Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!ccsf.homeunix.org!news1.wakwak.com!nf1.xephion.ne.jp!onion.ish.org!news.heimat.gr.jp!taurus!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!postnews2.google.com!not-for-mail From: selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,fj.sci.matter Subject: Re: Maxwell's and Faraday's formulations of induction Date: 25 Aug 2004 10:30:35 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 242 Message-ID: References: <9d62a326.0407170443.5990dad7@posting.google.com> <9d62a326.0408100051.37a3eca4@posting.google.com> <9d62a326.0408152216.7082ef2d@posting.google.com> <273f8e06.0408190539.72e3a268@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.35.170.247 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1093455036 28460 127.0.0.1 (25 Aug 2004 17:30:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:30:36 +0000 (UTC) Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.sci.matter:222 Dear Oriel, I could not kid you, because you just came to this thread and responded to my post addressed to V.K. Tamhane. ;-) As to Faraday's prediction I would mention, Mr Tamhane and me analysed some aspects of electromagnetism. Knowing so well Roemer and the time of his discoveries, you surely know, no electromagnetic nature of light was known then. << Before Maxwell, electromagnetic phenomena were reduced to the elementary laws constructed after the example of Newtonian law of gravitation. In accordance with these laws, the interaction of electric charges, magnetic masses, elementary currents and so on has a long-range pattern taking no time to propagate in space >> [A. Einstein. On the contemporary situation of gravitational problem. 1913; I am citing in reverse translation from Russian]. While Faraday's letter of 1832 was kept at Royal Society, it was opened in 1938 and contained the following text: << I came to conclusion that magnetic interaction takes time for its propagation, which, probably, will appear quite negligible. I believe also that electromagnetic induction propagates exactly in the same way. I believe that propagation of magnetic forces from magnetic pole is like a vibration of excited water surface. ... By the analogy, I think possible to apply the vibration theory to the electric induction propagation. >> This prediction does not a least belittle the importance of Maxwell's discoveries, the more that he fully based on works by Faraday and Cavendish and did not know the text of this message, except only he could find the draft of this message when reading Faraday's manuscripts, or drew his attention that Faraday mentioned electric wave in his texts. But the fact that Maxwell has made correct conclusions from this mentioning speaks much. Judging by discussions in these newsgroups, many today colleagues are unable to understand not only prompts but complete and direct proofs. ;-) The same as to my statement that Maxwell had an incomplete set of input data. Should you read attentively this thread before you objected, you would see, I spoke that Maxwell had to use the laws for stationary fields when constructed his system of equations for dynamic field. The aether is a separate issue. But if you want to discuss just the aether, you would better begin with the fact that Newton did not reject the aether. Read his "Principia" more attentively. In particular: << Now we should add something about a thinnest aether which penetrates through all rough bodies and is contained in them, by whose force and action the particles of bodies with rather small distances are mutually attracted and clutch when touched, electrisised bodies act at large distances, both attracting and repelling the near small bodies, the light is emitted, reflected, refracted, deviated, it heats bodies, every feeling is excited and makes organs of an animal moving after his willing, transmitting just by way of vibrations from the exterior organs of feeling to the brain and from the brain to muscles. But this cannot be described in short, as well as we have not a sufficient stock of experiments with whose help the laws of action of this aether would be exactly defined and shoved >> [Principia, in Krylov's translation, p. 592 in Russian edition]. Thus, Newton did not reject the aether as a substance, but he had grounds to doubt such specific conceptions of the aether as Descartes' vortex theory or theory of liquid aether. And this is basically important for understanding the essence of processes, how our ideas of natural processes develop. In this connection, the failure could not come "later in attributing aether back into the Newtonian agenda", as the aether never left this agenda. Even Einstein, having rejected the aether when formulated the SR postulates, came back to the aether conception in GR, and not without reasons. ;-) << Actually, if generally the energy is passed from one body to another not momentarily but it takes some finite time, then there has to exist a medium in which it temporarily exists, having left the first body and doing not achieving the second one. So these theories have to lead us to the idea of medium in which this propagation occurs >> [Maxwell]. There took place, of course, some inaccuracy and incomplete understanding in Newton's work, but we should accuse of them not so much Newton as the next generations of astronomers who did not finish his conception but "have lain down on the shoulders of giants". ;-) And when I in my post told that all attempts to revise Newton's laws gave no result, I told it of mechanical, not gravitational laws. While Newton's gravitational laws still are unrevised, too, even with all loud claims of Relativity supporters. We have to remember that after all attempts Einstein and Grossmann defined their results as follows: << However, in particular case of infinitely weak static field of gravity this tensor _does not reduce_ to Delta phi. So the question still remains, how far the problem of gravity field equations is linked in general theory of differential tensors connected with gravity field. Such linkage would have to exist, should the gravity field equations allow arbitrary transformations; however in this case, apparently, it is absolutely impossible to confine ourselves to the second-order differential equations. On the contrary, should it appear that the gravity field equations allow only one definite group of transformations, the possibility to avoid differential tensors yielded in general theory would become obvious. As we showed in physical part of this work, we still cannot provide an unambiguous solution of this problem. >> [Einstein and Grossmann. Project of generalised Relativity and gravitational theory]. I would mark here, neither Einstein nor Nordstrom achieved more accuracy in describing processes that Newton's gravity law described, and the basic Einstein's equation was not something other than Newton's law in tensor appearance. Seeking the generalised Poisson equation in tensor form, Einstein and Grossmann came to conclusion that << To solve this problem, we have not found the method which would be the same natural as in case of previous problem (finding the energy/pulse for material phenomena - mechanical, electrical and others - S.K.). We had to introduce some far from obvious, though probable admissions. . . . In accordance with Newton - Poisson law it looks sensible (?! - S.K.) to require, these equations to have the _second_ order. But we have to object, this supposition disables us to find the differential equation being the generalisation for Delta phi which would be _tensor_ as to the _arbitrary_ transformations. . . . Though we have to emphasise, we have no grounds for general covariance of gravity equations. >> [ibidem]. We from our side, in our study, have solved one of fundamental problems which Newton raised in his letter to Bentley of 10 December 1692: << It seems to me, should all the substance of Sun and planets and generally all substance of the universe be evenly distributed in the sky, and each particle should have an innate gravity to all others, and should all the space in which the substance is distributed were finite (as in Big Band conception - S.K.), the substance from the outskirts of this space, due to gravity, would tend to the substance in the centre and would achieve it, due to which it would create one huge mass >> [Correspondence of Sir Issak Newton. Cambridge, 1968, Vol. 3, No 398]. We proved that stars and galaxies being heated bodies repel each other in proportion to their temperature (and temperature of bodies of which they consist). And only colleagues' unwilling to see the essence and the colleagues' method which F. Bacon criticised in his "New Organon" caused that you also do not operate with this fact and do not base on it in our dialogue: << Stating his new methodological ideas, F. Bacon thought the first basic shortcoming of many philosophers' approach to the analysis of cognition that they drew their main attention to words, not to actions, and instead systematic investigation of studied phenomenon "pursued the words and their euphony". The second distortion, already of the essence of science, Bacon thought "excessive contrivance in the controversy", leading to unnecessary altercations, which gained "especial dissemination amongst many scholiasts having available much free time, endowed with keen mind, but too little reading" >> [K.H. Delokarov. Philosophical and methodological basis of Principia by Isaak Newton. In: Newton and philosophical problems of 20th century (Russian)] << In Bacon's opinion, harmony in "Mind and Things" can be achieved only, when we succeed to clear our mind of pre-opinion. For it, "we have to direct our steps along the guiding thread and, using a definite rule, to secure all our path, beginning with the first perception of our feelings". To clear our mind and to make it unbiased, Bacon gave a well-known criticism of four kinds of "ghosts", or "idols", who impede our true cognition, which played a positive part in establishment and development of science. . . . Standing up for empirical approach to the nature, proving the necessity of experiments and experience for testing the nature, Bacon did not stop, having simply indicated the importance of experience, he also addressed efforts to clear up the typology of forms of experience by their functions during the cognition process. . . . Thus, Popper is not correct when calling F. Bacon scholiast who have established the "myth of induction". The main C. Popper's mistake was that his work was anti-historical, and this caused him to negate the positive part of experimental method and inductive methodology >> [ibidem]. The approaches which you use in composing your anti-theses to those mine, are just the reflection of scholastic attempts to disregard the classical authors of philosophical methodology of classical physics, and I already showed you this in the above citations. Both in the history of science and in mathematics, it is so easy to pull out a few outwardly insignificant expressions, to joint phrases in improper manner or accuse the author that he did not know what was discovered on the basis of his results many decades after (and which could not be obtained without this author's discoveries). So one can compose an opposite impression, just as Popper accused Bacon of things against which Bacon struggled. We see this trend in today scientists of Relativity who are the followers of scholastic interpretation of cognition, and who state that mathematics without phenomenology and almost without experiments will well work and fully describe the nature, that experiment is of no importance to clear up the truth, that a phenomenon can be equally described with several basically different conceptions and we can prefer no one. This is what Feynman stated in his lectures. Anyway, this is so in the context in which I wrote to Mr Tamhane. We can see the above described not only as concerns Newton. You can take any theory, not only in physics, and you will see clear signs of stagnation caused just by dogmatism of scholiasts who "have lain down on the shoulders of giants". And we have to address first of all to them your following phrase: << 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. >> Just with these your words you contradict yourself, calling Bacon's opinion out of date. I already wrote here, only permanent and scrupulous, and the main, unbiased correction of mathematical model by experimental results can provide a correct description of physical phenomenon. In this view, it can be of more help to watch the floating straw than to dive for pearls, doing not knowing the bottom. One can find no pearls but occasionally can break his neck against the stones. I can tell you this quite definitively, having successfully carried out a number of fundamental experiments and solved centurial phenomenological and mathematical problems, of which you can read in four volumes of our e-journal. The same, not abstractly I told of indivisible triad of cognition "phenomenology - experiment - mathematical modelling". I can repeat, namely negation that the process of cognition is sequential has led Relativity, quantum theory and modern astronomy to the perfect absurdity. And this is not Newton's guilt but of the people who cannot attentively read and thoughtfully analyse. Newton at the level of knowledge of his century and at the level of available experimental facts made his utmost. And in limits of boundaries which he marked (for gravitation he confined himself to the steady motion of planets), he is impeccable, and I would wish so to many my today colleagues trying to fantasy the nature. And if you are speaking of pearls, one pearl in a jewellery made by a skilled artist is worthier than tons of shells in which pearl could happen to appear. ;-) 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.