Electric Universe guys take Einstein, respectfully, to the woodshed. He, like Darwin, admitted his theory was incomplete. Yet it’s been enshrined as Truth. How does that work?
Ultimately, yes. I see mathematics as basically a descriptive science. However, when considering contextual interactions, such as a bowling ball falling on a coconut, we can consider the equations for falling masses as an explanation, in the sense of determining the height needed for effects -- from cracking to smashing. A useful understanding of cause.
Electricity and magnetism are so much stronger than gravity. It would not be surprising at all if gravity pops out of some subtle correction to our current understanding of EM.
You'll probably enjoy Clifford Truesdell's marvelous essay "The Computer: Ruin of Science and Threat to Mankind" collected in An Idiot’s Fugitive Essays on Science (1984).
Regarding Lagrange, have you see Kane and Levinson's "Dynamics: Theory and Applications"? No least action. Instead, they derive the pseudo forces that arise from frame transformations.
It's a very dry read, with lots of proofs of doing partial differentiation with respect to various frames. I've started working through it several times and then got distracted by other projects. Finishing it is on my bucket list.
I bought it in the hope of coming up with a force based alternative to Schrodinger's equation. But the book is engineering, not pure physics. The methods arose out of designing robot arms for space probes.
Then again, going from engineering ideas back to pure physics appeals to certain people...
There is a consistent theme of mathematicians moving toward the Platonic philosophies, where experimentalists lean toward the Aristotelian camp. For example, I understand the drive by Lagrange to create more universal mathematical tools (and they are extremely powerful tools), but the damage to the philosophical underpinnings of Physics could be (and perhaps were) something that precludes our ability to consider other potential explanations of what we observe Reality to be. Unless we hew to the principle that Reality is the ultimate test of any theory, we can go very far astray.
Some of these pitfalls are becoming more clear with each one of your posts. Excellent work, Hans!
It's amazing how history of science repeats itself. That was the point I made way back in 1.0. The treatment of physics as a vast mathematical system that defies common sense was as much a description of the state of affairs in Faraday's day as it is in our own.
Forgive me but I am officially lost. Doesn't this describe gravity?
"That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it [[x]]."
That is exactly the description of gravity. And yes, it's still a total mystery. Newton's point was that it must work somehow, but he had the humility to acknowledge he didn't know how.
We still don't know.
In General Relativity, the modern theory of gravity, "matter tells space how to curve and space tells matter how to move." I don't find that very satisfactory. Like Newton's theory, it's ultimately a mathematical description of what happens. Why it happens, through what process, we still don't know. I'm only now getting a good grasp of how EM works and I still can't answer questions like "what is a field?" or "how is energy stored in free space?"
Maybe the pun was intended. But as a "little smatterer" in mathematics myself, I hesitate to offer firm opinions on the subtleties of the master's presentation!
This is the reason that Einstien was able to "break" Newtonian physics.The Platonic conceptualization and mathematical formalization made it inflexible, and therefore brittle. The same is true of quantum physics. We are now beginning see how formalization is advancing, and growing inflexibility is limiting these two fields as well.
Did he break it? Yes, he chose EM over gravity for alignment with Special Relativity, but did he break it? When we still have questions about what gravity actually is?
As Hans pointed out, modern conceptions of gravity involve a tensor field between two bodies mediated by gravitons. Space "curves" in the presence of a gravitational field/massive body.
But how does the planet Pluto (die in a fire, IAU) know where the sun is if graviton exchange takes hours to complete and bodies continue in their orbital paths during exchange? Do the forces on these bodies in this case become involved with torques in such a time delayed system? Torques would make an inverse square force driven orbit unstable.
There are a LOT of questions across the various areas of study within physics that are not yet sufficiently answered.
By "break it" I mean that until that point the interpretation of physics through Newtonian mechanics was considered sacrosanct. There could be no other interpretation as it was the only one allowed.
All this exhibits a misunderstanding of centripetal force. It can be attributed to a lack of knowledge or even thought about balance and its limits.
Here is their take- Newton, Einstein and a dash of Quantum: They dare to take the gauntlet thrown by Isaac!
Gravity in the Electric Universe
What Is The Speed Of Gravity?
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/02/21/gravity-in-the-electric-universe-space-news/
Electric Universe guys take Einstein, respectfully, to the woodshed. He, like Darwin, admitted his theory was incomplete. Yet it’s been enshrined as Truth. How does that work?
They raise interesting questions, but I'm not convinced they have all the answers, either.
There's an endemic confusion between description and explanation.
Newton plainly understood he was describing something, but we tend to use the label as if the description it represents is an explanation.
It's a kind of magic, where the word of power lulls us into thinking we're masters when all it is doing is hiding our ignorance from ourselves.
There's zero explanatory difference between "gravity did it" and "God did it", for example.
Ultimately, yes. I see mathematics as basically a descriptive science. However, when considering contextual interactions, such as a bowling ball falling on a coconut, we can consider the equations for falling masses as an explanation, in the sense of determining the height needed for effects -- from cracking to smashing. A useful understanding of cause.
An advance description?
Hmmm.
Perhaps?
Exactly. You can label something. You can even describe some aspects of how it behaves. That doesn't mean you really understand what it is.
Gotcha. Thanks.
The Electric Universe has some adherents that are working on a theory that gravity is electrical. That’s about all I know but maybe it makes sense.
Electricity and magnetism are so much stronger than gravity. It would not be surprising at all if gravity pops out of some subtle correction to our current understanding of EM.
"Thus the partial differential equation entered theoretical physics as a servant, but has gradually become a master”
The same can be said today of computational modeling. I regard its predominance as a major roadblock in the the advancement of science.
You'll probably enjoy Clifford Truesdell's marvelous essay "The Computer: Ruin of Science and Threat to Mankind" collected in An Idiot’s Fugitive Essays on Science (1984).
https://sci-hub.wf/10.1007/978-1-4613-8185-3_41
Regarding Lagrange, have you see Kane and Levinson's "Dynamics: Theory and Applications"? No least action. Instead, they derive the pseudo forces that arise from frame transformations.
No, I haven't.
It's a very dry read, with lots of proofs of doing partial differentiation with respect to various frames. I've started working through it several times and then got distracted by other projects. Finishing it is on my bucket list.
I bought it in the hope of coming up with a force based alternative to Schrodinger's equation. But the book is engineering, not pure physics. The methods arose out of designing robot arms for space probes.
Then again, going from engineering ideas back to pure physics appeals to certain people...
There is a consistent theme of mathematicians moving toward the Platonic philosophies, where experimentalists lean toward the Aristotelian camp. For example, I understand the drive by Lagrange to create more universal mathematical tools (and they are extremely powerful tools), but the damage to the philosophical underpinnings of Physics could be (and perhaps were) something that precludes our ability to consider other potential explanations of what we observe Reality to be. Unless we hew to the principle that Reality is the ultimate test of any theory, we can go very far astray.
Some of these pitfalls are becoming more clear with each one of your posts. Excellent work, Hans!
It's amazing how history of science repeats itself. That was the point I made way back in 1.0. The treatment of physics as a vast mathematical system that defies common sense was as much a description of the state of affairs in Faraday's day as it is in our own.
There is nothing new under the sun's figleaf, as a wise man once almost said.
Forgive me but I am officially lost. Doesn't this describe gravity?
"That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it [[x]]."
"fall into it". Pun intended?
Is not gravity still a total mystery? HELP!
Isn't the modern conception that space isn't a "thing" that can be curved, but merely an absence of things?
Wasn't there an experiment that indicated, after great and extensive debate, that there's no ether?
So how does nothing curve?
How does nothing tell things how to move?
Sounds like orc mischief to me...
That is exactly the description of gravity. And yes, it's still a total mystery. Newton's point was that it must work somehow, but he had the humility to acknowledge he didn't know how.
We still don't know.
In General Relativity, the modern theory of gravity, "matter tells space how to curve and space tells matter how to move." I don't find that very satisfactory. Like Newton's theory, it's ultimately a mathematical description of what happens. Why it happens, through what process, we still don't know. I'm only now getting a good grasp of how EM works and I still can't answer questions like "what is a field?" or "how is energy stored in free space?"
Maybe the pun was intended. But as a "little smatterer" in mathematics myself, I hesitate to offer firm opinions on the subtleties of the master's presentation!
This is the reason that Einstien was able to "break" Newtonian physics.The Platonic conceptualization and mathematical formalization made it inflexible, and therefore brittle. The same is true of quantum physics. We are now beginning see how formalization is advancing, and growing inflexibility is limiting these two fields as well.
Did he break it? Yes, he chose EM over gravity for alignment with Special Relativity, but did he break it? When we still have questions about what gravity actually is?
As Hans pointed out, modern conceptions of gravity involve a tensor field between two bodies mediated by gravitons. Space "curves" in the presence of a gravitational field/massive body.
But how does the planet Pluto (die in a fire, IAU) know where the sun is if graviton exchange takes hours to complete and bodies continue in their orbital paths during exchange? Do the forces on these bodies in this case become involved with torques in such a time delayed system? Torques would make an inverse square force driven orbit unstable.
There are a LOT of questions across the various areas of study within physics that are not yet sufficiently answered.
By "break it" I mean that until that point the interpretation of physics through Newtonian mechanics was considered sacrosanct. There could be no other interpretation as it was the only one allowed.
Ah, got it. Sorry for misunderstanding your post.