selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.0408182223.13cc9cbf@posting.google.com>...
> vktamhane12@rediffmail.com (V.K.Tamhane) wrote in message news:<9d62a326.0408152216.7082ef2d@posting.google.com>...
> > selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.0408140220.2005f522@posting.google.com>...
> > >      You have taken great efforts to prove the basic and fundamental
> > > > mechanisms and certainly differentiated between the two actions
> > > > responsible for the magnetic field based electromotive force.
> > > 
> > > Dear Mr Tamhane, how exactly you noted the connection between the
> > > mathematical and physical formalism in comprehension of deep
> > > underpinning of processes in nature. I from my side can only add that
> > > the mathematical formalism can be true even with some incorrect
> > > phenomenology. We see many examples in today physics based on the
> > > principle properly formulated by Feynman: "Philosophers try to tell of
> > > the nature without mathematics. I try to describe the nature
> > > mathematically".
> > 
> >       How can nature be described mathematiclly when by nature we mean
> > physical phenomena? This is something impossible. Concepts cannot be
> > outcome derived from mathematical equations. Maxwell did predict EM
> > wave but his mathematical treatment was based on solid foundation of
> > aether. When aether goes so also the wave. What you said is true that
> > without mathematical equations physics is incomplete. However
> > mechanism of the physical phenomenon is of primary importance and I
> > must say very difficult to come by.
> >            By calling those indulging in verbose logic philosophoers
> > and not physicists, Feynman is degrading improtance of concepts. No!
> > Excellent work can be done without mathematics. Faraday is an immortal
> > example.
> > 
> >          Rest of what you said, I snip because I fully agree with it.
> > Give me some time to get acquainted with your work. Thanks.
> 
> 
> Dear Mr Tamhane,
> 
> I fully agree with you, and first of all that Faraday is really
> perfect, immortal example of checked phenomenology and searching mind.
> In addition, I would like to recall Faraday's letter which he
> bequeathed to open in 100 years after his death and in which he was
> first who understood that the speed of light is finite. This does not
> disparage a least the merits of Maxwell and Hertz either of Eichenwald
> experiments, but it speaks of Faraday genius.

You have got to be kidding me !!!!!.

http://dibinst.mit.edu/BURNDY/OnlinePubs/Roemer/index.html




> I would like to mark that Maxwell, if we follow just Maxwell, also
> understood the versatile and complicated processes in EM field much
> deeper than is proposed now as a marc. The system of four equations is
> not Maxwellian. Different sources tell, Maxwell had 12 or 14
> equations. Four equations are just like "Saga of Foresights" in the
> last page of newspaper. And this is Hertz' or Heaviside's, but not
> Maxwell's. I am far from mind to belittle these scientists, but having
> shortened the general phenomenology, they shortened the meaning,
> pursuing the simplicity like in Newtonian equations. It worsened the
> situation that Maxwell, Hertz and Heaviside had available only
> conservation laws for stationary fields and had not any experience,
> how to work with delayed potentials. Should they have our conservation
> theorems for dynamic fields to which I referred you, Maxwell would not
> need to foresee the magnetoelectric induction law which completes the
> general systems of equations. He would simply derive this law as a
> corollary from the dynamic conservation theorem of circulation of
> vector. But the fact that he predicted, even without all other what
> Maxwell had done during his short life, makes him immortal. At the
> same time, prediction cannot fully solve the problems of
> phenomenology. The phenomenology is created as a symbiosis of physical
> and mathematical formalism. If we ground only on philosophy, it is too
> easy to slip into sophistry and philosophical fabrication. Operating
> with mere mathematics, it is impossible to catch the nut of effect and
> the way to improve the mathematical formalism. It is too easy to pass
> to manipulations with mathematical symbols and to vary the statement
> of problem, passing, just as in the first case, to a self-confident
> abstraction. But without mathematics we cannot build a harmonious
> conception. And just the fact that Maxwell had not a complete set of
> initial data to formulate the integral phenomenology has caused the
> complicacy and, finally, incompleteness of his conception. This was
> not his guilt, it was a circumstance that experimental physics and
> mathematical formalism of that time were not ready for solutions of
> such level.

Inaccurate to say the least.In Maxwell's era they were already faced
with the dilemma that these relativistic jokers say only  surfaced in
the early 20th century.Newton had already rejected the aether due to
the influence of Roemer's insight and fell back on the geometric
descriptions left by Kepler.The failure came later in attributing
aether back into the Newtonian agenda and the dilemma of having the
Sun attracting the Earth without an intermediary fluid while having
the Sun illuminate the Earth with a medium.



http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425

Maxwell would have known the arguments but who was going to challenge
Newton's legacy barely 100 years after Newton's  disciples carved out
an idealism which was more political than any seen before.






 And pity that many generations of scientists clearly saw
> the problems of this system of equations and obeyed Maxwell authority
> whose name this system bears, but they did not dare to enter this
> labyrinth. I met also here in the newsgroups the colleagues who lost
> the ability to think independently when approaching to the entrance to
> this labyrinth.
> This is the trouble of today physics that Relativity by Einstein and
> his followers has brought to physics not so much new conception (all
> their works are a patch-work quilt  of separate unfinished works by
> classical physicists) as the methodology to manipulate with
> mathematics. Not in vain Feynman whom I cited in his following
> lectures is surprised that, despite all bricks seem to be present, the
> result does not tally.

You all appear to watch the straws float by and not dive for the
pearls.Feynman has Roemer having confidence in Newton's gravitation
laws even though Roemer's insight has no gravitational elements and
was discovered decades before the Principia.It is like watching a
puppet show where  historical characters and their insights can be
moved like pushing equations around the page.



 Their so-called discoveries are such for one
> day, they fail after next experiments. And the problem is just that
> mathematical formalism has to strongly follow the phenomenology stated
> in the problem. If we have well studied phenomenology, the
> mathematical formalism enables us to improve many aspects of
> phenomenology and to operate with the help of tables, plots and
> numerical predictions. But the mathematical formalism is not able to
> exceed the limits of phenomenology, and if someone forced it, there
> comes to force a known rule of extrapolation: the farther from
> reliably checked results the lower reliability of prediction. To
> develop, we have to improve the phenomenology which would
> automatically improve the modelling equations and will allow us to
> find the solutions exceeding the limits of today phenomenology. This
> is the way as I see it - the only way of development which brings a
> real and long-lasting success.

This is just warmed over Bacon.Start with doubts,do experiments and
remove all the doubts and you are left with certainty,works for a
while but this is where Newton failed.Elliptical planetary motion
would be conditioned by a larger rotation of the solar system about
the Milky Way axis,Newton treated the solar system as an isolated
system and conditioned all planetary motion to the attraction of the
Sun and the influences of planets on each other.Unfortunately he
created the sidereal universe to frame it in and reviewing the 1844
text reaffirms this.They still think that day follows night because
the Sun rises when the Copernican insight is that the Earth rotates
out of its orbital shadow and you wonder why they found themselves in
a dilemma.




> As an example I would mention Newton's equations. If we work with
> small velocities, these equations give a complete and exact pattern of
> processes. In my discussions with colleagues I multiply encountered
> the attempts, so to say, to re-formulate or doubt Newtonian system in
> the domain where it is true. Vain attempts. It remains impeccable and
> closed as the mathematical formalism. But if we pass to high
> velocities, the action and counter-action become inequal - the basic
> principle on which the Newton's formalism is grounded is broken.

Making things go faster and imagining things would be different was a
desperate attempt to break the Newtonian mold,it would just be easier
to step up to galactic rotation and its axis  and determine that
influence on the solar system and planetary motion.Too late !,1923 and
the damage was done.



 This
> naturally changes the modelling equations and solutions. Lorentz
> understood it well, but due to definite circumstances he could not
> finally formulate it. While Einstein simply primitivised Lorentz
> equations and made so a bad service to physics. Some time we need to
> sort these things out. The more that the issues of magnetic field 
> nature and of gravitation lay in these heaps. We tend this direction,
> as possible.

No,much simpler than that and back to basics.Astronomers noted
retrograde motion of Mars as seen from Earth and remedied the
situation by using the Sun as a focal point to descriminate the
orbital motion of the Earth from the orbital motion of Mars,retrograde
motion being a product of comparative orbital motions rather than any
mean distance from the Sun.

As the sidereal format is a product of Flamsteed from 1677,the
previous astronomers would have used the Equation of Time correction
without any 'time' correspondence between Mars and the background
stars.Astronomers became cataloguers after Flamsteed which is partly
the reason no objection was raised to Newton's formulations based on
Roemer's actual use of the Equation of Time and Flamsteed's erroneous
stellar circumpolar/axial rotational equivalency.

http://www.astro.wisc.edu/astro104/Copernicus_Mars.gif






> On the other hand, as I already said, the phenomenological conception
> without mathematics is doomed. We can recall Descartes. He formulated
> all laws of dynamics "on his fingers", before Newton! But he had not a
> trifle - he did not know the infinitesimals, though we cannot think
> him mathematically ignorant, can we? ;-) And Newton would not succeed
> to write his Principia, if not the conception of infinitesimals which
> he had due to his teacher. The matter is, the outcome to some new
> phenomenology is always caused by the developed new class of modelled
> equations. Having these equations unsolved, it is difficult, or rather
> impossible to correct our penetration into the unknown area. See,
> Faraday with all his genius carried out his experiments with unipolar
> motor - one step to a generator! - but he has not this step done,
> because all his work was "on fingers". Mathematics did not follow his
> phenomenology, and he was unable to make an advanced prediction.

Do experiments all you wish but foisting them on celestial observation
as predictions without taking into account how rotations generate
illusions is quite a feat,it is just chanting the same mantra as the
supposed opposition.Mathematics in the wrong hands burns all ahead of
it and nobody but nobody will ever say otherwise even when it is
advantageous to leave astronomical concerns aside.You have cataloguers
who call themselves astronomers when their association is more akin to
astrology with its attendent celestial sphere structure and the
constellations which are a product of men's imagination,basically
image collectors for theorists and I have to watch as the great
astronomers and their insights  are dragged into the mess.


 And
> when Maxwell developed his mathematics, though complicated and
> imperfect but allowing to calculate, it started the time of great
> technological discoveries. And we can illustrate this connection
> between the phenomenology and mathematical formalism by many facts
> from the history of physics. So I am saying namely of symbiosis, and
> in no case of chaotic turns of physics and mathematics. Such
> "sequence" can create only monsters. The phenomenology and first basic
> corroborating experiments have to precede. Then mathematical modelling
> and new experiments have to be done, which with numerical
> characteristics will corroborate this model correct and in this way
> open the way for further development of phenomenology. Such is the way
> which we see and our experience says it is successful.
> 
> I would be interesting to hear your opinion.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Sergey

I reason that if no astronomer was present in Newton's era to correct
the manner in which Newton formatted his gravitational agenda by
unauthorised use of two incompatible astronomical  views,I have no
reason to believe that it could be achieved in the present
climate.Astronomers previous to Flamsteed calculated orbits of planets
against the motion of the Earth,after Flamsteed it amounted to
calculating them against the background stars with Newton fudging as
much as possible by way of combining Roemer and Kepler seperate but
overlaping insights.