1995.10.05 / Mark North / Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Originally-From: north@nosc.mil (Mark H. North) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 23:22:09 GMT Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA I saw my name on another post in this thread so I've had to resurrect Jones from my kill file temporarily so I can stomp on him one more time. No charge, it's my pleasure. 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: >In article <448898095wnr@moonrake.demon.co.uk>, Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk wrote: >> In article: <21cenlogic-0110951059300001@austin-1-1.i-link.net> >> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: >> > This strikes me as a way for you to duck the issue, Barry. Rather than >> > step up and grapple with the principle of continuity, you want to >> divert >> > me off onto a complex and irrelevant topic. Well, it happens that I >> can, >> > in fact, answer your question about what a photon is and how to >> visualize >> > it, and I am willing to do so. However, not wanting to discourage any >> bad >> > habits on your part, here's the deal: if you will first explain to me >> why >> > you believe that the principle of continuity is invalid, and defend >> that >> > view, then I will tell you exactly what a photon is, so you can >> visualize >> > its acceleration. Fair enough? >> >> Your 'principle of continuity' is no principle at all - simply a >> statement of admission by you of your total failure to understand >> physical reality. >> >> A photon is a packet of eletromagnetic radiation and, as I have tried to >> point out to you on a couple of occasions - unsuccessfully, as I should >> have anticipated when dealing with somebody as resolutely attached to >> his own faulty imagination as you are - it *can* only travel at the >> speed of propagation of electromagnetic radiation. It simply cannot >> exist, travelling at any lesser speed, and remain within the >> universally accepted and confirmed laws of physics. There never has been >> any experiment in physical science which might even momentarily be >> considered to suggest that photons travelling slower than c might have >> any place in physical reality. If they did, almost the entire corpus of >> 20th century theoretical and observational physics would have to be >> declared a total illusion, and we would have to admit total ignorance of >> all aspects of the physical world, from the cosmological to the >> subatomic scale. >> >> Offered the option of accepting that, or the alternative that you are a >> lone and sadly deluded idiot, there is absolutely no contest. Archimedes >> Plutonium consistently makes substantially more sense than you. >> >> -- >> Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end] (Can't even quote poetry right) >> >> I am his Highness' dog at Kew >> Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you? >> [Alexander Pope] >> >> PGP Public Key available on request. >Alan, why do you waste bandwidth posting dogmatic assertions and >contentless flames? (I left in Alan's comments because I thought they were quite good and to the point.) Proclaiming your so-called 'principle of continuity' as the saviour of all mankind's knowledge (or whatever the hell you said) is *not* dogmatic assertion? Claiming that a photon accelerates against all evidence to the contrary on your say-so alone is *not* dogmatic assertion? As for flames, I'm afraid for your sake that his was contentful. >Surely you are not so feeble minded that you do not >realize, at some level, that I wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire. No, but you'll spend the time and effort to make this silly 'response'. I guess your words are worth less to you than a bucket of warm spit, eh? >And the same goes for Mark North and all the other would-be censors who >seek to stifle debate and thereby protect their contentless beliefs. Listen, you obnoxious little shit: Nobody is preventing you or attempting to prevent you from spewing your bullshit anywhere you want. But if you do it here you'll have to accept the criticism and ridicule it so richly deserves. Unless, of course, you wish to censor me. And by the way, I think I see one of your big problems: we don't debate science, we do it. >You >need to wake up, guys! This is the internet, and at the moment you have no >power here. If you want to do more than put out an unpleasant smell, go to >Washington D.C., or London, or whatever cesspool of oppressive criminality >exists in your native land, and openly participate in the struggle for >power. Perhaps if you work hard you can obtain a position of authority >from which you can begin to evoke fear in others. In the meantime, >however, all you are evoking is laughter and contempt. It sounds to me like you've got some sort of problem with authority and it's affecting your thinking. Your obvious bitterness towards anyone who might know more than you or have some sort of power over you makes me think you've got a screw loose. Lot's of people are smarter than you are and lot's of people and institutions have power over you. The same goes for me. Deal with it. Mark cudkeys: cuddy5 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.06 / Mitchell Jones / Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 1995 17:20:46 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article <44s83q$2b6o@lamar.ColoState.EDU>, gelfand@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Martin Gelfand) wrote: > Let me begin with an apology to MJ for including intemperate > remarks in the note to which he is responding. I hope he will > consider that characterizing all modern physics as a "con job" > despite the overwhelming evidence of its efficacy hardly > encourages reasoned discussions. ***{Here is the distinction I try to make, when engaged in these types of discussions: I try to avoid making negative statements about an opponent's character, motivations, etc., except in response to similar statements initiated by the opponent. However, I feel that statements such as referring to "modern" physics as a "con game" or a "fraud" are impersonal, and not directed against any specific individual, including my opponent. Moreover, when I feel that a particular individual may take offense, I will sometimes explicitly note that the negative statement is not intended to apply to him. (I did this with you, if you will recall.) The rationale underlying the above distinction is simple: we have to be able to discuss issues such as the question of whether what passes for "physics" nowadays is, in some important sense, a fraud or a con game. Therefore, we must permit such views to be stated without taking offense, provided they are stated in such a way as to not constitute a direct personal attack. And I believe I did that, Martin. Thus I do not believe you can fairly characterize my statement as having discouraged reasoned discussion. The truth, I think, is that you did not like the conclusion of the statement. To say that I, by stating an unorthodox opinion, have discouraged discussion, is to turn the matter completely upside down. If people are not permitted to state such opinions, how are we to know when a discussion is needed? --Mitchell Jones}*** > In article <21cenlogic-0310951051560001@199.172.8.129> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: > >In article <44p8te$2dr2@lamar.ColoState.EDU>, gelfand@lamar.ColoState.EDU > >(Martin Gelfand) wrote: > > > >> Into the breach, again... ***{I passed over this comment in my earlier responses, but since we now seem to be discussing what does and does not encourage discussion, I would note that the image conjured up by this metaphor is that of a person reluctantly doing some sort of unpleasant job--like cleaning a toilet, say--because "somebody has to do it." I would say that the use of such loaded phrases discourages discussion because it conveys very clearly the idea that one would rather be doing something else. In my view, when this is the case, the proper course is to simply *do something else.* On the internet, it serves no useful purpose to tell those who are interested in a topic that you are *not* interested. Such postings do two things: (a) they waste space in newsgroups; and (b) they assume--falsely, in the vast majority of cases--that the participants in a thread are eager to hear reports about the emotions of those who are not interested in the topic. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >> If nobody else expresses an interest in this > >> thread I am going to end it here. > > > >***{Threads tend to have a life of their own, Martin. We have the option > >of ending our participation in them, of course, but we have no power to > >control others. --Mitchell Jones}*** > Quite true, and I did intend to state that my participation, if not > the thread, would end. But I would like to continue just a little > longer... > > > >As for your statement that the Bohr model has implications that cannot be > >understood within the framework of classical mechanics, that is baloney. > >The entire Bohr theory, including why the "preferred" orbits are more > >stable than the transitional ones, can be explained by strictly classical > >arguments. Because of that, all implications of the Bohr theory, > >explicitly including those you mentioned, can be derived classically. What > >you lack here, Martin, is a satisfactory visual model of the atomic > >system. Why do you lack it? Probably because you are simply in the habit > >of memorizing mathematical formulae and rules for their manipulation, and > >not "wasting time" worrying about the causation. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > Fine, Mitchell, would you please explain why atoms are stable, > by strictly classical arguments? Within classical electromagnetic > theory an accelerated charge emits radiation. Do you deny that > as well? ***{Martin, I do not consider every statement made about physics when classical mechanics was dominant to be automatically an integral part of classical mechanics. If I did, then classical mechanics would, of necessity, be filled with false and even loony statements, and it would be absurd for anyone to attempt to defend it. And the same, obviously, applies to "modern" physics: if you considered every statement made by a physicist in the "modern" era to be an integral part of "modern" physics, then you would not attempt to defend it, either! The point here is that we each must define the essentials of our approach to physics, and when we refer to our preferred system ("classical" physics in my case, "modern" physics in yours), we should have in mind the best system of physics that can be erected on that foundation. We should *not* consider ourselves bound to defend every overly broad generalization and every loony pronouncement made by anyone who has taken the same approach that we have taken. In such a context, I classify the statement that "an accelerated charge emits radiation" as an overly broad generalization. In my view, an accelerated charge only radiates when it is plowing through a resistive medium. Since an electron orbiting in one of Bohr's "preferred" orbits is not doing that, it does not radiate. Such a statement, of course, requires a lengthy explanation. As I have already indicated in an earlier part of this discussion, I reject the notion that space is "empty." This, of course, does not yet distinguish my position from that of "modern" physics, because nobody nowadays endorses the "empty space" concept. The question is not whether "space" has properties that render it an active participant in electromagnetic (and other) phenomena, but rather what those properties are. In my view, "space" is filled with a series of particulate media or "substrates." The substrates are distinguished by their particle sizes, with the largest particles being part of the substrate which I call E1, the next largest being part of E2, the third largest being part of E3, etc. The particles of E1 fill the gaps between atoms of ordinary matter, while the particles of E2 fill the gaps between particles of E1, the particles of E3 fill the gaps between particles of E2, and so on. The collectivity of all of the substrates, taken together, I call the ether. Now let me fill in some details. Just as, between the material objects that we see here on earth, there exists an invisible ocean of particles (i.e., air) which influences many physical phenomena (e.g., weather, air resistance, etc.) so between the particles of air and extending out to fill all of space (with a few very important exceptions which I will discuss later), I believe there exists an invisible ocean of even smaller particles. I call this vast ocean of particles E1, and I call the particles "etherons." I believe that they are roughly the same order of size (but somewhat smaller) than electrons, that they are mutually repellent (again like electrons) and repellent of the particles of ordinary matter. I believe that they have spin, and that the spin is purely classical (not quantized)--which means: each etheron has a spin axis that is capable of pointing in any direction whatsoever. I believe that these particles are uncharged, that they are enormously less massive than electrons, that they are influenced by gravitation, and that, as a consequence, each astronomical body carries with it in its motions through space an immense, invisible atmosphere of these particles, filling up the region of space in which its gravitational field is dominant over the fields of other bodies. (In 19th century parlance, this would be termed an "entrained ether theory.") And, between the particles of E1, I believe that there exists yet another vast ocean of even smaller particles, which I call E2, and which I cannot characterize in nearly as much detail as in the case of E1. While the hints of the existence of E2 are subtle, it does seem to behave like a fluid: it supports internal eddies and flows and, when such flows impinge on particles of E1 or of ordinary matter, they exert important effects. Given the above visual model, sketched out in general terms, it is a simple matter to explain the observed stability of electrons in the Bohr orbits and, thus, how atoms can be stable in classical mechanical terms. The first thing to note is the enormous rpm's of orbiting electrons: a typical hydrogen electron, for example, circles its nucleus at roughly 10 quadrillion revolutions per second! If it is plowing through a resistive medium such as E1, as sketched out above, what is going to happen? The answer: on its first circuit around the orbit, it is going to knock away (or repel, if you prefer) the various etherons that are in its path. (Remember: electrons are enormously more massive than etherons.) But then, when it has completed one circuit around the nucleus, an interesting possibility arises: since one ten-quadrillionth of a second isn't very long, it may be that the etherons which the electron knocked out of its way on its first pass around the orbit have not had time to rebound back into their original positions. In that case, on its second pass, the electron will be passing through a cavitation channel--an orbit which has been swept clear of obstructions--and it will encounter vastly lessened resistance. Result: we have the possibility of an electron orbiting without resistance and, hence, without losing energy. In that case, it will not radiate. The question is, what are the conditions that are necessary to support that possibility? Well, it may be that as the electron circles the nucleus it sweeps out a cavitation channel of variable cross section in which the undulations of cross section have a cyclicality. There are several ways this result could be achieved: (1) The electron may pulsate--i.e., expand and contract its diameter according to a consistent cycle. In this case, the length of the orbit would have to be an integral number of pulsation cycles, in order for the electron to fit smoothly into the same channel on second and subsequent orbits. If the orbit length were *not* an integral number of pulsation cycles, then the channel walls would never stabilize, and the electron would be constantly reconfiguring the channel on every orbit--which means: it would be constantly giving off energy, and would spiral down to a slightly lower orbit, where the orbit length *was* an integral number of pulsation cycles. (2) The electron may consist of two particles orbiting about a common center of mass, like a binary star. In that case, each subparticle would trace out its own separate undulating cavitation channel, and the two subparticles would have to complete an integral number of half-revolutions about their common center, in order to use the same channels on second and subsequent orbits as those which they carved out on their first orbit. Here, once again, we have the same result: "preferred orbits" of the Bohr type would exist, in which stability depended on the orbit length being an integral multiple of an underlying cycle length. (3) The electron may consist of an assymetrical particle given to tumbling as it moves, in accordance with a regular cycle. Here, again, the result is a cavitation channel of variable cross section and, as a consequence, stable orbits when the orbit length is an integral multiple of the underlying cycle of variation, and unstable ones when it is not. (4) The electron may consist of a symmetrical particle which, nevertheless, exhibits a variable cross section perpendicular to its line of motion, due to its rotation about its axis. (For example, a moving cube rotating about its center of mass will sweep out a channel of variable cross section as it rotates.) In all such cases, stable orbits will result when the electron completes a circuit around the atom with precisely the same cross section perpendicular to its line of motion that it had when it began. In such cases, it will precisely fit into the undulations of the cavitation channel which it carved on its first orbit, when it goes around for a second, third, fourth, etc., time. The basic principle, in short, is that the length of the orbit must be an integral multiple of the cycle of undulations in the cavitation channel. From this insight, the curve fitted mathematical constructs of Bohr, which he postulated but did not explain, follow with precise exactitude. Electrons in the "preferred" Bohr orbits do not radiate because they fit perfectly into their cavitation channels and, thus, encounter no resistance as they sweep around the nucleus. Since "quantum mechanics" began with Bohr's discovery of the "preferred" orbits and with the alleged failure of classical mechanics to explain them, and since I have just explained them classically, it follows that the foundations of quantum mechanics have just been ripped away! (How sad!) I would add that Bohr's "quantum leap" interpretation was formulated during the period from 1913 to 1930, during the heyday of the "empty space" concept. That idea, in turn, was demolished in the 1930's by Dirac, and has never recovered. (Today, of course, the talk is about "zero point fluctuations," "vacuum fluctuations," and so on, rather than about "Dirac's ocean" or about "the ether," but the upshot remains: nobody, today, thinks "space" is empty.) The rise of "quantum mechanics" occurred, in short, in a historic "window of opportunity." It was made possible by the success of "relativity" theory and the associated euphoric, and foredoomed, embrace of the "empty space" concept. In summary, the major reason Bohr decided that motion in the microcosm was discontinuous is because he imagined, in keeping with the times, that the space around the hydrogen nucleus was empty. Since he believed that there was nothing in the space between the "preferred" orbits that could possibly interfere with the motion of the electron, Bohr concluded that some deeply seated "law of nature" precluded those orbits. To him, this meant that motion in the microcosm was "quantized:" when an electron passed from one preferred orbit to another, it did *not* do so by passing through the intervening orbits. Instead, it performed a "quantum leap" by vanishing from its position in one orbit and reappearing at a position in the next one. Thus arose the absurd "quantum mechanical" interpretation with which we are still afflicted today. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >> The LeSage model may not have been "refuted" but it has certainly > >> lost any substantial following. The reason should be clear. > >> If its predictions were _exactly_ the same as Newton's laws then > >> all that it would do would be to introduce constructs ("ultra mundane > >> corpuscles") into a theory which did perfectly well without them! > > > >***{An amazing statement, and one that absolutely confirms what, in my > >last post to you, I stated only as a conjecture: you really place no value > >on knowing the underlying meaning of a mathematical formulation, do you, > >Martin? You really don't care what the actual causation is! Wow! > >--Mitchell Jones}*** > No Mitchell, I simply have no illusion that a "visual model" provides > any such underlying meaning. ***{Because we are sighted, we have difficulty grasping what vision does for understanding. Nevertheless, with a little bit of mental effort, we can get past this obstacle. Suppose, for example, that in an attempt to win some money you agree to be blindfolded. A fellow tells you that he has "an object of type X" in his hands, that the object has two identifiable sides , "side A" and "side B," and that he is going to toss it like a coin, so that it tumbles side-over-side into a swimming pool. Then you hear a splash, and, a couple of seconds later, he announces that it has settled on the bottom with "side A" in the up position. Then he tells you that he is going to do it again, using another object of type X. Again, you hear a splash, and then he anounces that the object settled on the bottom with "side A" in the up position. And on it goes: more and more objects are tossed into the pool, and each and every one settles on the bottom with "side A" being in the up position. You have one guess per toss up to 100 tosses to name the object being tossed. If you succeed, you win $100. However, after 100 tries you fail to make a correct guess and, being a bit of an expert on probability theory and the "coin toss" type of gambling statistics, you find yourself intensely curious as to what sort of object it was that the fellow was tossing into the pool, and why it invariably settled to the bottom with "side A" in the up position. When you remove the blindfold, the fellow smiles, reaches into a large aquarium, grabs a live flounder from the bottom, and tosses it into the swimming pool. Naturally, being a living thing, when the flounder hits the water it immediately orients itself with "side A" (i.e., the top side) up, and settles to a position on the bottom! What you had with the blindfold on, Martin, was *not* understanding. Instead, you had a generalized description of certain abstract aspects of the phenomenon, but no specific visual model of what was actually going on. The understanding did not come until you acquired a visual model in your mind, of what was happening. And the same generalized principle also applies to understanding in physics: the curve fitted mathematical constructs of physics are merely generalized descriptions of certain abstract aspects of phenomena. They do *not* constitute understanding. Understanding of physics comes only when you have a visual model in your mind of whatever in the hell it is that is behaving in accordance with the mathematical description. --Mitchell Jones}*** You have simply shifted the question > "what is the cause of gravity" to a whole series of actually much > more complicated questions, such as "how to the corpuscles interact > with matter?" "what dynamics governs their motion?" etc etc etc. ***{Yup. And in the case of tossing flounders into a swimming pool, as described above, once you have a visual model of what is going on, you can then shift to other, more complicated questions, such as why flounders prefer to lay on the bottom with one side up rather than the other, how a flounder can tell which way is "up" on a dark night, etc. In other words, science is an unending process: once we understand one thing, we think of more questions, and go on to investigate them. But that's all beside the point, isn't it? The issue here, after all, is simply whether understanding a phenomenon is the same as, or different from, having an abstract verbal/mathematical description of it. And the answer to that question is now clear: there is a massive difference between the two things. You know it; I know it; and everybody else knows it. Bottom line: the conveyance of understanding is an important part of the business of physics, and is quite a different thing from creating curve fitted mathematical constructs. Understanding arises from having a clear visual model of what in the hell the mathematical construct is "about," and the proper term for the types of physicists who create those visual models is the historical one: theoretical physicists. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > >> On the other hand, if LeSage's model is to be considered "superior" > >> to Newton's it should yield predictions which are (1) correct, in > >> the sense of being experimentally testable and validated > >> (2) _different_ from Newton's. > > > >***{To repeat: understanding of causation has value, Martin. Why? Because > >it opens minds to possibilities that, without it, could not have been even > >considered. For example, if the LeSage theory is correct, then antigravity > >is possible. (General relativity holds that antigravity is impossible.) So > >one of the immediate effects, if the LeSage theory were accepted, would be > >physicists who were open to the possibility of antigravity devices, and > >thus likely to recognize evidence of antigravity processes if it were > >encountered. The point is that a population open to a possibility is more > >likely to recognize an opportunity to realize it. (This is is the same > >sort of effect that the protoneutron theory would have, if accepted, > >relative to "excess energy" phenomena.) This is not--repeat: not--an > >implication to be taken lightly. Understanding has enormous value. Far > >more value, I might add, than does a mathematical construct which > >expresses experimental data points in a compact form and permits some > >interpolations and, with luck, extrapolations. --Mitchell Jones}*** > Again, Mitchell, there is no theory (in the modern sense) until > you (or somebody else) describes the properties of the corpuscles > in sufficient detail that two independent individuals, if asked > the same questions, could give the same answers about what the > LeSage theory would imply. So far what we have is a rather vague > LeSage conjecture about the existence of "corpuscles" which interact > with ordinary matter in such a way that Newton's law of gravitation > is reproduced. ***{You are unclear about the LeSage theory and its implications because, as you admit below, it is new to you and you do not yet have a clear picture of what the theory is and implies. That, I think, is a state of affairs that will rectify itself as the discussion proceeds. It is, however, interesting to focus on why you are not yet satisfied with your view of the theory. The fact is that the natural human mind is structured to process *visual* information. The meanings of symbolic formulations, whether structured in terms of natural language or mathematical statements, have historically been bound up in visual images. This is the way human beings have evolved, and is the natural way the brain processes information. It is, in fact, what we have in mind when we say that a statement, whether verbal or mathematical, has meaning: that it evokes, in the mind, a specific visual model. (By the biologically evolved standards of the natural human mind, therefore, "modern" physics is a contentless void, without meaning, and meriting contempt and derision.) --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > >> A big problem with actually testing the LeSage model is that it > >> does not specify in any detail what the hell those corpuscles are, > >> so there's in fact no way to make a specific, testable prediction! > > > >***{OK, Martin, you have claimed to accept various theories (e.g., that of > >Schrodinger) that make testable predictions about photons. I therefore > >challenge you to explain to me in detail exactly what photons are. > No, Mitchell, I'd like you to ask a _physical question_. > "What photons are" is not such a question. ***{Wrong. It is a request for more detail about the associated visual model, such as specifications of shape, spin, material of composition, source of that material, method of propulsion, the basis for the observed uniformity of velocity, etc. If I asked you what atoms are, the import of the question would be the same. However, due to the Rutherford model of atomic structure, you would not dare to respond to such a question by declaring it to not be a physical question. You can do so when I ask about photons only because no visual model of the structure of the photon is present in your mind or in the minds of most readers of this group, and thus the absurdity of your response is not immediately apparent. In any case, the main point of my question was to highlight your underlying double standard. This double standard manifests itself in two ways: (1) Regarding the LeSage model, you said: "it does not specify in any detail what the hell those corpuscles are, so there's in fact no way to make a specific testable prediction." The implication of your statement, obviously, is that your theory of the photon specifies in detail what photons are, since you do claim to make testable predictions about photons. Result: I asked you to specify those details, and you responded by informing me that I wasn't asking a "physical question," despite the fact that I was merely applying the very same standard to *your* theory that you had just applied to LeSage's theory! Wow! (2) You criticized the LeSage model for lack of detail, despite the fact that the LeSage model gives a more detailed visual model of gravitation than anything you had encountered before. Your past state of mind, which consisted of a total lack of detail--i.e., no visual model whatsoever--apparently did not bother you one whit. And yet, now that you have finally encountered a *real* piece of theoretical physics that bears on the nature of gravitation, you complain because it isn't detailed enough! Wow! Bottom line: you need to look closely at your behavior here, Martin. You are criticizing the LeSage theory on grounds that you do not apply to your own theories or to the theories of physicists with whom you agree. As such, your behavior smacks of religion far more than of science. --Mitchell Jones}*** > It is certainly > not a testable prediction of any quantum theory of light. ***{Is the Copernican model of the structure of the solar system a testable prediction of a theory? Is the Rutherford model of atomic structure a testable prediction of a theory? Of course not. A visual model is simultaneously a theory and a basis for understanding, which in turn makes problem solving and the generation of real predictions possible. (As opposed to crude projections based on curve fitted mathematics.) I am going to have to stop here, because when I tried to go further, my newsreader informed me that the resulting message is too long. I will therefore snip the rest of your comments and deal with them in a separate post. --Mitchell Jones}*** =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy06 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.06 / Mitchell Jones / Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Date: Fri, 06 Oct 1995 20:11:44 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article , eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) wrote: > I should probably ignore this and just Plonk Mitchell Jones but: > > In article <21cenlogic-0110951150010001@austin-1-1.i-link.net> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: > > > ***{Matt, I've stated it many times in postings to this group, and so I > > take it you are only an occasional reader here. In any case, to repeat: > > the principle of continuity states simply that no entity may come into > > existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > ***{As I have stated many times in other posts, I believe in it because > > it supports the entire structure of human knowledge. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > ***{It's bad to violate it because, without it, the entire structure of > > human knowledge collapses. Simply put: if things can leap into existence > > out of nothing, then we have no basis for the inference from sensation to > > source... > > Welcome to quantum mechanics. The debate about the "meaning" of > QM has raged for most of the century, but the predictive power of QM > is unchallenged. ***{Wrong. When you speak of the "predictive power" of QM, you refer to the massive accumulation of curve fitted mathematical constructs that are claimed by proponents of QM. I, however, deny that any of those mathematical constructs have any necessary connection to QM, because they can be explained by means of purely classical arguments. What this means is that QM is not a system of mathematical constructs, but rather is a natural language, pseudo-philosophical *interpretation* of those constructs, and, as such, predicts nothing whatsoever. --Mitchell Jones}*** And the only way to get the predictions to come out > right is to assume that particles do appear from nothing all the time > (vacuum fluctuations). ***{Not true. There is always the option of assuming that the particles appear out of something, rather than out of nothing--i.e., that the particles which we can detect result from the bringing together of lesser particles which we cannot detect. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > If that makes you uncomfortable, so be it. A lot of physicists > and other people have had trouble swallowing something so foreign to > "common" sense. ***{The problems are epistemological, not common-sensical. The difficulty of things leaping into existence out of nothing is simply that such a possibility destroys the inferential process which we use to determine the structure of the world. If, for example, sensations can leap into existence out of nothing, then we have no basis for infering the existence of anything, including ourselves. Bottom line: the entire structure of human knowledge collapses, if the principle of continuity is or may be wrong. --Mitchell Jones}*** (In fact all of QM seems to be hard to swallow, you > mentioned causality. The jury is still out, but you can't have all of > general relativity, quantum mechanics and causality. Most physicists > today sacrifice global causality with little thought, but are > uncomfortable with throwing local causality with it.) ***{The structure of human knowledge depends on causality. You have to be able to infer the existence of a cause when you see an effect, or you can't figure out the nature of the world. Without causality, for example, the experience of sunlight provides no evidence of the existence of the sun. Similarly, the experience of a punch in the face provides no evidence of the existence of a fist. Pain does not imply the existence of a body part that is being hurt. And so on. The point: to the extent that QM, or relativity, or any other theory, conflicts with the law of causality, they are wrong. Why? Because the alternative is madness. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > What do you think Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle is all about? ***{It is about the impossibility of "localizing" very small objects by bouncing photons off of them. The problem is that if the object is small enough, it will be moved by the photons that are being used to "localize" it. Nothing about that fact--and it most certainly is a fact--requires discontinuity of motion. --Mitchell Jones}*** > Since the virtual pions that mediate the strong force are generated > "from nothing" by these fluctuations, everthing more complex than the > hydrogen atom depends on something from nothing. ***{To repeat: there is never a reason to assume that anything comes "from nothing." It is always possible, and preferable, to assume that it comes from something. (If you can't detect the "something," that doesn't mean it isn't there. Every particle that we now accept was, for most of human history, not detectible.) --Mitchell Jones}*** (If the color force > holding the quarks which make up every baryon together is also > mediated by virtual particles, then even hydrogen depends on something > from nothing for it's existance. I'm assuming that that issue is > unresolved.) > > -- > > Robert I. Eachus > > with Standard_Disclaimer; > use Standard_Disclaimer; > function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy06 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.07 / Tstolper@aol.c / Scott Hazen Mueller's Fusion Digest Originally-From: Tstolper@aol.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Scott Hazen Mueller's Fusion Digest Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 16:39:36 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Scott, In your message dated Oct. 6 and carried in your Fusion Digest No. 4442 dated Oct. 7, you said that you were near to withdrawing from s.p.f. Does this mean that you are thinking of discontinuing Fusion Digest? Tom Stolper cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenTstolper cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.07 / Scott Mueller / Re: Scott Hazen Mueller's Fusion Digest Originally-From: scott@zorch.sf-bay.org (Scott Hazen Mueller) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Scott Hazen Mueller's Fusion Digest Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 17:01:15 GMT Organization: At Home; Salida, CA In article <951007083501_118316001@emout06.mail.aol.com>, Tstolper@aol.com writes: >In your message dated Oct. 6 and carried in your Fusion Digest No. 4442 dated >Oct. 7, you said that you were near to withdrawing from s.p.f. >Does this mean that you are thinking of discontinuing Fusion Digest? Thinking of: yes. Planning to: no. However, if I no longer read the group, I may not notice if my feed of s.p.f gets blocked up. Since the s.p.f feed is converted here into Fusion Digest, that would mean that FDs would stop coming out until I fixed the problem. So, there is a slight potential impact. -- Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests. cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.06 / Bill Rowe / Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Date: Fri, 06 Oct 1995 20:16:34 -0700 Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net In article <21cenlogic-0510952101080001@austin-1-3.i-link.net>, 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: >***{When I referred to discontinuities as being "confined to the >microcosm," the point was that they would not be observed in the >macrocosm.To clear this issue up, let me put it to you in the form of a >question: if a person accepts the possibility that electrons may disappear >from one location and reappear somewhere else, must he not also, >logically, accept the possibility that the sensations which he thinks he >is receiving from his body and the world may be simply leaping into >existence out of nothing? I say that if he is logical, he must. Do you >disagree, and if so, why? That is, by what reasoning do you confine >violations of continuity to the microcosm? --Mitchell Jones}*** What I suggested was that spacetime might be discrete at a very fine level. If it is, I don't know what happens to an electron as it goes from one discrete point to the next. Perhaps it "disappears" to "reappear" at the next discrete spacetime point. If so this isn't the same as "sensations leaping into existence out of nothing". The electron didn't appear out of nothingness. Mass/energy must still be conserved. The idea of "sensations leaping into existence out of nothing" implies a violation of mass/energy conservation. Why do you feel a discrete spacetime implies a violation of mass/energy? [skipped] >***{That's not the point at all. The point is that all rational >expectations about the future are based on the presumed validity of >inductive reasoning, and induction is falsified by violations of the >principle of continuity. Thus once we grant the possibility of >discontinuity, we give up all knowledge about the world and about >ourselves. --Mitchell Jones}*** I agree inductive reasoning is a cornerstone for knowledge. However, I don't yet understand why you feel there is a conflict between induction and a discrete spacetime. -- "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain" cudkeys: cuddy06 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.06 / Mitchell Jones / Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones hypothesis Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones hypothesis Date: Fri, 06 Oct 1995 20:22:42 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article <199510041944.PAA60411@pilot06.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) wrote: > With regard to my remark concerning trashy water as the operating > fluid for the Griggs device, it appears, Mitchell, that you came > in late on this discussion. Let me review for you the measurements > put forth to support claims that the Griggs device has demonstrated > over-unity operation. > > There are two types of measurements involved: (1) Laboratory measurements > in which the working fluid is essentially tap water. (2) Measurements in > the field using dirty water such as recycled process water in carpet mills. > I made reference to type (2) measurements. > > Now you suggest that the type (1) measurements offer sufficient proof making > the dirty water measurements irrelevant. I believe you are incorrect for > the following reason. None of the laboratory measurements that have been > reported here demonstrate that the observed level of performance can be > sustained indefinitely. ***{Dick, I appreciate you comments, but you have simply forgotten that Jed noted in several posts that he had observed the Griggs device generate heat on the hot water runs for hours, and that he had seen printouts of data points from Griggs' computer that reported runs that had showed excess heat for days. --Mitchell Jones}*** When that point was raised, Jed Rothwell made > reference to the ongoing operations in carpet mills. If you now want > to discard that data because it may involve dirty water that is fine with > me. You are then left with no data to support a claim that the performance > observed in the laboratory can be continued indefinitely. ***{To repeat: this is incorrect. If you doubt that this is the case, contact Griggs. Or Jed. Frankly, I do not see why you are still stuck on this point. What you really ought to do is beg, borrow, or buy a Griggs machine and test it yourself. If you did so, everybody who follows this newsgroup would be interested in reading about your results, and you would no longer have to trust second-hand data or the imperfections of your own memory. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > Dick Blue =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy06 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.06 / Bill Rowe / Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 1995 20:42:25 -0700 Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net In article <21cenlogic-0610951720460001@austin-1-14.i-link.net>, 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: >In my view, "space" is filled with a series of particulate media or >"substrates." The substrates are distinguished by their particle sizes, >with the largest particles being part of the substrate which I call E1, >the next largest being part of E2, the third largest being part of E3, >etc. The particles of E1 fill the gaps between atoms of ordinary matter, >while the particles of E2 fill the gaps between particles of E1, the >particles of E3 fill the gaps between particles of E2, and so on. The >collectivity of all of the substrates, taken together, I call the ether. > >Now let me fill in some details. > >Just as, between the material objects that we see here on earth, there >exists an invisible ocean of particles (i.e., air) which influences many >physical phenomena (e.g., weather, air resistance, etc.) so between the >particles of air and extending out to fill all of space (with a few very >important exceptions which I will discuss later), I believe there exists >an invisible ocean of even smaller particles. I call this vast ocean of >particles E1, and I call the particles "etherons." I believe that they are >roughly the same order of size (but somewhat smaller) than electrons, that >they are mutually repellent (again like electrons) and repellent of the >particles of ordinary matter. I believe that they have spin, and that the >spin is purely classical (not quantized)--which means: each etheron has a >spin axis that is capable of pointing in any direction whatsoever. I >believe that these particles are uncharged, that they are enormously less >massive than electrons, that they are influenced by gravitation, and that, >as a consequence, each astronomical body carries with it in its motions >through space an immense, invisible atmosphere of these particles, filling >up the region of space in which its gravitational field is dominant over >the fields of other bodies. (In 19th century parlance, this would be >termed an "entrained ether theory.") And, between the particles of E1, I >believe that there exists yet another vast ocean of even smaller >particles, which I call E2, and which I cannot characterize in nearly as >much detail as in the case of E1. While the hints of the existence of E2 >are subtle, it does seem to behave like a fluid: it supports internal >eddies and flows and, when such flows impinge on particles of E1 or of >ordinary matter, they exert important effects. > >Given the above visual model, sketched out in general terms, it is a >simple matter to explain the observed stability of electrons in the Bohr >orbits and, thus, how atoms can be stable in classical mechanical terms. >The first thing to note is the enormous rpm's of orbiting electrons: a >typical hydrogen electron, for example, circles its nucleus at roughly 10 >quadrillion revolutions per second! If it is plowing through a resistive >medium such as E1, as sketched out above, what is going to happen? The >answer: on its first circuit around the orbit, it is going to knock away >(or repel, if you prefer) the various etherons that are in its path. >(Remember: electrons are enormously more massive than etherons.) But then, >when it has completed one circuit around the nucleus, an interesting >possibility arises: since one ten-quadrillionth of a second isn't very >long, it may be that the etherons which the electron knocked out of its >way on its first pass around the orbit have not had time to rebound back >into their original positions. In that case, on its second pass, the >electron will be passing through a cavitation channel--an orbit which has >been swept clear of obstructions--and it will encounter vastly lessened >resistance. Result: we have the possibility of an electron orbiting >without resistance and, hence, without losing energy. In that case, it >will not radiate. OK, the "etherons" didn't have time to fill the channel on the first electron orbit. Surely, at some point they do rebound. When they do, isn't there going to be some resistance felt by the electron with consequent radiation. Unless there is reason to beleive the "etherons" never fill in the created channel, all you have shown is the rate of radiation has been reduced not eliminated. -- "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain" cudkeys: cuddy06 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.07 / SoBernardo / Re: I have a fusion reactor in my garage!!!!!!! Originally-From: sobernardo@aol.com (SoBernardo) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: I have a fusion reactor in my garage!!!!!!! Date: 7 Oct 1995 01:38:13 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Well, then I've got an H-bomb in my office. sobernardo@aol.com cudkeys: cuddy7 cudensobernardo cudlnSoBernardo cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.07 / Mitchell Jones / Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 1995 11:07:17 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article , browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) wrote: > In article <21cenlogic-0310951051560001@199.172.8.129>, > 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: > > [lots of stuff deleted throughout] > > >terms. Moreover, I also stated why I believe the distinction, in recent > >times, has been blurred to the point of nonexistence: because the types of > >superficial rote memorizers who have taken over the faculties of state > >universities feel threatened by the kinds of students who want to know > >what the mathematical constructs *mean.* To defend themselves against > >students who embarass them by asking questions which they cannot answer, > >they bury their classes in a flood tide of material. > > >***{Martin, one of the things I have learned in my life is that people who > >try to divert discussions away from the topic at issue by engaging in > >demeaning speculations and ad hominem attacks are driven by fear: fear of > >loss of face, and fear that they will lose the argument, if they stick to > >the issue. > > Apparently, you don't feel characterizing someone as a "superficial rote > memorizer" as you have done above is an ad hominem attack. While it may > not be an ad hominem attack on Martin (you didn't characterize Martin in > this fashion), it is an ad hominem attack. Perhaps you should heed your > own advice relative to ad hominem attacks. ***{This is totally absurd. The problem with "ad hominem attacks" is that they destroy the possibility of dialogue, by insulting the person you are talking to. It doesn't constitute an "ad hominem attack," in that sense, if you criticize someone other than the person you are talking to! You need to wake up, Bill! I would add that the entire purpose of avoiding ad hominem attacks is to broaden the range of permissible discourse. Your interpretation of "ad hominem attack," however, would have the opposite effect. By your rule, it would be uncivil to discuss anything that might reflect negatively on anyone. If, for example, I stated in a discussion with Martin that I believe that Adolf Hitler was a mass murderer, that would be an "ad hominem attack," by your interpretation, and should not be said! Bottom line: the range of permissible discourse, by your rule, would be reduced to "small talk," in spite of the fact that the entire purpose of avoiding ad hominem attacks is to encourage discussion of important issues. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > >***{As I have repeatedly noted, the constructs of curve fitted mathematics > >support accurate interpolations and, to a lesser degree, extrapolations. > >However, as even you admit, when such a construct ceases to "fit" the > >experimentally determined data points, it is either "tweaked" or > >discarded. And yet, in spite of this, you continue to get bent out of > >shape when I say that the construct is "curve fitted!" Wow! (A more > >perfect example of a distinction without a difference could hardly be > >imagined!) > > Since you really haven't defined what you mean by curve-fitted, I can't > truly disagree with you. However, I strongly suspect the way I would > define curve-fitted differs from your definition in that I would agree > with Martin that QM is not an example of curve-fitting. Perhaps the > reaction you are getting is due to the lack of agreement on what > curve-fitting is. ***{I have said, and Martin has agreed, that if the curve doesn't fit the experimentally measured data points, it either gets tossed out or modified. Result: I describe the process as "curve fitting and tweaking." There is nothing unclear about the point I am making, and nobody in his right mind disagrees with it, including Martin. What he objects to, instead, are the implications of my point--to wit: that the mathematical constructs of "quantum mechanics" and "relativity" arose from a philosophically neutral process, and thus do not in any way support or confirm the philosophical "interpretations" which were made by Bohr and Einstein. The mathematical constructs have no philosophy, Bill. They no more affirm the philosophies of Bohr and Einstein than they affirm their tastes in beer or their choices of recreationational activities. The claim that they do is a central component of the ongoing fraud of "modern" physics. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >***{To repeat: understanding of causation has value, Martin. Why? Because > >it opens minds to possibilities that, without it, could not have been even > >considered. For example, if the LeSage theory is correct, then antigravity > >is possible. (General relativity holds that antigravity is impossible.) So > >one of the immediate effects, if the LeSage theory were accepted, would be > >physicists who were open to the possibility of antigravity devices, and > >thus likely to recognize evidence of antigravity processes if it were > >encountered. The point is that a population open to a possibility is more > >likely to recognize an opportunity to realize it. (This is is the same > >sort of effect that the protoneutron theory would have, if accepted, > >relative to "excess energy" phenomena.) This is not--repeat: not--an > >implication to be taken lightly. Understanding has enormous value. Far > >more value, I might add, than does a mathematical construct which > >expresses experimental data points in a compact form and permits some > >interpolations and, with luck, extrapolations. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > I would certainly agree it is invaluable to understand causes. However, > presenting as a cause something that is essentially untestable is a rather > useless exercise. > > I agree the LeSage model provides a simple visualization of gravity. > However for it to be useful the assumed particles need to have properties > that make them detectable and perhaps give us the abiltiy to manipulate > them. ***{Causes that are untestable in one era have a tendency to be testable in another, when measuring instruments have improved. And even in cases where laboratory tests of a causal theory cannot be done, logical tests are frequently possible. (In astronomy, for example, none of the hypotheses are testable in earthbound laboratories.) The example that Martin and I have been discussing, in which the speed of gravity is noted to have implications vis-a-vis the stability of orbits, is one example of a logical test. It is by means of identifying such logical relationships that a causal theory is developed to the point of being either verifiable or falsifiable, either logically or experimentally. The only case where being "untestable" is a defect in a causal theory is the case where the theory is "untestable in principle"--i.e., where the theory is stated in such a way to preclude, by its very nature, any form of verification. An example would be the claim that people are shadowed by Leprechauns who always vanish just before their existence can be detected. Note, however, there is no such stipulation of indetectibility in the LeSage theory. Quite to the contrary: the LeSage corpuscles exert real effects on real objects and, like positrons, will eventually be detected, if they really exist. (By the way: it is the norm in physics for particles to be postulated to satisfy some theoretical requirement, long before anyone figures out how to test for their existence. Positrons and neutrinos are only two examples among many. The fact that a particle is undetectible when first conceived doesn't mean it won't be detectible later.) --Mitchell Jones}*** > -- > "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain" =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy07 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.07 / Alan M / Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Date: Sat, 07 Oct 1995 14:34:19 +0100 Organization: Home In article: <21cenlogic-0610951933080001@austin-1-14.i-link.net> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: > If you want to get into the mathematical details, I > suggest that you take a look at "On the Speed of Gravity," by Tom Van > Flandern, Galilean Electrodynamics, vol. 4, no. 2, pg. 35-37. Isn't it truly amazing that there is a single (unconfined) individual on the surface of the earth who still believes the nonsense that van Flandern put out? He probably believes in Velikovski, as well... -- Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end] (Can't even quote poetry right) I am his Highness' dog at Kew Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you? [Alexander Pope] PGP Public Key available on request. cudkeys: cuddy07 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.05 / Mitchell Jones / Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 21:01:08 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article , browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) wrote: > In article <21cenlogic-0210951059140001@austin-2-6.i-link.net>, > 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: > > >In article , browe@netcom.com (Bill > >Rowe) wrote: > > > >> The idea of continuity you are expressing seems to be essentially an > >> extrapolation of everday experience. While I agree it is a reasonable > >> extrapolation and have nothing to replace it with, I am not so certain it > >> is a good model for reality. > >> > >> Suppose both space and time are actually discrete things at some very fine > >> level. If the granularity were sufficiently fine there it would be > >> exceedingly difficult to impossible to detect the granularity. In this > >> case, there would be essentially no difference for most things between a > >> continuous and discrete spacetime. Perhaps the characteristics ascribed to > >> quantum mechanics are our first glimmerings of a discrete spacetime. > > > >***{What you basically seem to be saying is that if we get evidence > >indicating discontinuities in the microcosm, but not in the macrocosm, we > >can count on that situation to continue in the future. In other words, you > >propose to use inductive, scientific reasoning to confine discontinuities > >to the microcosm. Unfortunately, the validity of the principle of > >induction presupposes the validity of the principle of continuity. > > No, I am not confining discontinuities to the microcosm. If > discontinuities exist they must exist at all levels. However, if they are > fine enough they will not be observed in the macrocosm even though they > exist. ***{When I referred to discontinuities as being "confined to the microcosm," the point was that they would not be observed in the macrocosm.To clear this issue up, let me put it to you in the form of a question: if a person accepts the possibility that electrons may disappear from one location and reappear somewhere else, must he not also, logically, accept the possibility that the sensations which he thinks he is receiving from his body and the world may be simply leaping into existence out of nothing? I say that if he is logical, he must. Do you disagree, and if so, why? That is, by what reasoning do you confine violations of continuity to the microcosm? --Mitchell Jones}*** The point: all predictions based on past evidence are based on the notion that, if the situation is the same as it was in the past, the resulting > > You went on to make several comments about scientific induction with > references to closed systems. I don't fully understand your usage of the > term induction. To me induction is the process of arriving at a general > law from specific observations. This would be true for either closed or > open systems. ***{To say that a system is "open," in this context, is to say that it is subject to significant outside influences. In the Griggs hot water runs, for example, if a powerful laser beam had been used to heat the effluent water prior to measuring the delta temperature, the excess heat result would be invalidated. It is only if you assume that the system (i.e., the experimental apparatus) was closed to significant outside influences, that it becomes reasonable to conclude that the excess heat arose from causes internal to the system. Indeed, it is a virtual truism in science that as soon as you show that there were significant outside influences at work, the probative value of an experimental design is destroyed. Since you can't draw valid conclusions about causation from observation of systems that may have been subject to significant outside influences, it follows that if outside factors can enter a system without crossing its boundaries, no conclusions about causation and, hence, no reasoned predictions about the future, are possible. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > It seems like your main objection to a discrete, discontinuous spacetime > is the question of what happens to an object between discrete spacetime > points. Quite honestly, I have no idea as to what would happen. However, > my lack of imagination on this point does not preclude a discrete > spacetime. ***{No. My objection is to the concept of discontinuity itself: if violations of continuity are possible, then we have no basis for believing in the existence of anything, including ourselves. The reason is simple: if any one thing can leap into existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing, then so too can any other thing. If an electron can disappear from one location and reappear somewhere else, then your heart can disappear out of your body and reappear in front of the tires of a speeding automobile. There is no evidence that can confine discontinuity to any particular realm such as the microcosm, because when we grant the possiblity of discontinuity, we give up the ability to generalize from the past to the future on the basis of experience. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > You basic arguement seems to assume it is impossible to move from one > point to another in a discrete spacetime without some loss of information. > Why is it necessary to make such an assumption? ***{That's not the point at all. The point is that all rational expectations about the future are based on the presumed validity of inductive reasoning, and induction is falsified by violations of the principle of continuity. Thus once we grant the possibility of discontinuity, we give up all knowledge about the world and about ourselves. --Mitchell Jones}*** > -- > "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain" =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy05 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.05 / Labrys / Re: Crackpot Index Originally-From: tuttt@cii3112-24.its.rpi.edu (Labrys) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Crackpot Index Date: 5 Oct 1995 15:56:41 GMT Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY. Jed writes: |>Your perception of the situation here is mistaken. This group was not |>taken over by the 'free lunch' crowd, it was created for and by the |>cold fusion crowd Then it should have been appropriately named. (alt.cold.fusion perhaps?) ;^) _______________________________________________________________________ Teresa E Tutt /\ /\ tuttt@rpi.edu // \ n / \\ EPHY '96 (( #>X<# )) "Life need not be easy \\ / H \ // provided it is not empty" \/ H \/ -Lise Meitner H |=| |=| |=| U http://www.rpi.edu/~tuttt _______________________________________________________________________ cudkeys: cuddy5 cudentuttt cudlnLabrys cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.06 / Scott Mueller / Re: keeping spammers out Originally-From: scott@zorch.sf-bay.org (Scott Hazen Mueller) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: keeping spammers out Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 18:38:36 GMT Organization: At Home; Salida, CA In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: >As much as I support free speach, I hope we can find a way to keep Internet >newsgroups free of irrelivant advertisements. Is there any way of preventing >this? I do not know much about the mechanics of Internet. The only effective way of preventing irrelevant postings is to have a moderated newsgroup. That has other disadvantages, and at the time of the last vote, my personal stance was that the traffic did not warrant a split. Since I'm now near to withdrawing from s.p.f, I might reconsider my position if the moderated/unmoderated split were revoted today. -- Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests. cudkeys: cuddy6 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.06 / Chris Siems / Re: Help:Anything new on Fusion & Fission Originally-From: Chris Siems Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Help:Anything new on Fusion & Fission Date: 6 Oct 1995 21:16:43 GMT Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX I also think that fusion is a very long way from being understood enough to produce commercial energy. cudkeys: cuddy6 cudfnChris cudlnSiems cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.06 / Mitchell Jones / Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 1995 19:33:08 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic ***{The following is a continuation of my analysis of Martin Gelfand's post. It became necessary to break my response into several parts because I encounterd a message length error when I tried to respond in a single post. --Mitchell Jones}*** In article <44s83q$2b6o@lamar.ColoState.EDU>, gelfand@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Martin Gelfand) wrote: > > >***{OK, Martin, you have claimed to accept various theories (e.g., that of > >Schrodinger) that make testable predictions about photons. I therefore > >challenge you to explain to me in detail exactly what photons are. > No, Mitchell, I'd like you to ask a _physical question_. > "What photons are" is not such a question. It is certainly > not a testable prediction of any quantum theory of light. ***{I responded to the above in the first part of this post. I am including it again to reestablish the context of the discussion. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > >> If I were to come up with a detailed model for the interactions > >> between corpuscles and ordinary matter, and could show that it > >> led to predictions which were eminently incorrect, a LeSagian > >> would undoubtably state huffily that _my_ version of the LeSage > >> model was wrong, but nonetheless LeSage's is still a true theory. > >> He would fail to understand that the burden is on _him_ to define > >> a specific model. The fact that LeSage failed to do so explains > >> why LeSages model is "pre-refuted". IT IS NOT A PHYSICAL THEORY! > > > >***{Actually, Martin, your comments on this topic are so far from the mark > >that I suspect that you had never heard of LeSage's theory until I > >mentioned it to you. Since you like to give me advice about what to read, > >you can't very well be offended if I suggest something for you to read. I > >therefore suggest that you take a look at *Maxwell on Molecules and > >Gasses*, MIT Press, 1986. Check the index, and you will discover that > >there are lots of references to the LeSage theory. After reading them, you > >will become aware of two things: (1) James Clerk Maxwell took the theory > >very, very seriously, and most assuredly did *not* regard it as > >"pre-refuted." (2) He did *not* deny that it was a physical theory. (Of > >course, in his time "theoretical physics" had not yet been redefined out > >of existence!) > > > >Another source would be Feynmann's lectures on physics. He took the theory > >seriously also. Like Maxwell, he argued against it at length, thereby > >indicating quite clearly that he considered it to be a physical theory and > >that he did not consider it to be "pre-refuted." (If he thought it was > >"pre-refuted," there would have been no need for him to refute it, now > >would there?) After reading some of this background material, I think you > >will be in a better position to talk intelligently about this subject. > >--Mitchell Jones}*** > I am by no means offended by suggested readings. I don't have > the Maxwell reference on hand, but I do have vol I of the Feynman > lectures, so I took a look. LeSage is not mentioned by name > (and in fact you are correct, I had not heard of this "theory" > as being attributed to LeSage, though I did have a vague sense > of deja vu upon your describing it -- probably because I had > read the Feynman lectures a decade ago). > I wonder if we are reading the same Feynman lectures. > (Specifically section 7-7.) Feynman hardly takes the LeSage > theory seriously. In one paragraph, Feynman says all he > is going to say about it (and all that deserves to be said, really): > <> > Many mechanisms for gravity have been suggested. It is interesting > to consider one of these, which many people have thought of from > time to time. At first, one is quite excited an happy when he > "discovers" it, but he soon finds that it is not correct. It was > first discovered about 1750. Suppose there were many particles > moving in space at a very high speed in all directions and being > only slightly absorbed in going through matter. When they _are_ > absorbed, they give an impulse to the earth. However, since > there are as many going one way as another, the impulses all > balance. But when the sun is nearby, the particles coming > towards the earth through the sun are partially absorbed, so fewer > of them are coming from the sun than are coming toward the sun. > Therefore, the earth feels a net impulse towards the sun and it > does not take one long to see that it is inversely as the square > of the distance --- because of the variation of the solid angle > tha the sun subtends as we vary with distance. What is wrong with > that machinery? It involves some new consequences which > are _not true_. The particular idea has the following trouble: > the earth, in moving around the sun, would impinge on more particles > which are coming from its forward side than from its hind side > (when you run in the rain, the rain in your face is stronger than > that on the back of your head!). Therefore there would be more > impulse given the earth from the front, and the earth would > feel a _resistance to motion_ and would be slowing up in its orbit. > One can calculate how long it would take for the earth to stop > as a result of this resistance, and it would not take long enough > for the earth to still be in its orbit, so this mechanism does not work. > No machinery has every been invented that "explains" gravity without > also predicting some other phenomena that does _not_ exist. > <<...end excerpt>> ***{That's good, Martin. I appreciate your willingness to plunge into this. To see what is wrong with Feynmann's argument, we need to begin with a bit of history. As Feynmann noted, the LeSage theory dates back to the middle of the 18th century. It was the first really cogent explanation of Newton's "law of universal gravitation," and it attracted a great deal of attention when it was published. In fact, one of the first things about the theory to be noticed was that it had implications vis-a-vis the age of the solar system. The reason was precisely that noted by Feynmann: gravitational aberration. A celestial body, due to its orbital motion, "would impinge on more particles which were coming from its forward side than from its hind side," and, as a consequence, would experience a retrograde force tending to slow it down in its orbit. The magnitude of the aberrational force would depend upon the relationship between the velocities of the gravitational particles, and the velocity of the body in its orbit. The larger the ratio, the less the retrograde force would be. This meant that, knowing the approximate age of the earth, it would be possible to place a lower limit on the velocities of the "ultra mundane corpuscles, and these calculations were done long before Feynmann's grandfather was a gleam in his great-grandfather's eye. For example, LaPlace, in his *Mechanique Celeste,* published in 1802, did these calculations, and concluded that gravitational force, in order for the earth to still be in its orbit, would have to propagate through space at velocities that, in modern parlance (he didn't speak in those terms, of course), would amount to millions of times the speed of light. [See Celestial Mechanics, by P.S. LaPlace, Chelsea Publishing, Bronx, NY, 1966, vol. 4, pg. 645.] Feynmann, of course, in the analysis which you quoted above, did not mention that his argument assumed that gravity was propagated through space at the speed of light. Why not? For two reasons: (1) An assumption is not an argument. He knew it. You know it. And I know it. (2) If he had revealed his assumption, he would have focused the attention of his students on one of the oozing canker sores on the body of "modern" physics: the fact that gravitational force, by whatever theory, *must propagate through space at velocities millions of times that of light.* You see, Martin, LaPlace's reasoning doesn't just apply to the LeSage theory: it applies to all intelligible theories of gravitation. Regardless of whether you endorse push theories of gravitation such as that of LeSage, or pull theories such as that endorsed by many of those who are busy looking for "gravity waves" that supposedly accompany supernova explosions, it is an inescapable mathematical fact that the force must propagate through space at velocities millions of times that of light. The reason: at lightspeed, gravitational aberration would either cause the earth, in a paltry few hundred years, to spiral into the sun (for the push theories) or else to accelerate out of its orbit (for the pull theories). Since the earth, by all measures, has persisted in its orbit for more than four billion years, it follows that gravitational force must propagagte at millions of times the speed of light. (And this result, of course, rends Einstein's "universal speed limit" to shreds.) Why do most "modern" physicists such as Feynmann skate past such issues? The answer: for the same reason that con men do not focus on weaknesses in their own presentations--i.e., because they don't want to scare away the "mark." That is what the student is, Martin: the mark. He is the sucker in the fraud of "modern" physics. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >> (A play on Phil Anderson's notion of "pre-falsified" theories, ie, > >> theories which fail to account for even existing data.) > >> If you think LeSage's model is so great, please describe > >> the corpuscles in sufficient detail so that I can do a calculation > >> which leads to a testable prediction. > > > >***{Read Feynmann's comments. He will give you enough insight so that you > >can do calculations, and also make, and test, a prediction. Then, having > >done that, I expect you will rush forth, imbued with certainty that, using > >Feynmann's argument, you can refute the LeSage theory. At that point, I > >will happily prove that you, and Feynmann, are dead wrong! --Mitchell > >Jones}*** > Feynman's lectures do not specify a precise theory (presumably for > pedagogical reasons: why should he spend to much time on something > which is ultimately of no interest), though they do give me some > idea as to how to proceed. I will assume that the corpuscles > have no mass ***{Everything that exists has inertial mass, though not everything has gravitational mass. --Mitchell Jones}*** (or else the mass of ordinary matter in the universe would > increase, as it absorbed corpuscles; and note that matter is not > allowed to _emit_ corpuscles to compensate within my version > of the LeSage theory... ***{The notion that the mass of matter has to increase as it absorbs the corpuscles is incorrect for the same reason that your mass does not increase as your body absorbs visible light: because, at equilibrium, your body is emitting as much energy on non-visible (primarily infrared) wavelengths as it absorbs on the visible ones. Similarly, bodies can absorb the LeSage corpuscles, thereby behaving in conformity to the laws of gravitaiton, if they emit some other kind of corpuscles in a way that gives off the gained mass without cancelling the effects of the gravitational force. --Mitchell Jones}*** if you think that's a bad assumption, we > can discuss it later) but do have momenta; when a corpuscle is > absorbed by ordinary matter the matter acquires that momentum. > > I have no idea what momentum distribution to ascribe to the corpuscles > in the absence of matter (ie the free-space distribution); > let us just suppose it is isotropic in some particular > reference frame, with magnitude distrubution > function P(p). I have no idea what the density of corpuscles in > "free space" is. Call that quantity D. I have no idea how fast > the corpuscles are supposed to be moving. If we want to reproduce > Newton's law (ie prerelativistic gravitation theory) then they > have to be travelling infinitely fast! ***{Not true. The lower bound of the acceptable speeds is high--millions of times the speed of light--but by no means infinite. --Mitchell Jones}*** (The gravitational force > on a body at a given time depends on the positions of all other > bodies at that same time.) Infinitely fast-moving corpuscles > causes problems of its own, however. So let's just assume they're > moving _very_ fast, and see if we can avoid making any reference > to their speed in the discussion that follows. > > The absorption cross-section for corpuscles clearly has to depend > on the mass of the ordinarly matter with which it interacts > (or else Newton's law doesn't have a chance of being reproduced). > Call that absorption probability per unit mass A. Assume it > is independent of the corpuscle momentum. > > Now we can do a nice classical calculation of the > corpuscle momentum imbalance in space in the vicinity > of ordinary matter. It will be proportional > to A, D, the integral of P(p)p^2, the mass of the > ordinary matter, and inversely proportional to the > distance from the matter, and directed towards the matter. > (I _think_ this follows just from dimensional analysis; > I can't spend too much time on this right now, unfortunately!) > The product of A, D, and the integral over P obviously > must equal the constant G appearing in Newton's law; > we know nothing else about the various parameters in > LeSage's theory. Note that we have assumed that > the body is stationary in the reference frame with respect > to which the corpuscle momentum distribution is isotropic. > > Now, a body moving through this corpuscular gas will > feel a resistance, which is because in any other than > the preferred frame the momentum distribution is _not_ > isotropic. What is the new momentum distribution? > Well, that depends what physical laws the corpuscles obey! > If we treat them classically, we have p'=p-mv, so that > if they really are massless then there is no shift > in the distribution. So maybe that is the way to escape > Feynman's conclusion about a corpuscular drag: > If the corpuscles are massless (and thence must have > infinite velocity, in order to carry finite momentum, > classically) then there is no corpuscular drag. > > So now I must ask, Mitchell, are you willing to > accept corpuscles with zero mass and infinite > velocity? ***{Nope. As noted above, the lower limit on the corpuscular velocity is several million times the speed of light. It is calculated by assuming that, for example, the earth would take 10 billion years to spiral into the sun, and simply plugging in the numbers and solving for the corpuscular velocity. [If you want to get into the mathematical details, I suggest that you take a look at "On the Speed of Gravity," by Tom Van Flandern, Galilean Electrodynamics, vol. 4, no. 2, pg. 35-37.] --Mitchell Jones}*** > > This doesn't finish the discussion of possible problems > with the LeSagian model by any means, but it's a good > time for me to pause. ***{Maxwell has a pretty good discussion of the potential drawbacks of the theory, as I noted in my last post. None of them hold up, however. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > Martin Gelfand > Dept of Physics, Colorado State =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy06 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Oct 8 04:37:08 EDT 1995 ------------------------------