tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post4967726406933037689..comments2024-01-01T08:18:36.278-05:00Comments on Real Physics: "Conservative Physics"Lawrence Gagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01242322119143922513noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-89401864463908205282016-09-18T10:28:46.963-04:002016-09-18T10:28:46.963-04:00Many of the aspects of classical physics are unint...Many of the aspects of classical physics are unintuitive to many people. ’Infinitesimals’ are the basic building blocks of calculus, upon which ALL of physics is grounded. Yet, the axiomatic foundations of infinitesimals have only been established fairly recently.<br /><br />I have read some of the cranky things nonscientists, especially right wing ‘conservatives’, have said about modern physics. I have concluded that a lot of the so called paradoxes in modern physics really emerge from the mathematics of limits infinitesimals. A lot of marginal scientists and scientist wannabees have a rather poor intuition when it comes to the any physical arguments involving limits and infinitesimals.They avoid dealing with these abstract concepts in classical physics by memorizing the mathematical expressions derived via these concepts. <br /><br /> The distrust of mathematics is often a part of Dunning Krueger syndrome. The cranks are often arrogant technicians who like to think their empirical understanding is all there is. The cranks satisfy themselves with the final expressions hypothesize that the expressions often with the hypothesis that the expressions were induced from experiment. This hypothesis is usually wrong. They claim to know mathematics because they substitute numerical values into their expressions and find correct answers. However, they retain confidence in their own abilities by claiming that all higher mathematics is hum bug. If the crank can’t understand something, then the crank assumes that it must be useless. <br /><br /> The concept of limits, especially when it comes to infinitesimals, is useful for deriving expressions. Infinitesimal quantities by definition can’t be measured by experiment. Yet they are used in both classical and modern physics. <br /><br /><br />There is a book on how infinitesimals has been bothering ‘conservatives’ for a long time. Most of the suppression of the concept occurred before modern physics. Amir Alexander has written an informative book on how the mathematics of infinitesimals eventually developed despite religious suppression. <br /><br />https://www.amazon.com/Infinitesimal-Dangerous-Mathematical-Theory-Shaped/dp/0374534993<br />Infinitesimal: How a Dangerous Mathematical Theory Shaped the Modern World<br />Amir Alexander<br />‘On August 10, 1632, five men in flowing black robes convened in a somber Roman palazzo to pass judgment on a deceptively simple proposition: that a continuous line is composed of distinct and infinitely tiny parts. With the stroke of a pen the Jesuit fathers banned the doctrine of infinitesimals, announcing that it could never be taught or even mentioned. The concept was deemed dangerous and subversive, a threat to the belief that the world was an orderly place, governed by a strict and unchanging set of rules. If infinitesimals were ever accepted, the Jesuits feared, the entire world would be plunged into chaos.’<br /><br /> If the Jesuits are still in charge of mathematics education, as they used to be in Roman Catholic countries, then it would explain a lot. Does anyone know if any of the Webmasters running Conservapedia are Jesuit?’Darwin123https://www.blogger.com/profile/02092951492127821806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-2108799683672030582012-06-22T06:55:03.103-04:002012-06-22T06:55:03.103-04:00thanks for your blogthanks for your blogAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02598690227045706921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-9916580305693648862009-11-08T22:19:30.531-05:002009-11-08T22:19:30.531-05:00I'll keep an eye on the post. Bethell has left...I'll keep an eye on the post. Bethell has left an angry response. Will be interesting to see what Barr comes back with.John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-89768598799120340592009-11-08T12:45:59.921-05:002009-11-08T12:45:59.921-05:00I don't think so--Barr didn't call his blu...I don't think so--Barr didn't call his bluff so much as call him an ignorant nitwit, without bothering to spell Bethell's name correctly. It isn't even clear from reading Barr's complaint (for that is what it is) that he even skimmed Bethell's book, let alone read it.<br /><br />I do sympathize with his feelings--I've dealt with many know-nothings who were convinced they had overthrown everything in physics and it isn't a pretty sight. But Bethell did not say any of this was his theory, nor was the $2000 challenge his own. Indeed, Bethell finished his book with the help of Hayden, who apparently is a physicist.<br /><br />At minimum, Barr might have at least pointed out, since Bethell even mentions it in his review, that it is now accepted that the "shortened spaceships" image of length contraction is erroneous, so its never having been seen is not surprising.<br /><br />Even if it is the case that Bethell's book and Beckmann's theory are exercises in cluelessness, Barr had more than enough space to demonstrate THAT, rather than what he did demonstrate, which is that physicists (and most professionals for that matter) get incensed when layman trespass on their turf.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14088754734378348761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-68375463321357564422009-11-07T22:21:57.656-05:002009-11-07T22:21:57.656-05:00Mike, this is great news. Thank God someone at one...Mike, this is great news. Thank God someone at one of the mainstream conservative magazines finally decided to call Bethell's bluff.John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-51772516497870560132009-11-07T14:00:47.978-05:002009-11-07T14:00:47.978-05:00Barr comments on Bethel
http://www.firstthings.co...Barr comments on Bethel<br /><br />http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/11/06/absolutely-clueless-about-relativity/TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-83317098347335181672009-11-05T14:23:30.408-05:002009-11-05T14:23:30.408-05:00@John Farrell For a bit over a year from '99-...@John Farrell For a bit over a year from '99-'00 I worked at Infinite Energy Magazine. Shortly before I started, the magazine had published several of Santilli's papers. But it also had published a paper by Dr. Tom Phipps (a wonderful man and dissident) which Santilli insisted (something he did often) drew on his work while failing to provide proper attribution.<br /><br />Exactly what it was Santilli thought was taken from him wasn't even clear at the time, let alone now. But acting as his own lawyer, and unsatisfied with the magazine's response to his complaint, Santilli proceeded to sue everyone on the masthead with a whole host of acrimonius accusations.<br /><br />The case eventually evaporated when it became clear there was no workable way to compell those being sued to show up to testify since we were scattered all over the country.<br /><br />The moral of the story? Associate with dissidents at your own risk.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14088754734378348761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-69242789528910246922009-11-05T13:59:21.142-05:002009-11-05T13:59:21.142-05:00If we equate "easier to understand" with...If we equate "easier to understand" with "minimum number of assumptions" then the easiest way to derive, and hence understand, Special Relativity is from Jefimenko's theory of electromagnetic retardation. This requires no assumptions (unless you want to count cause always preceeding effect as an assumption) and only the knowledge that electromagnetic effects propagate at a finite speed. <br /><br />All of the beloved and "mysterious" equations of S-R are derivable via the retarded integrals. "Time" doesn't mysteriously slow down with increasing velocity, but clocks do, even the kind of biological clock we call a human.<br /><br />Einstein took a brilliant intuitve shortcut, just as Feynman did with path integrals. But when you "go the long way round" as Jefimenko did, you'll find those things that Einstein, and most others since, have missed.<br /><br />Jeffery D. KooistraJeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14088754734378348761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-16367636244554564292009-11-05T10:25:54.887-05:002009-11-05T10:25:54.887-05:00OMG, Jeff, you were sued by Santilli?? Outrageous....OMG, Jeff, you were sued by Santilli?? Outrageous. What happened?<br /><br />The speed of light debate was an outstanding resource for me. It took hundreds of pages to print out, but was very informative.John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-22578682934437893142009-11-05T09:09:40.200-05:002009-11-05T09:09:40.200-05:00@John Farrell: Excellent article--those names brou...@John Farrell: Excellent article--those names brought back a lot of memories. I moderated the "speed-of-gravity" debate between Van Flandern and Carlip through my e-mail account, was sued by Santilli, and built a few "Marinov motors" in my day.<br /><br />The full set of "anti-relativity cranks" is a bit more varied than depicted, but those making the most noise are very much as described.<br /><br />Jeffery D. KooistraJeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14088754734378348761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-55299704738595725912009-11-04T16:43:28.197-05:002009-11-04T16:43:28.197-05:00Ironically, as I understand Ockham and his stance ...Ironically, as I understand Ockham and his stance on the principle of parsimony, it was that the physical world could be as complicated as God wished, but philosophers should minimize the number of entities -- we would say, have the fewest terms in our models -- because otherwise we wouldn't be able to understand our own models. <br /><br />So, "easier to understand" was the reason for minimizing terms and assumptions in the first place.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-38503398361088730562009-11-03T22:27:24.979-05:002009-11-03T22:27:24.979-05:00I think you're exactly right. From his article...I think you're exactly right. From his article, and what he's written about Beckmann before, I think Bethell sees this project in a way as standing up for his late friend.<br /><br />The press that published the book seems to be affiliated with the old Access to Energy newsletter that Beckmann edited himself.John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-82656509625073123492009-11-03T18:47:05.681-05:002009-11-03T18:47:05.681-05:00John,
Thanks for the link, and your thoughts! Tr...John, <br /><br />Thanks for the link, and your thoughts! Tracking down the source of that supposed quotation was a real service. Good job!<br /><br />What you say about Bethell identifying "simpler" as meaning easier to understand is thought-provoking. It reminds me of Descartes's identification of truth with "clear and distinct ideas." The weakness of this criterion is that <i>for whom</i> the idea is clear and distinct is unspecified. Ultimately the criterion fails because it is too subjective. (One legacy of this failure is the difficulty of the "demarcation problem.")<br /><br />From what you say, Bethell has submitted to subjectivism and relativism (in the philosophical sense) that (I'm supposing) he would claim to oppose. Rather ironic.<br /><br />LGLawrence Gagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01242322119143922513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-37188015816401575442009-11-03T13:17:46.172-05:002009-11-03T13:17:46.172-05:00The problem with Beckmann's theory is that it ...The problem with Beckmann's theory is that it introduces so many more assumptions in order to cleverly arrive at the same results as Einstein. Bethell seems to think 'simpler' means easier to understand when explained in layman's terms. Physicists generally think simpler means it makes due with fewer assumptions.John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-79018788509703522462009-11-03T13:14:04.978-05:002009-11-03T13:14:04.978-05:00Years ago I wrote a piece for Salon on Bethell and...Years ago I wrote a piece for Salon on Bethell and anti-relativists in general. I had read Bethell before on the subject, but what really got me interested in writing an article about all this, is he claimed based on a source he would not name that Einstein deliberately fudged his GRT field calculations in order to derive Mercury's perihelion. <br /><br />In case you're interested, the article is <a href="http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html" rel="nofollow">here.</a>John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-64528023954521707352009-11-01T07:00:16.041-05:002009-11-01T07:00:16.041-05:00Can you give specific examples, Brad?
My underst...Can you give specific examples, Brad? <br /><br />My understanding is that Beckmann's gravitational ether theory is only experimentally distinguishable from the Einstein's theories in certain unique circumstances, such as orbiting the planet and other places at the interfaces of gravitational fields.<br /><br />Of course, Bethell may be his own worst enemy in promoting Beckmann's theory. The first impression his writing gives is that he's claiming simply that Einstein is totally wrong (implicitly in all contexts) instead of the more humble (more rhetorically savvy) tack that relativity, while good, doesn't apply to all circumstances.<br /><br />Bethell's fundamental problem is that he brings a manifestly "political" approach to a scientific subject that requires cool detachment. <br /><br />LGLawrence Gagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01242322119143922513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-86746752587018537062009-10-31T23:12:18.257-04:002009-10-31T23:12:18.257-04:00But Bethell's claims have been falsified, repe...But Bethell's claims have been falsified, repeatedly, in experimental and engineering contexts. They are falsified every single day...bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04548019979157668776noreply@blogger.com