Sorry, I was away during the weekend.
I think the same as you about the electric and magnetic fields(they both
are aspects of the same thing). And I have stated it clearly in other
mails, by the way.
I just wanted to hear, and was trying to understand, the standard
explanation. If you think that that is beating a dead horse, I disagree.
The fact
that you have an explanation, and that it seems to coincide with my
ideas about both, the electric and magnetic fields,
and the aether, does not mean that that explanation is accepted and
mainstream.
Regards,
Mauro
On 05/29/2011 07:00 AM, John Berry wrote:
Ok, as you might guess from my email address I very much disagree that the
aether was proven false, nothing of the sort. Only a static Aether was
found to have evidence against it.
Secondly if you still want to know why Electric and Magnetic fields are
perpendicular in an EM wave etc... then you are ignoring the fact that I
have already essentially proven that magnetic fields are non-existant and
only a convenient was to understand how relativistically distorted electric
fields manifest.
So it is like asking why I am perpendicular to that dark guy lying on the
floor where I am standing by a light at night, how come we are always
perpendicular when I am standing on the floor.
If I have told you that it just looks like a man but it is just my shadow do
you really need to keep on being curious when you now understand precisely
how it comes to be that way?
I can show you every example where magnetic forces arise are due to electric
fields/forces that are distorted by movement that creates precisely the same
force we expect and get magnetically.
Quite a co-incidence.
If you choose to ignore the simple logical truth that makes sense then it is
likely you are really just practicing mysticism, and IMO there are plenty of
real mysteries to work out, no need to create them where none exists.
Electrons spin and orbit, Nucleus's spin, and distort their electric fields
doing so and should create the forces that we experience with permanent
magnets.
Wires attract and repel in theory as experienced.
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Mauro Lacy<ma...@lacy.com.ar> wrote:
On 05/27/2011 07:50 PM, Charles Hope wrote:
I suppose we are all somewhere on the conservative/crank spectrum. I think
physics is a difficult place for novel thought because the current models
are so excellent. Yet mysteries do remain. However I didn't know that Cooper
pairs was one of them.
But I see the difficulty in our communication. I take epistemic issue with
the idea that there can be a mathematical model without true understanding.
If we have a model, it behooves us to twist our minds into understanding
that! There is no understanding but the use of a valid model.
Exactly. And once you understood it, you stick with it because "it just
works". You almost never question it at the philosophical or epistemological
level. During most of the last century, there was a lot of confusion,
introduced by Relativity theory, about the concept of time, by example.
The case of the aether is also paradigmatic: when the results of some
experiments were not the expected ones, the aether was disregarded, and
relativity theories appeared. Nobody, or almost nobody, took the time to
reflect at the philosophical level on what had happened, and as a
consequence, a lot of confusion ensued. What had happened was that the
mechanical model of the aether was found to be false by experiment. As a
replacement, purely mathematical models were quickly introduced, which
agreed with the experiments. But those models were now devoid of physical
meaning. Just the general idea of "relativity", and of "all is relative"
popped up, and stuck like a grand revelation. That happened during most of
the last century, and is still happening.
That philosophical thinking is still lacking, and it's coming from
outsiders like me, because "real scientists" are so busy trying to
understand the math first, and to apply for grants and publish later, that
they don't have time to really reflect and think.
Philosophy was disregarded(a big mistake) in the name of results and
predictive power. The other consequence of the increasing complexity and the
quest for results was super-specialization. You have to be an expert to be
able to talk with authority and understanding about something. And when you
finally study to be an expert in one field, you cannot talk about anything
else! Moreover: you mostly lost the ability to relate and correlate
knowledge from different fields of knowledge.
That is an unfortunate state of affairs, and we can say that a great part
of the decadence of the western culture we experience today is related to
our urge for control only from the mechanistic perspective.
Regards,
Mauro
