[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5

Doug Marett dm88dm at gmail.com
Thu Nov 29 23:36:38 CET 2018 

Hi Jamie,

    Okay, good, thanks for the personal context. Yes, you will have to fill
me in on your sonoluminescence ideas sometime.

   Regarding the Faraday disk experiments, I did actually attempt to take
into account external magnetic fields, such as that from the earth. I 3D
printed a very large Helmholtz coil form and wound the coil, and
incorporated this into the experiment (there is a picture here in my blurb
about me: http://conspiracyoflight.com/author.html) the Keene apparatus is
shown low down in the coil so you can see my face in this posed pic.
Checking from my notes, after all that work building the Helmholtz coil and
nullifying earth's magnetic field it made no difference to the result, so I
guess that was a good thing.

   Tried to wrap my head around your continuum-ist ideas on complexity and
emergence - this is pretty far from what I am familiar with so it might be
you exclusive domain, but if you are making headway with that then well
done : )

Doug


On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 3:23 PM James Rose <integrity at prodigy.net> wrote:

> Doug,  :-)
>
> I enjoyed reading your post here -- though for me -- you gave your fair
> share of 'jargon' also.  ;-)
>
> I am 71 - a general systems theorist/analyst (original academic time spent
> as a biologist) - but because my parents had some encounters with Einstein
> (through a friend of theirs who was a statistician (Hilbert Space
> specialist) - who worked with Albert for several years at IAS --- they set
> me on a path to try resolving the different (conflicting) physics and
> science models that humanity has built ... through math, experimentation,
> .. the hard and soft sciences .. and even 'systems behaviors' that are
> higher level organic .. where it gets complicated, messy, and damned
> difficult to dissect and evaluate.
>
> I took a few minutes just now to look up your CV and background.  :-)
> Some day we might have a fine conversation about sonoluminescence.  :-)
> (it is connected with all this other stuff too, as I'm guessing you already
> have a sensibility about.)
>
> I enjoyed the youtube videos you recommended.   What struck me was not the
> results that showed up with the different variants of the experiments ..
> but the different results that might have been caused by whether the
> measuring apparatus was in motion or not (relative not to the EM fields
> evaluated as they were shown - but I don't think the additionally present
> external earth's EM fields were taken into account).
>
> ANYWAY ...   I abhor the 'many-worlds' hypothesis .. which is the standard
> deduction of the QM theorists who read too much Sci-Fi.  :-)))).     I
> think you discount it as well, by your remarks.
>
> I am a continuum-ist (to coin a cumbersome alternative label~word) .. who
> has arrived at the view that where conventional science has gone off the
> rails, is that we~they have lost track of mathematics as a language tool,
> and that it is NOT necessarily a reliable one-to-one map of phenomena,
> events and behaviors.    Yes, the statistics equations do an excellent job
> of corresponding with experiments~results, but that doesn't mean the QM
> math describes, explains, or accurately describes and justifies the
> phenomena involved.
>
> I work separates them all out and arrived at a different viewpoint ...
> where gradients are fundamental, entropy is NOT restricted to
> thermodynamics, but instead is a found in many other non-energy relations
> .. as a pattern of real -and- likely behaviors.
>
> Information relations precede the so-called '4 fundamental forces' ;
> Godel's incompleteness theorems were built on a a core logic mis-step, that
> everybody overlooks and doesn't recognize; Heisenberg's Uncertainty
> Principle was over simplified by one crucial step (he removed an important
> factor ... pi) so that no one recognizes the uncertainty equation as the
> key link that is the natural translation algorithm binding relativity and
> QM together.    (I won't detail my reasoning in this email .. maybe another
> time if you are interested).
>
> I analyzed Maxwell's Demon and discovered that it embodies Turing Machine
> components, and had associations with Shannon's information theory  - AND
> -   a better specification of entropic relations when understood as
> navigating nested levels of dimensions.   In other words, complex phenomena
> do not embody one and only one entropic gradient .. but have to be
> appreciated as ensembles of many entropic phenomena -interacting-.
> Some of them dominate overall consequences, and some are simply bridging
> mechanisms.  And some are simply math-maps, not the continuum ;;  easier to
> discuss (compute), rather than account for -all- details involved.
>
> Isn't it fascinating .. that Prigogine is noted for 'explaining'
> complexity and emergence using -only- statistics.
> And Mandelbrot is noted for 'explaining' complexity and emergence using
> -no- statistics.
>
> Now how the hell did -that- happen?    How can BOTH be correct?
>
> (Clue:   the answer to -their- connection is exactly the same as the
> answer that ties QM with continuum~relativity).  :-)
>
> James  (aka to friends as: Jamie)   {ie, you can call me Jamie  :-)))  }
> integrity at prodigy.net
> 2018 Nov 29
>
>
>
> ==========
>
> On Wednesday, November 28, 2018, 7:10:16 PM PST, Doug Marett <
> dm88dm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi James,
>
>     Okay, a bit of jargon in there but I will try to see my way through
> it... I would say relativity is a substantivalist philosophy which is
> compatible with perdurantism and eternalism - these are not my models, I am
> just uttering the philosophies that I think best describe Einstein's frame
> of mind when he co-invented space-time with Minkowski.
> The thing is, 4D points in space-time should at least have similar
> properties - i.e. if a point in the past is non-variable, then we should
> not expect a point in the future to be variable. So if i could travel into
> the past, it should appear exactly as I remember it. So one should not
> expect then that the future would somehow be variable and open-ended; the
> future after all is just the past as seen by an observer further in the
> future. To argue that the future has "room to change" is in my mind
> incompatible with the core philosophy of relativity, i.e. the co-existence
> of space-time points. And this goes to the soul of what is wrong with
> relativity (and perhaps also quantum mechanics), the notion that the
> properties of the universe are dependent on the perspective of the observer
> - going from memory, I think this comes originally from the
> anti-materialist and religious philosophy of George Berkeley , who heavily
> influenced the thinking of Heisenberg, and his "uncertainty". As I see it,
> the only way open to relativists to re-introduce free-will would be to say
> that there is a multiplicity of dimensions (paths) into the future and at
> each decision point you chose an alternate future - this is an idea
> explored in science fiction but it should be obvious that this is vanity to
> the max!! To believe that whether a millennial decides to get out of bed or
> not changes the entire course of the universe as we know it seems pretty
> preposterous. : )
>
> Doug
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:53 PM James Rose <integrity at prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> Doug,
>
> I've heard that debating view before - even held it myself in my early
> analysis years.  I called it "the necessary illusion of free will".
>
> The problem, as I've come to understand things, is that quantum logic and
> continuum logic is missing the cybernetically pressent
> transduction~translation algorythm that by necessity HAS TO EXIST .. even
> thought no one has identified it yet.
>
> NO "SYSTEM" can function or enact if 'option spaces' for future activities
> are seen as ordained ... and only ignorance and lack of data is at the root
> of not being able to predict the future exactly.   Your model relies on the
> presumption that ALL DATA~INFORMATION is in perfect associative connection
> always and under all circumstances -and- ALL frames of reference and
> velocities.     "Unknowns" do not exist .. in such a coherently perfectly
> interrelated universe.
>
> The example I like to use is a computer or information processing system
> that is totally saturated with data ... there is NO ROOM for the data to be
> processed in, to change and DO computation (if that is a person's
> criteria).     It becomes a inactive inert boat anchor blob.
>
> "Space for activit(ies)" dimensional AND temporal HAS to exist --
> free-function space~time.  Otherwise the universe is the word YOU used:
> "immovable".
>
> But that is NOT the universe we experience.
>
> Using old debating logic will get us no where.  A totally different
> dynamic that involves dimensional translations and 'performance space' is
> going to be the resolving key concept and relationship(s), Doug.
>
> [Probably worth a Nobel - if the discoverer is alive long enough to be
> recognized;  or a Fields Medal ;  or maybe future humanity's last option:
> to be remembered and thanked, even if no accolade 'prize' is awarded for
> the achievement.  :-))))))    ]
>
> James
> integrity at prodigy.net
>
>
>
>
> ===========
>
> On Wednesday, November 28, 2018, 1:50:57 PM PST, Doug Marett <
> dm88dm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Tufail and James,
>
>     I think the relativistic implication is much more stark than that - if
> the future co-exists then it is already "set in stone" - it is just another
> frame of a filmstrip that has already been filmed.
> So the future is preordained, set, immovable. There is no "possibility",
> there is no"free will"...what I write in this e-mail is "inevitable" as
> goofy as that may sound  : )
>     So anyone who believes in free-will should feel compelled to reject
> the notion of the space-time continuum - otherwise you might end up in a
> form of mental decay that we could call, with a little humour,
> "relativistic nihilism" where you conclude that whatever you do doesn't
> matter since the future is inevitable, so you just pine away in inaction...
>
> Doug
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:38 PM Tufail Abbas <tufail.abbas at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> Yes I agree that it is hard to believe unless we make it simpler.
> Einstein has made this very complex. :)
>
> Past is memory, Present is observable
> and Future is a possibility.In this way all three can co-exist as piece of
> information at *different coordinates of space.*
>
> Past is information which we cannot interact with except to the extent
> that we can bring it to the present, through some retrieval process.
> Present is the information that we are currently accessing.
> Future is the information which cannot be accessed unless conditions are
> fulfilled to make it present as an outcome of processes of naturally
> evolving universe.
>
> Keyword here is information, and information needs storage device!!
> Infact we need three different kind of storages namely Past, Present and
> Future.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tufail Abbas
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018, 22:20 Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hi Tufail,
>
>     Glad you liked the videos!
>
> To answer your questions, if the disk and magnet rotate in the opposite
> direction, the current direction reverses, so it would be negative. If the
> magnet and disk are reversed in position, the current direction remain the
> same if the magnetic field direction through the disk remains the same, if
> the magnet is flipped over, the current reverses. So in every case it obeys
> the left hand rule for electrons in the disk moving across a stationary
> magnetic field if you take the Maxwellian stance; current is generated via
> the Lorentz force.
>
> Yes, I think I follow on your other point - I am just trying to think of a
> better example - perhaps the relativistic idea that the past and future
> co-exist with the present is something impossible to test in principle,
> since there is currently no known way for an observer to visit the past and
> prove that it co-exists. I was thinking the other day about the
> implausibility of the space-time continuum and the big bang theory - if
> Einstein were right and the future and past co-exist, then immediately
> after the big bang, as soon as the arrow of time started, all places and
> events until the end of time would need to be conjured into existence all
> at once! The entire time-space continuum would need to suddenly "exist" ! I
> personally find this very hard to believe. : )
>
> Doug
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:13 AM Tufail Abbas <tufail.abbas at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Doug,
>
> Thanks for those videos!!
>
> You did an interesting experiment, though I feel, that perhaps all cases
> are not discussed.
>
> I wonder if it would be beneficial to discuss those cases.
>
> I wonder what would happen if both magnet and disc are co-rotating but in
> opposite/ counter clockwise direction. Will it give a negative or positive
> voltage?.
>
> I wonder what would happen if position of magnet and disc is interchanged
> and all cases are repeated.
>
> However I would like to clarify when I said that "it cannot be measured*"*,
> I mean the *absolute impossibility *of measuring/ detecting. Not that it
> is not measurable by using one method but possible to measure by using
> another method.
>
> Speed of light *(as we observe at present moment/era)* is so fundamental
> to the nature of reality , that without it space-time will cease to *evolve
> and expand*, which becomes a motion-less Universe.
>
> Hence time (which is detected from motion) and space (which is measured
> only when time is available) are no more detectable, though they may exist
> as information/knowledge on *landscape of all possibilities *untill such
> time Universe chooses to evolve in one way or the other with a particular
> reality. And landscape of all possibilities is not a physical object.
>
> Regards
>
> Tufail Abbas
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, 23:39 Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hi Tufail,
>
>      Yes, perhaps that is another interpretation...not really relativistic
> or Lorentzian. But that does lead into the other point that you mention,
> which is " if anything cannot be measured then it is no more a physical
> object or phenomenon" - which sound relativistic. I think a Lorentzian view
> would be that certain phenomenon can't be measured because there are equal
> and opposite effects occurring at the same time that cancel out. A good
> example of this is electromagnetic induction with the Faraday unipolar
> dynamo. I have a couple of videos I produced with an experimental
> demonstration of the paradox, and in part 2 reach the conclusion that there
> is experimental evidence to support the notion that electromagnetic
> induction can occur even when there is no relative motion between the
> parts. For reference, here are the links to the two YouTube videos:
>
> Part 1: The Paradox   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE
> Part 2: The solution    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5wgmTGi5pU&t=6s
>
> The point of the exercise is show that what should not exist according to
> relativity might actually be detectable...
>
> Doug
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:17 PM Tufail Abbas <tufail.abbas at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Doug,
>
> Yes, this question had  bothered me.
> Now it does not bother me anymore.
>
> Speed of light is the factor  by which space and time are related and
> separated from each other. In absence of such a factor, space and time *cannot
> be distinguished from each other *in this Universe , hence cannot be
> measured. And if anything cannot be measured then it is no more a physical
> object or phenomenon.
>
> To cut the story short: For me space , time and speed of light *are
> equally fundamental*. Either they all (physically) exist or all of
> three(3) vanishes and ceases to exist.
>
> Regards
>
> Tufail Abbas
>
>
>
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2018, 22:03 Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
>   I recently have found a couple of relativistic concepts that I have
> found logically disturbing and thought I would throw them out there.
>
> The first is Einstein's redefinition of time as "that which a clock
> measures" which differs in a dramatic way from the more classical
> definition of time as being "the duration between events" or "the duration
> of an event". To give an example, if three observers watch a sunrise on
> earth, then two of them fly in opposite directions around the earth while
> the third stays put, and meet back at the same place where they then watch
> the sunset, all three will disagree on the elapsed time for sunrise to
> sunset using clocks they have carried with them. In other words, according
> to Einstein, there is no actual constant duration between the sunrise and
> sunset, even though all witnesses are present in the same velocity frame
> for the start and finish. Further, the idea that the number of ticks on the
> clock defines how far you have progressed into the future would also be
> wrong according to Einstein, since all the clocks would have different
> ticks even though the share the same present at the start and finish. Why
> are these contradictions not fatal to Einstein's theory?
>
> The second has to do with the statement
>
> “indeed that the speed of light is actually more fundamental than either
> time or space”
>
> -
> http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/physics-of-time/relativistic-time/
>
>
> However, the speed of light depends on both “time” and “space (distance)"
> = distance/time
>
> Is this not a circular argument – that a phenomenon that depends on time
> and space is more fundamental than time and space?
>
> It is a bit like saying the speed of sound in air is more fundamental than
> air and time.
>
> Anyone else bothered by this ??
>
> Doug
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 11:46 PM Ruud Loeffen <rmmloeffen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Hans.
>
> My comment at Vixra on Mass- and Field Deformation:
> Dutch scientists play a big roll in theories about Gravitation and the
> (expanding) universe. Your paper is an interesting approach and may be put
> in line with these scientists. I agree with the comment of Rodney Savidge:
> It would be rewarding to include a glossary providing clear definitions of
> (in effect justifying the use of) the many esoteric terms (e.g., hop
> landings, modules, etc.).
>
> Best regards.
> Ruud Loeffen.
>
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 1:40 AM Hans van Leunen <jleunen1941 at kpnmail.nl>
> wrote:
>
> Please read "Mass and Field Deformation"; http://vixra.org/abs/1809.0564
> All massive objects are recurrently regenerated and the volume of the
> universe keeps expanding.
> Greathings,
> Hans van Leunen
>
> >----Origineel Bericht----
> >Van : ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com
> >Datum : 31/10/2018 19:33
> >Aan : physics at tuks.nl
> >Onderwerp : Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5
> >
> >> I have a related question for you. Since the universe is expanding,
> >> that means that all matter is growing larger. Since the tools that we
> >> use are also getting larger, how would we notice?
> >
> >No, what is held together by forces (including the gravitational
> >force) remains of the same size.
> >
> >So, the size of everything on Earth, but also the Solar system, the
> >galaxies, and even the galaxy clusters remains unchanged in size.
> >
> >> Is this why fossils
> >> from millions of years ago seem larger than today?
> >
> >Certainly not.
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Physics mailing list
> >Physics at tuks.nl
> >http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
>
>
> --
> *Ruud Loeffen*
> Paardestraat32
> 6131HC Sittard
> http://www.human-DNA.org
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
> _______________________________________________/listinfo/physics
> <http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181129/76f4f317/attachment.html>

More information about the Physics mailing list