math, not me. Oh, so now you want to switch sides?
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Posted March 25, 2008 ..Our maths do tell us that the second is wrong. ... The math tell us, when Aether will use the transversal waves for energy spreading, then the Lorentz invariance follows from this model by simple way. So that the MM-experiment, which has confirmed the Lorentz invariance leads to the transversal model of light, not the refusal of Ather. And this is the end of the whole story. Oh, so now you want to switch sides?Nope, you're just heavily scrambled and don't understand both the underlying physics, both the math models, which were used in derivations Maxwell's Aether theory of light. It's not so big problem, because many Aetherists were scrambled as well. The Maxwell didn't realize, the energy density of light isn't sufficient for violation of constant speed of light. He didn't know about X-ray, the gamma rays the less. But as somebody have spoken previously, today is different physics. And nothing prohibits us to understand whole these apparent paradoxes perfectly. But you should become familiar with AWT model. You can develop it's formal model if you want, but for comprehension of contemporary physics you'll need to understand it deeper, then the pure math enables.
ydoaPs Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 Nope, you're just heavilly scrambled and don't understand both the underlying physics, both the math models, which were used in Maxwell's Aether theory of light. Oh? Go on. He're how it looked to me: You made a statement for which I asked you to model in words. Then you start talking about how I don't know maths. From a point of view other than yours, it looks like you went from not needing maths to relying on them. Now, conceptually, how do you explain what I wanted you to explain?
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Posted March 25, 2008 ..you made a statement for which I asked you to model in words... You told me, the MM-experiment has refused the Aether concept, isn't it true?
ydoaPs Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 You told me, the MM-experiment has refused the Aether concept, is it true? I said that? Looks like a time for a quote.
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Posted March 25, 2008 I said that? Looks like a time for a quote. If not, why did you said, "now you want to switch sides"? If we would think by logical way, we could reveal the vacuum structure before many years. If the Aether is spreading the waves of high energy density, it means, it must be even much more dense, then the energy density corresponding the shortest wavelength of gamma radiation. And such environment should spread this light in transversal waves all the time to maintain Lorentz invariance. Here exist the only one material structure, which is able to fulfill both these requirements at the same moment.
ydoaPs Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 If not, why did you said, "now you want to switch sides"? You went from talking about how maths don't model anything to talking about equations when I asked how you would model in words why the different waves would behave differently.
swansont Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 Moved to speculations. Sorry if any active responses got munged when I did so.
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Posted March 25, 2008 Moved to speculations. Sorry if any active responses got munged when I did so. No problem, every theory is speculation by its very definition. ..I asked how you would model in words why the different waves would behave differently... You should know that, this is classical physics. The above animation explains it clearly - it illustrates the evolution of Aether gradients with density. The energy is spreading between black dots of due the principle of least action. I.e. by along shortest path available.
ajb Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 No problem, every theory is speculation by its very definition. Not quite how I would have put it.
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Posted March 25, 2008 Not quite how I would have put it. By Popper's methodology of science the scientific theory can be only disproved, not confirmed. Therefore it's a speculation, i.e. the subject of belief.
Recommended Posts