foolows from symmetry of spactine

| >Let's see if you can behave yourself.
|
| Always do....

Starting out with a lie could be construed a violation of your parole.
Never mind that, though, what is it about fields that you wish
to discuss?
BTW, this is the correct way to create an orbit:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.xls
(even with Vista).
The field is centred on the focus... that's the fiducial mark near the
centre which changes its horizontal position as the eccentricity changes.
Panning across, one can see the generated (x,y) coordinates.
You may, if you wish, enter the value 200 into location C2 on the
spreadsheet and obtain a Wombat Wilson Wobbly Worbit, the
spreadsheet is designed for 100 pts.

Androcles ....specialising in demonstrating mathematics to wombats too dumb
to learn....

This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:qpgc14l2e0c01sng4bqcst48cm4q24ud4r@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 07:43:55 +0100, "Androcles"
Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics
| wrote:
|
|
| >| >Let's see if you can behave yourself.
| >|
| >| Always do....
|
| >Starting out with a lie could be construed a violation of your parole.
| >Never mind that, though, what is it about fields that you wish
| >to discuss?
| >BTW, this is the correct way to create an orbit:
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.xls
| >(even with Vista).
| >The field is centred on the focus... that's the fiducial mark near the
| >centre which changes its horizontal position as the eccentricity changes.
| >Panning across, one can see the generated (x,y) coordinates.
| >You may, if you wish, enter the value 200 into location C2 on the
| >spreadsheet and obtain a Wombat Wilson Wobbly Worbit, the
| >spreadsheet is designed for 100 pts.
|
| Mine is far superior.

Back in the killfile you go.
*plonk*

What you do isn't "arguing". You made a wrong statement, and cut
discussion of it. _You're_ the one who claimed that Newtonianism is
fundamentally flawed, and physics will not advance until we get rid of it.

Bull, I never claimed that.

You want me to quote you?

Sure, do.

"MECHANISM is what we need, and until that day physics will not advance".
How is this not a claim that Newtonianism (i.e., priority of mathematical
model over "mechanism") is flawed? You've largely avoided any substantial
discussion of this point, largely by the simple tactic of cut-and-ignore.

You must have noticed that we still have Newton's equations, but have no
clue as to what gravity actually is, so we have not advanced.
If we had, we would have been able to manipulate gravity.

That's a stinking pile of crap.

Firstly, you ignore the progress that has
been made in physics as a direct result of Newton's law of universal
gravitation (for example, we understand most of celestial mechanics on
that basis; only a few cases require physics or mathematical models beyond
Newton's LUG).
end confused paragraph

Secondly, even if we knew what gravity _is_, that doesn't mean that we
would be able to manipulate it.

We know what stars are, but can we
manipulate them? You might as well try to claim that we don't understand
history, because we can't manipulate it.

Holy shit, you are daft are not you?
This is the SAME thing.
Maybe your idea of mechanism is not of this world or planet.

Don't be such an idiot! Did, for example, electromagnetic theory advance
in 1820-1920 or not? Was this an "advance in physics"? This period in EM
theory can be characterised by a discarding of "mechanism" (as the word is
usually understood in the context

Electrons as little balls is fine for CRTs. Not needed for almost anything
else in electronics, other than shot noise. Do note how much of
electronics predates knowing about electrons. Do note how much of
electrons requires quantum mechanics, electrons as waves, not little
balls, to understand how it works.

To do electronics, you need to know how
the things in the circuit behave. At most, you need mathematical models
describing the phenomena. Isn't Ohm's law enough to choose an appropriate
resistor for a circuit, even with no "mechanism"?

See, that is the difference between understanding and engineering.
Once you have dreamt up a configuration, then you can do engineering, and
in engineering use Ohm's law to calculate some component.
You cannot _I_ _repeat_ _CANNOT_ start with Ohms law and design
a circuit that does something.
To design a circuit that does something, you need a clue what electrons do.
Once you have your circuit, then use Ohm's law to get the quantities.

So, you can start from the "little ball analogy"? Or do you need to start
at a higher level, and have some experience and knowledge of electronics?

Sometimes. experiment leads. Sometimes, theory leads. For example, fibre
optics. Lord Rayleigh did the theory, and it took about 60 years for the
manufacturing to catch up. Would they, should they, have bothered without
having the theory there that it should work?

Take for example all that stuff about optical cloaking.
Keep on trying :-)

Trying what? But I see you didn't answer the question (again). Should they
have bothered? Should they have bothered without theory telling them that
decades of effort might pay off, if the engineering difficulties could be
overcome?

They did the math, published papers, but if you read it there are very tight
limits where it _could_ work.
Once you see that, should you keep investing millions in trying to get a
cloaking device that completely hides soldiers or tanks?

Who is investing millions in this effort? A lot has been invested in
reducing radar visibility, and it's worked. In any case, if the theory
says it isn't practical, why should that encourage further investment?

"MECHANISM is what we need, and until that day physics will not advance".

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Timo wrote:

What you do isn't "arguing". You made a wrong statement, and cut
discussion of it. _You're_ the one who claimed that Newtonianism is
fundamentally flawed, and physics will not advance until we get rid of it.

Bull, I never claimed that.

You want me to quote you?

Sure, do.

"MECHANISM is what we need, and until that day physics will not advance".
How is this not a claim that Newtonianism (i.e., priority of mathematical
model over "mechanism") is flawed? You've largely avoided any substantial
discussion of this point, largely by the simple tactic of cut-and-ignore.

You must have noticed that we still have Newton's equations, but have no
clue as to what gravity actually is, so we have not advanced.
If we had, we would have been able to manipulate gravity.

That's a stinking pile of crap.

No, I am talking about gravity,

No, your original claim was not that without a "mechanism" for gravity,
our understanding of what gravity is will not advance, but rather than
without "mechanism", _physics_ will not advance.

As you might have noticed, there is more to physics than understanding
what gravity "is". We can certainly advance without knowing what gravity
"is". It would be nice to know what gravity really "is", but it quite
clearly not necessary for progress - if you look at the historical
progress following Newton's law of universal gravity, a mere mathematical
model, devoid of "mechanism", you will see rapid and spectacular advances
being made. Just not in the topic of what gravity "is". From history, we
know that Newtonianism was very, very successful.

and you, in the below paragraph, fail to stay
on the subject, and wander of in random directions:

start confused paragraph
 >Firstly, you ignore the progress that has
 >been made in physics as a direct result of Newton's law of universal
 >gravitation (for example, we understand most of celestial mechanics on
 >that basis; only a few cases require physics or mathematical models beyond
 >Newton's LUG).
end confused paragraph

Secondly, even if we knew what gravity _is_, that doesn't mean that we
would be able to manipulate it.

Well, from an engineering POV you bet we will!

Given that we don't know what it "is", it seems rather presumptuous to say
that we _will_ be able to manipulate it. Perhaps, perhaps not.

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page:http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints:http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits:http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Timo wrote:

What you do isn't "arguing". You made a wrong statement, and cut
discussion of it. _You're_ the one who claimed that Newtonianism is
fundamentally flawed, and physics will not advance until we get rid of it.

Bull, I never claimed that.

You want me to quote you?

Sure, do.

"MECHANISM is what we need, and until that day physics will not advance".
How is this not a claim that Newtonianism (i.e., priority of mathematical
model over "mechanism") is flawed? You've largely avoided any substantial
discussion of this point, largely by the simple tactic of cut-and-ignore.

You must have noticed that we still have Newton's equations, but have no
clue as to what gravity actually is, so we have not advanced.
If we had, we would have been able to manipulate gravity.

That's a stinking pile of crap.

No, I am talking about gravity,

and you, in the below paragraph, fail to stay
on the subject, and wander of in random directions:

start confused paragraph
Firstly, you ignore the progress that has
been made in physics as a direct result of Newton's law of universal
gravitation (for example, we understand most of celestial mechanics on
that basis; only a few cases require physics or mathematical models beyond
Newton's LUG).
end confused paragraph

Secondly, even if we knew what gravity _is_, that doesn't mean that we
would be able to manipulate it.

Well, from an engineering POV you bet we will!

No, I am talking about gravity,

No, your original claim was not that without a "mechanism" for gravity,
our understanding of what gravity is will not advance,

but rather than
without "mechanism", _physics_ will not advance.

Secondly, even if we knew what gravity _is_, that doesn't mean that we
would be able to manipulate it.

Well, from an engineering POV you bet we will!

Given that we don't know what it "is", it seems rather presumptuous to say
that we _will_ be able to manipulate it. Perhaps, perhaps not.

"Jan Panteltje"
"MECHANISM is what we need, and until that day physics will not advance".

Maybe you like to hear my idea. Its a model based on GR and Quaternion
rotation.
Gravity is a geometric effect in spacetime. This is due to the energy
content of material bodies. This is modelled via rotation, what would make
the lightpath longer. That is observed as light being deviated or space
curved.
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

On a sunny day (Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:26:58 +0200) it happened "Thomas
Heger"
hballo@hotmail.com> wrote in <fv87bl$ni3$03$1@news.t-online.com>:


"Jan Panteltje"
"MECHANISM is what we need, and until that day physics will not
advance".

Maybe you like to hear my idea. Its a model based on GR and Quaternion
rotation.
Gravity is a geometric effect in spacetime. This is due to the energy
content of material bodies. This is modelled via rotation, what would
make
the lightpath longer. That is observed as light being deviated or space
curved.
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

I have made it to page 15, and still have no clue what you are trying to
say?
Read it backwards.Interesting is at the end.

"Jan Panteltje" <PNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:fv9cor$joh$1@aioe.org...
On a sunny day (Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:26:58 +0200) it happened "Thomas
Heger"
hballo@hotmail.com> wrote in <fv87bl$ni3$03$1@news.t-online.com>:


"Jan Panteltje"
"MECHANISM is what we need, and until that day physics will not
advance".

Maybe you like to hear my idea. Its a model based on GR and Quaternion
rotation.
Gravity is a geometric effect in spacetime. This is due to the energy
content of material bodies. This is modelled via rotation, what would
make
the lightpath longer. That is observed as light being deviated or space
curved.
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

I have made it to page 15, and still have no clue what you are trying to
say?
Read it backwards.Interesting is at the end.

Read it backwards.Interesting is at the end.

OK, I did start at the end.
I see you had a bar, and did economics.
The world's financial system cis in a bad ste it seems,
too much hedging.
This is a nice site too:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
Personally I drink no alcohol, keeps the mind clear, and the reaction time
better.

Read it backwards.Interesting is at the end.

OK, I did start at the end.
I see you had a bar, and did economics.
The world's financial system cis in a bad ste it seems,
too much hedging.
This is a nice site too:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
Personally I drink no alcohol, keeps the mind clear, and the reaction time
better.


Oh no. Maybe not the last pages. Its about a scheme to do physics without
observers. that is regarded as the way nature behaves. QM i treat as physics
of observations, since that depends on an observer. You get a defintion of
time through your observation, what you could do with a clock. But spacetime
is about intervalls. Now I build particles out of intervals and it works
very well. The very interesting point is, that you can build intervals out
of dimensionless numbers. This is very very interesting, I promise!

Thomas Heger

Timo wrote:

No, I am talking about gravity,

No, your original claim was not that without a "mechanism" for gravity,
our understanding of what gravity is will not advance,

It was.

but rather than
without "mechanism", _physics_ will not advance.

OK, but I ment that part of physics that has no mechanism, and used gravity
as example, I hope that is not too difficult for you?

Secondly, even if we knew what gravity _is_, that doesn't mean that we
would be able to manipulate it.

Well, from an engineering POV you bet we will!

Given that we don't know what it "is", it seems rather presumptuous to say
that we _will_ be able to manipulate it. Perhaps, perhaps not.

Not really, so far every time we found a mechanism, industry took a great flight
using that to do things.
Chem, electronics, are examples.