Discussion:
Textbooks filled with lies...
(too old to reply)
benj
2014-08-26 23:13:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Back before everyone began to worship Einstein's sphincter science and
invention, especially IMPORTANT inventions and science that greatly
changed the way every one lives and looks at the world, used to hold up
the practical persistence of Edison and the brilliant inspiration of
Tesla as examples.

But then came Einstein and everything changed. Suddenly the measure of
science was not how practical you could make it in everyone's life but
rather how incomprehensible you could make it. The bigger the snow job,
the "higher" and "more advanced" the science was thought to be. The
measure of a scientist was no longer their discoveries of how Nature
worked as in the 19th century days of "Natural Philosophers" but rather
how obscure your mathematical derivations were. Science turned on it's
head.

And oddly Einstein himself took the opposite viewpoint asserting that
advanced physics could be explained to a barmaid if you understood it.

Professor Armstrong of Columbia University wrote about this in an article:

"The student picking up a textbook... does not get this picture. He
finds, instead a series of mathematical expressions almost totally
divorced from any basis of physical reasoning. He gets the impression
that he must learn to think in terms of trigonometrical functions, reams
of calculations and tables of all sorts. Nothing could be more
fantastic... the impression has been created that in some magical way
invention is connected a bewildering maze of symbols and curves."


Thank you Einstein! And you see it here in a host of paul drapers and
others worshiping Albert's sphincter and assuring everyone that science
is really all about a semantic debate over words and that mathematics is
more real than reality.
Timo
2014-08-27 06:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:13:44 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>
> Professor Armstrong of Columbia University wrote about this in an article:
>
> "The student picking up a textbook... does not get this picture. He
> finds, instead a series of mathematical expressions almost totally
> divorced from any basis of physical reasoning. He gets the impression
> that he must learn to think in terms of trigonometrical functions, reams
> of calculations and tables of all sorts. Nothing could be more
> fantastic... the impression has been created that in some magical way
> invention is connected a bewildering maze of symbols and curves."
>
> Thank you Einstein!

What does Einstein have to do with the mathematisation of classical mechanics? Blame Galileo and Newton for that.
szczepan bialek
2014-08-27 07:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Timo" <***@physics.uq.edu.au> napisal w wiadomosci
news:bbda7c45-008f-4193-b773-***@googlegroups.com...
> On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:13:44 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>>
>> Professor Armstrong of Columbia University wrote about this in an
>> article:
>>
>> "The student picking up a textbook... does not get this picture. He
>> finds, instead a series of mathematical expressions almost totally
>> divorced from any basis of physical reasoning. He gets the impression
>> that he must learn to think in terms of trigonometrical functions, reams
>> of calculations and tables of all sorts. Nothing could be more
>> fantastic... the impression has been created that in some magical way
>> invention is connected a bewildering maze of symbols and curves."
>>
>> Thank you Einstein!
>
> What does Einstein have to do with the mathematisation of classical
> mechanics? Blame Galileo and Newton for that.

"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921 was awarded to Albert Einstein "for his
services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law
of the photoelectric effect"."

"The laws" = math.
Do you agree?
S*
Odd Bodkin
2014-08-27 13:28:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/27/2014 2:56 AM, szczepan bialek wrote:
> "The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921 was awarded to Albert Einstein "for his
> services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law
> of the photoelectric effect"."
>
> "The laws" = math.
> Do you agree?
> S*

No.
benj
2014-08-27 08:44:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/27/2014 02:23 AM, Timo wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:13:44 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>>
>> Professor Armstrong of Columbia University wrote about this in an article:
>>
>> "The student picking up a textbook... does not get this picture. He
>> finds, instead a series of mathematical expressions almost totally
>> divorced from any basis of physical reasoning. He gets the impression
>> that he must learn to think in terms of trigonometrical functions, reams
>> of calculations and tables of all sorts. Nothing could be more
>> fantastic... the impression has been created that in some magical way
>> invention is connected a bewildering maze of symbols and curves."
>>
>> Thank you Einstein!
>
> What does Einstein have to do with the mathematisation of classical mechanics? Blame Galileo and Newton for that.

I don't know what the quote has to do with classical mechanics. Unless
you are saying that Galileo and Newton started the worship of
mathematics as reality that was finished by the worshipers of Einstein.

Of course Newton did help with that by inventing his own mathematics to
go with his philosophy. Galileo, not so much. I find it interesting that
time and again one hears that "Newton explained gravity" especially
among popular science press, though not exclusively limited to them. And
of course nothing could be further from the truth. Newton modeled
gravity forces in mathematics but explained nothing (except for his
"corpuscle" theory). Indeed Einstein did likewise where curvature of
space-time models gravity but nothing is "explained".

But hey, let's give old Galileo credit! Way back in the dark ages he
actually came up with the principle of relativity (in relation to
mechanics) which later Einstein and others asked the salient question:
Does Galileo's principle ALSO apply to electromagnetics (many suspected
it did) and the rest is history! And Galileo didn't have to "curve
space-time".

Note that I'm not saying that mathematics is useless or not an
interesting and important endeavor, only that it is fantasy and not
reality so far as we know. Though many here have asserted that
mathematics is the ONLY reality!
S***@hotmail.com
2014-08-27 18:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Kepler uncovered the intrinsic curvature of space (but,
"spacetime is nothing but a phase space, or
the lack of a flipbook
;fignewton merely algebraized Kepler's orbital constraints;
Gauss found the canonical form for "curvature

> But hey, let's give old Galileo credit! Way back in the dark ages he
>
> actually came up with the principle of relativity (in relation to
>
> mechanics) which later Einstein and others asked the salient question:
>
> Does Galileo's principle ALSO apply to electromagnetics (many suspected
>
> it did) and the rest is history! And Galileo didn't have to "curve
>
> space-time".
>
>
>
> Note that I'm not saying that mathematics is useless or not an
>
> interesting and important endeavor, only that it is fantasy and not
>
> reality so far as we know. Though many here have asserted that
>
> mathematics is the ONLY reality!
Timo
2014-08-28 06:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 6:44:54 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> On 08/27/2014 02:23 AM, Timo wrote:
>
> > What does Einstein have to do with the mathematisation of classical mechanics? Blame Galileo and Newton for that.
>
> I don't know what the quote has to do with classical mechanics. Unless
> you are saying that Galileo and Newton started the worship of
> mathematics as reality that was finished by the worshipers of Einstein.

They (and many of their predecessors and contemporaries) started the primacy of mathematical models in physics. Galileo also pushed the idealised thought experiment quite strongly.

I haven't read the original source of the quote (the 1944 article), so I don't know what students Armstrong refers to. If he's writing about beginning students, he's talking mechanics, not EM theory. He is just talking about classical theory.

> Note that I'm not saying that mathematics is useless or not an
> interesting and important endeavor, only that it is fantasy and not
> reality so far as we know. Though many here have asserted that
> mathematics is the ONLY reality!

The relevance of your quote to that? Armstrong is complaining about over-dependence on "thinking in mathematics". That is, using mathematics as the tool to get results rather than physical reasoning.
benj
2014-08-28 06:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/28/2014 02:00 AM, Timo wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 6:44:54 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>> On 08/27/2014 02:23 AM, Timo wrote:
>>
>>> What does Einstein have to do with the mathematisation of
>>> classical mechanics? Blame Galileo and Newton for that.
>>
>> I don't know what the quote has to do with classical mechanics.
>> Unless you are saying that Galileo and Newton started the worship
>> of mathematics as reality that was finished by the worshipers of
>> Einstein.
>
> They (and many of their predecessors and contemporaries) started the
> primacy of mathematical models in physics. Galileo also pushed the
> idealised thought experiment quite strongly.
>
> I haven't read the original source of the quote (the 1944 article),
> so I don't know what students Armstrong refers to. If he's writing
> about beginning students, he's talking mechanics, not EM theory. He
> is just talking about classical theory.
>
>> Note that I'm not saying that mathematics is useless or not an
>> interesting and important endeavor, only that it is fantasy and
>> not reality so far as we know. Though many here have asserted that
>> mathematics is the ONLY reality!
>
> The relevance of your quote to that? Armstrong is complaining about
> over-dependence on "thinking in mathematics". That is, using
> mathematics as the tool to get results rather than physical
> reasoning.

The students Armstrong is talking about were likely Electrical
Engineering students of the 1930s and 1940s. (Math and engineering were
rather different then...note his reference to plots and charts)

However his beef, is relevant, which was the worship of mathematics as
more real than reality. Professor Armstrong had invented what is
essentially modern FM radio as a solution to all the problems of the
then standard AM broadcasts. The hassle he found (and what set him off)
was that people had already used mathematics to "prove" that FM was an
unworkable system and virtually everyone to a man in the field was
convinced that Armstrong's invention was nothing more than
pseudo-science and quackery.

Demonstration after demonstration made few inroads on the belief because
the trust in mathematics being more real than reality was so strong (and
of course there were political aspects of corporations with
self-interests in keeping the status quo)

And you can see that nothing has changed just by going down a list of
science "forbidden topics" and charges of quackery and "pseudo-science"
immediately ensue because why? Because of data? Nope that's simply
dismissed out of hand as if it never happened. It is claimed to be
"fraud" or "incompetence" and so on. Nay, what is accepted as the
ultimate proof positive of quackery is the mathematical calculations!

In other words fantasy is the accepted proof of whether or not something
is real!
Timo
2014-08-28 23:47:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, August 28, 2014 4:41:17 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> On 08/28/2014 02:00 AM, Timo wrote:
> >
> > I haven't read the original source of the quote (the 1944 article),
> > so I don't know what students Armstrong refers to. If he's writing
> > about beginning students, he's talking mechanics, not EM theory. He
> > is just talking about classical theory.
>
> The students Armstrong is talking about were likely Electrical
> Engineering students of the 1930s and 1940s. (Math and engineering were
> rather different then...note his reference to plots and charts)

... and trigonometric functions.

Have you read the original article, or are you guessing?

> However his beef, is relevant, which was the worship of mathematics as
> more real than reality.

No. Nothing about "real" in the quote. Just about how to go about getting results. He's complaining about over-dependence on mathematics in coming up with ideas and results. Nothing to do with your philosophy of the (un)reality of mathematics.
benj
2014-08-29 07:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/28/2014 07:47 PM, Timo wrote:
> On Thursday, August 28, 2014 4:41:17 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>> On 08/28/2014 02:00 AM, Timo wrote:
>>>
>>> I haven't read the original source of the quote (the 1944
>>> article), so I don't know what students Armstrong refers to. If
>>> he's writing about beginning students, he's talking mechanics,
>>> not EM theory. He is just talking about classical theory.
>>
>> The students Armstrong is talking about were likely Electrical
>> Engineering students of the 1930s and 1940s. (Math and engineering
>> were rather different then...note his reference to plots and
>> charts)
>
> ... and trigonometric functions.
>
> Have you read the original article, or are you guessing?

Not exactly guessing but I have not read the original. Story is I
encountered the article reference in working on another (unrelated)
piece by a different author. He suggested that Armstrong committed
suicide because of the extreme resistance to his views on science and
mathematics (a conclusion I think is rather over reached). But didn't
give the reference to the article. I found that the Armstrong biography
had his bibliography in it so I bought it for the reference. The Bio
included the quote from the article and a brief description of the
events surounding it. That's what I know. The quote speaks for itself.

>> However his beef, is relevant, which was the worship of mathematics
>> as more real than reality.
>
> No. Nothing about "real" in the quote. Just about how to go about
> getting results. He's complaining about over-dependence on
> mathematics in coming up with ideas and results. Nothing to do with
> your philosophy of the (un)reality of mathematics.

Note you are trying to pretend that this needs to be some kind of
irrefutable prove of my premise and that since it's not, I lose.

Sorry, this was only one nail in the coffin of math more real than
reality, not a proof of itself. You need to move on to my next post
with the quote from Einstein in which he characterizes geometry as fantasy.

The difference here between you and Armstrong is that you feel that
somehow math reflects the underlying wheelwork of nature. Therefore if
one does enough math and comes up with a prediction based upon that math
all that is then needed is to go measure the prediction, verify that the
math indeed was correct in the prediction et voila! It's another huge
success for math as the underlying basis for all reality.

Armstrong takes the opposite view, namely that while not denying the
above can work it is ALSO true that math can predict things that prove
totally false when measured. Hence the mathematics is NOT a
representation of the underlying wheelwork of nature but just a tool to
quantify results ONCE the person has a philosophy that seems to reflect
how nature works down in the wheelwork. In other words nature is real,
but mathematics is not.

As Einstein notes the reason math cannot represent reality is because it
is not based on reality at all. The idea is stupid. Math is based only
on self-consistency. The "truth" of the beginning postulates is not even
a question that makes sense.
Odd Bodkin
2014-08-29 12:44:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/29/2014 2:51 AM, benj wrote:
> On 08/28/2014 07:47 PM, Timo wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 28, 2014 4:41:17 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>>> On 08/28/2014 02:00 AM, Timo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I haven't read the original source of the quote (the 1944
>>>> article), so I don't know what students Armstrong refers to. If
>>>> he's writing about beginning students, he's talking mechanics,
>>>> not EM theory. He is just talking about classical theory.
>>>
>>> The students Armstrong is talking about were likely Electrical
>>> Engineering students of the 1930s and 1940s. (Math and engineering
>>> were rather different then...note his reference to plots and
>>> charts)
>>
>> ... and trigonometric functions.
>>
>> Have you read the original article, or are you guessing?
>
> Not exactly guessing but I have not read the original. Story is I
> encountered the article reference in working on another (unrelated)
> piece by a different author.

Yes, the book by Lawrence Lessing.

> He suggested that Armstrong committed
> suicide because of the extreme resistance to his views on science and
> mathematics (a conclusion I think is rather over reached).

Lessing didn't say that. He committed suicide because of legal issues
surrounding payment for his work on FM radio. In his suicide note, he
expressed deep regret for his physical attack on his wife and her
leaving him as a result, and that physical attack had been prompted by
her begging him to give up the lawsuits and move into retirement, both
of which he could not do.

> But didn't
> give the reference to the article. I found that the Armstrong biography
> had his bibliography in it so I bought it for the reference. The Bio
> included the quote from the article and a brief description of the
> events surounding it. That's what I know. The quote speaks for itself.

The context of the quote was given in the book, but which you
nevertheless distorted, apparently because you did not read the
surrounding material.

>
>>> However his beef, is relevant, which was the worship of mathematics
>>> as more real than reality.
>>
>> No. Nothing about "real" in the quote. Just about how to go about
>> getting results. He's complaining about over-dependence on
>> mathematics in coming up with ideas and results. Nothing to do with
>> your philosophy of the (un)reality of mathematics.
>
> Note you are trying to pretend that this needs to be some kind of
> irrefutable prove of my premise and that since it's not, I lose.

You are too obsessed with winning or losing, Ben. So was Armstrong.

>
> Sorry, this was only one nail in the coffin of math more real than
> reality, not a proof of itself. You need to move on to my next post
> with the quote from Einstein in which he characterizes geometry as fantasy.

Einstein did not say geometry was a fantasy. Please pay attention to
what you read. Einstein said, "But my dear boy, mathematics proves
nothing." That is not saying that geometry is a fantasy.

>
> The difference here between you and Armstrong is that you feel that
> somehow math reflects the underlying wheelwork of nature. Therefore if
> one does enough math and comes up with a prediction based upon that math
> all that is then needed is to go measure the prediction, verify that the
> math indeed was correct in the prediction et voila! It's another huge
> success for math as the underlying basis for all reality.

There are also physical concepts attached to the math. That is what
makes it a physical theory. And yes, if you use the concepts and the
math to come up with a prediction, and then you go MEASURE the
prediction, verify that the prediction was correct, then absolutely yes,
it's a huge success for the physical concepts and the attached math as
the underlying basis for reality. That is how science works, exactly.

>
> Armstrong takes the opposite view, namely that while not denying the
> above can work it is ALSO true that math can predict things that prove
> totally false when measured.

Yes, and if that's the case, then THAT THEORY is shown not to be a
correct representation of reality.

It does not show, however, that all mathematics is
therefore invalidated as an accurate model of reality. You have this
really goofy idea that if a mathematically supported idea is shown by
measurement to be not representative of reality, then ALL of mathematics
is therefore discountable as fantasy.

> Hence the mathematics is NOT a
> representation of the underlying wheelwork of nature but just a tool to
> quantify results ONCE the person has a philosophy that seems to reflect
> how nature works down in the wheelwork. In other words nature is real,
> but mathematics is not.
>
> As Einstein notes the reason math cannot represent reality is because it
> is not based on reality at all. The idea is stupid. Math is based only
> on self-consistency. The "truth" of the beginning postulates is not even
> a question that makes sense.

Einstein did not say that math is not based on reality at all. What he
said is that mathematics alone proves nothing.
Timo
2014-08-29 14:05:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, August 29, 2014 5:51:21 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> On 08/28/2014 07:47 PM, Timo wrote:
> >
> > Have you read the original article, or are you guessing?
>
> Not exactly guessing but I have not read the original.

"Not exactly"? How do you know, if not by guessing?

> The difference here between you and Armstrong is that you feel that
> somehow math reflects the underlying wheelwork of nature.

Yesterday, I was talking about existence/uniqueness proofs concerning solutions to a particular problem with another physicist, following his conference presentation in which he mentioned it. I said that I'm satisfied with (a) an existence argument based on physical reasoning, and (b) a uniqueness argument based on computational reasoning. He said that neither is "proof". Sure, neither is proof, but they are enough for me to proceed. He would like proof (but he also proceeds).

While he was certainly more mathematically inclined than me, did he think mathematics is more real than reality? To quote from a book of his: "However, as we have mentioned in section [...], [foo] is not a real physical phenomenon, albeit it can be a useful mathematical abstraction."

Meanwhile, you will look at a mathematical description of the electromagnetic field, see three different terms in the maths, and proclaim that therefore there are three physically real EM fields.

Don't project your sins of falling for the "reality of mathematics" onto others!
benj
2014-08-29 21:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/29/2014 10:05 AM, Timo wrote:
> On Friday, August 29, 2014 5:51:21 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>> On 08/28/2014 07:47 PM, Timo wrote:
>>>
>>> Have you read the original article, or are you guessing?
>>
>> Not exactly guessing but I have not read the original.
>
> "Not exactly"? How do you know, if not by guessing?
>
>> The difference here between you and Armstrong is that you feel that
>> somehow math reflects the underlying wheelwork of nature.
>
> Yesterday, I was talking about existence/uniqueness proofs concerning solutions to a particular problem with another physicist, following his conference presentation in which he mentioned it. I said that I'm satisfied with (a) an existence argument based on physical reasoning, and (b) a uniqueness argument based on computational reasoning. He said that neither is "proof". Sure, neither is proof, but they are enough for me to proceed. He would like proof (but he also proceeds).
>
> While he was certainly more mathematically inclined than me, did he think mathematics is more real than reality? To quote from a book of his: "However, as we have mentioned in section [...], [foo] is not a real physical phenomenon, albeit it can be a useful mathematical abstraction."
>
> Meanwhile, you will look at a mathematical description of the electromagnetic field, see three different terms in the maths, and proclaim that therefore there are three physically real EM fields.
>
> Don't project your sins of falling for the "reality of mathematics" onto others!
>
benj
2014-08-29 21:52:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/29/2014 10:05 AM, Timo wrote:
> On Friday, August 29, 2014 5:51:21 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>> On 08/28/2014 07:47 PM, Timo wrote:
>>>
>>> Have you read the original article, or are you guessing?
>>
>> Not exactly guessing but I have not read the original.
>
> "Not exactly"? How do you know, if not by guessing?
>
>> The difference here between you and Armstrong is that you feel
>> that somehow math reflects the underlying wheelwork of nature.
>
> Yesterday, I was talking about existence/uniqueness proofs concerning
> solutions to a particular problem with another physicist, following
> his conference presentation in which he mentioned it. I said that I'm
> satisfied with (a) an existence argument based on physical reasoning,
> and (b) a uniqueness argument based on computational reasoning. He
> said that neither is "proof". Sure, neither is proof, but they are
> enough for me to proceed. He would like proof (but he also
> proceeds).
>
> While he was certainly more mathematically inclined than me, did he
> think mathematics is more real than reality? To quote from a book of
> his: "However, as we have mentioned in section [...], [foo] is not a
> real physical phenomenon, albeit it can be a useful mathematical
> abstraction."

He said neither is proof! Nobody, me included, is arguing here that
mathematical abstraction is not useful and should be rejected as tool.

The problems come when the opposite occurs. You see people (at times
even me) blandly dropping assertions including "infinity" and "points"
and a whole host of other non-real, imaginary, fantasy. Yes, we are
supposed to "fill in the blanks" and know what they mean...but when you
do it enough you start to forget that and assume that "dimensionless
objects" (points) or "infinity" actually are real things.

> Meanwhile, you will look at a mathematical description of the
> electromagnetic field, see three different terms in the maths, and
> proclaim that therefore there are three physically real EM fields.

There really are NOT EM fields. Fields are mathematics and NOT real!
There are real electromagnetic FORCES and we use the mathematics of
"fields" to attempt to describe them. The fact that so many now think
that EM fields are somehow "real things" shows the danger of assuming
math is more real than reality.

> Don't project your sins of falling for the "reality of mathematics"
> onto others!

How is it that when I've been the one pointing out the dangers of
thinking math is "more real than reality" your argument is that *I* am
the guilty one and am merely "projecting" my sins onto others. This is
utter nonsense. It needs saved for some political debate.

Point is: Sometimes mathematics seems to model the actions of nature
quite nicely and when it does it's rather useful in making predictions
to be tested and expanding understanding of the phenomena.

But there is NO requirement that math reflect nature. Indeed since math
is fantasy, I can at any time imagine a new mathematical system the
polar opposite of the one reflecting nature that is GUARANTEED to be
wrong! Such a system has no value for science or prediction. But that
does not make it mathematically invalid and not of interest to
mathematicians. In fact, many mathematicians revel in such systems proud
of the fact they have no utility!
Mahipal
2014-08-29 23:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, August 29, 2014 5:52:35 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> On 08/29/2014 10:05 AM, Timo wrote:
> > On Friday, August 29, 2014 5:51:21 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> >> On 08/28/2014 07:47 PM, Timo wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Have you read the original article, or are you guessing?
> >>
> >> Not exactly guessing but I have not read the original.
> >
> > "Not exactly"? How do you know, if not by guessing?
> >
> >> The difference here between you and Armstrong is that you feel
> >> that somehow math reflects the underlying wheelwork of nature.
> >
> > Yesterday, I was talking about existence/uniqueness proofs concerning
> > solutions to a particular problem with another physicist, following
> > his conference presentation in which he mentioned it. I said that I'm
> > satisfied with (a) an existence argument based on physical reasoning,
> > and (b) a uniqueness argument based on computational reasoning. He
> > said that neither is "proof". Sure, neither is proof, but they are
> > enough for me to proceed. He would like proof (but he also
> > proceeds).
> >
> > While he was certainly more mathematically inclined than me, did he
> > think mathematics is more real than reality? To quote from a book of
> > his: "However, as we have mentioned in section [...], [foo] is not a
> > real physical phenomenon, albeit it can be a useful mathematical
> > abstraction."
>
> He said neither is proof! Nobody, me included, is arguing here that
> mathematical abstraction is not useful and should be rejected as tool.
>
> The problems come when the opposite occurs. You see people (at times
> even me) blandly dropping assertions including "infinity" and "points"
> and a whole host of other non-real, imaginary, fantasy. Yes, we are
> supposed to "fill in the blanks" and know what they mean...but when you
> do it enough you start to forget that and assume that "dimensionless
> objects" (points) or "infinity" actually are real things.
>
> > Meanwhile, you will look at a mathematical description of the
> > electromagnetic field, see three different terms in the maths, and
> > proclaim that therefore there are three physically real EM fields.
>
> There really are NOT EM fields. Fields are mathematics and NOT real!
> There are real electromagnetic FORCES and we use the mathematics of
> "fields" to attempt to describe them. The fact that so many now think
> that EM fields are somehow "real things" shows the danger of assuming
> math is more real than reality.
>
> > Don't project your sins of falling for the "reality of mathematics"
> > onto others!
>
> How is it that when I've been the one pointing out the dangers of
> thinking math is "more real than reality" your argument is that *I* am
> the guilty one and am merely "projecting" my sins onto others. This is
> utter nonsense. It needs saved for some political debate.
>
> Point is: Sometimes mathematics seems to model the actions of nature
> quite nicely and when it does it's rather useful in making predictions
> to be tested and expanding understanding of the phenomena.
>
> But there is NO requirement that math reflect nature. Indeed since math
> is fantasy, I can at any time imagine a new mathematical system the
> polar opposite of the one reflecting nature that is GUARANTEED to be
> wrong! Such a system has no value for science or prediction. But that
> does not make it mathematically invalid and not of interest to
> mathematicians. In fact, many mathematicians revel in such systems proud
> of the fact they have no utility!

Ben I agree with your point of view, your perspective, and all that.
Math is just another Language, I get it. Those that don't... well youKnow.

Raise the Bar bar BAR Ben... Btw... I love your posts Ben!

-- Mahipal 'Liars will never know they are Lying lying LYING!'
benj
2014-08-30 01:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/29/2014 07:56 PM, Mahipal wrote:
> On Friday, August 29, 2014 5:52:35 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
>> On 08/29/2014 10:05 AM, Timo wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 29, 2014 5:51:21 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>>>> On 08/28/2014 07:47 PM, Timo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you read the original article, or are you guessing?
>>>>
>>>> Not exactly guessing but I have not read the original.
>>>
>>> "Not exactly"? How do you know, if not by guessing?
>>>
>>>> The difference here between you and Armstrong is that you feel
>>>> that somehow math reflects the underlying wheelwork of nature.
>>>
>>> Yesterday, I was talking about existence/uniqueness proofs concerning
>>> solutions to a particular problem with another physicist, following
>>> his conference presentation in which he mentioned it. I said that I'm
>>> satisfied with (a) an existence argument based on physical reasoning,
>>> and (b) a uniqueness argument based on computational reasoning. He
>>> said that neither is "proof". Sure, neither is proof, but they are
>>> enough for me to proceed. He would like proof (but he also
>>> proceeds).
>>>
>>> While he was certainly more mathematically inclined than me, did he
>>> think mathematics is more real than reality? To quote from a book of
>>> his: "However, as we have mentioned in section [...], [foo] is not a
>>> real physical phenomenon, albeit it can be a useful mathematical
>>> abstraction."
>>
>> He said neither is proof! Nobody, me included, is arguing here that
>> mathematical abstraction is not useful and should be rejected as tool.
>>
>> The problems come when the opposite occurs. You see people (at times
>> even me) blandly dropping assertions including "infinity" and "points"
>> and a whole host of other non-real, imaginary, fantasy. Yes, we are
>> supposed to "fill in the blanks" and know what they mean...but when you
>> do it enough you start to forget that and assume that "dimensionless
>> objects" (points) or "infinity" actually are real things.
>>
>>> Meanwhile, you will look at a mathematical description of the
>>> electromagnetic field, see three different terms in the maths, and
>>> proclaim that therefore there are three physically real EM fields.
>>
>> There really are NOT EM fields. Fields are mathematics and NOT real!
>> There are real electromagnetic FORCES and we use the mathematics of
>> "fields" to attempt to describe them. The fact that so many now think
>> that EM fields are somehow "real things" shows the danger of assuming
>> math is more real than reality.
>>
>>> Don't project your sins of falling for the "reality of mathematics"
>>> onto others!
>>
>> How is it that when I've been the one pointing out the dangers of
>> thinking math is "more real than reality" your argument is that *I* am
>> the guilty one and am merely "projecting" my sins onto others. This is
>> utter nonsense. It needs saved for some political debate.
>>
>> Point is: Sometimes mathematics seems to model the actions of nature
>> quite nicely and when it does it's rather useful in making predictions
>> to be tested and expanding understanding of the phenomena.
>>
>> But there is NO requirement that math reflect nature. Indeed since math
>> is fantasy, I can at any time imagine a new mathematical system the
>> polar opposite of the one reflecting nature that is GUARANTEED to be
>> wrong! Such a system has no value for science or prediction. But that
>> does not make it mathematically invalid and not of interest to
>> mathematicians. In fact, many mathematicians revel in such systems proud
>> of the fact they have no utility!
>
> Ben I agree with your point of view, your perspective, and all that.
> Math is just another Language, I get it. Those that don't... well youKnow.
>
> Raise the Bar bar BAR Ben... Btw... I love your posts Ben!
>
> -- Mahipal 'Liars will never know they are Lying lying LYING!'

WOW! FANMAIL!
Hmmm. Maybe I need my own fan-group alt.fan.benj like Jai has?

Boinker can be the moderator.
Mahipal
2014-08-30 14:54:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, August 29, 2014 9:44:04 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> On 08/29/2014 07:56 PM, Mahipal wrote:
> > On Friday, August 29, 2014 5:52:35 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> >> On 08/29/2014 10:05 AM, Timo wrote:
> >>> On Friday, August 29, 2014 5:51:21 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> >>>> On 08/28/2014 07:47 PM, Timo wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Have you read the original article, or are you guessing?
> >>>>
> >>>> Not exactly guessing but I have not read the original.
> >>>
> >>> "Not exactly"? How do you know, if not by guessing?
> >>>
> >>>> The difference here between you and Armstrong is that you feel
> >>>> that somehow math reflects the underlying wheelwork of nature.
> >>>
> >>> Yesterday, I was talking about existence/uniqueness proofs concerning
> >>> solutions to a particular problem with another physicist, following
> >>> his conference presentation in which he mentioned it. I said that I'm
> >>> satisfied with (a) an existence argument based on physical reasoning,
> >>> and (b) a uniqueness argument based on computational reasoning. He
> >>> said that neither is "proof". Sure, neither is proof, but they are
> >>> enough for me to proceed. He would like proof (but he also
> >>> proceeds).
> >>>
> >>> While he was certainly more mathematically inclined than me, did he
> >>> think mathematics is more real than reality? To quote from a book of
> >>> his: "However, as we have mentioned in section [...], [foo] is not a
> >>> real physical phenomenon, albeit it can be a useful mathematical
> >>> abstraction."
> >>
> >> He said neither is proof! Nobody, me included, is arguing here that
> >> mathematical abstraction is not useful and should be rejected as tool.
> >>
> >> The problems come when the opposite occurs. You see people (at times
> >> even me) blandly dropping assertions including "infinity" and "points"
> >> and a whole host of other non-real, imaginary, fantasy. Yes, we are
> >> supposed to "fill in the blanks" and know what they mean...but when you
> >> do it enough you start to forget that and assume that "dimensionless
> >> objects" (points) or "infinity" actually are real things.
> >>
> >>> Meanwhile, you will look at a mathematical description of the
> >>> electromagnetic field, see three different terms in the maths, and
> >>> proclaim that therefore there are three physically real EM fields.
> >>
> >> There really are NOT EM fields. Fields are mathematics and NOT real!
> >> There are real electromagnetic FORCES and we use the mathematics of
> >> "fields" to attempt to describe them. The fact that so many now think
> >> that EM fields are somehow "real things" shows the danger of assuming
> >> math is more real than reality.
> >>
> >>> Don't project your sins of falling for the "reality of mathematics"
> >>> onto others!
> >>
> >> How is it that when I've been the one pointing out the dangers of
> >> thinking math is "more real than reality" your argument is that *I* am
> >> the guilty one and am merely "projecting" my sins onto others. This is
> >> utter nonsense. It needs saved for some political debate.
> >>
> >> Point is: Sometimes mathematics seems to model the actions of nature
> >> quite nicely and when it does it's rather useful in making predictions
> >> to be tested and expanding understanding of the phenomena.
> >>
> >> But there is NO requirement that math reflect nature. Indeed since math
> >> is fantasy, I can at any time imagine a new mathematical system the
> >> polar opposite of the one reflecting nature that is GUARANTEED to be
> >> wrong! Such a system has no value for science or prediction. But that
> >> does not make it mathematically invalid and not of interest to
> >> mathematicians. In fact, many mathematicians revel in such systems proud
> >> of the fact they have no utility!
> >
> > Ben I agree with your point of view, your perspective, and all that.
> > Math is just another Language, I get it. Those that don't... well youKnow.
> >
> > Raise the Bar bar BAR Ben... Btw... I love your posts Ben!
> >
> > -- Mahipal 'Liars will never know they are Lying lying LYING!'
>
> WOW! FANMAIL!
>
> Hmmm. Maybe I need my own fan-group alt.fan.benj like Jai has?

Go for it Ben. Then you can get the Twitter Handle, and the Facebook,
... before not long... you'll be somebody Somebody SOMEBODY @IPMM.com.

> Boinker can be the moderator.

Be calm my friend. At most, you get me Me ME. That's 3 fans.
The Universe is so vast that being fanless is the only norm.

How do I reflect those them my thoughts via Math?! No way. To the Bar.

-- Mahipal 'A word here, a Word hear, makes one WORlD... Earth'

Insert some of my own ramblings regards The Death of Usenet...
O just Google+ 'em. Yawn yawn YAWN... but so True true TRUE...
Timo
2014-08-30 14:03:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, August 30, 2014 7:52:35 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> On 08/29/2014 10:05 AM, Timo wrote:
>
> > Meanwhile, you will look at a mathematical description of the
> > electromagnetic field, see three different terms in the maths, and
> > proclaim that therefore there are three physically real EM fields.
>
> There really are NOT EM fields. Fields are mathematics and NOT real!

That we have a mathematical description of <foo> does not mean that <foo> is real. But having a mathematical description of <foo> doesn't mean that <foo> is mathematics and not real. I have a map of Marseille, but it seems that Marseille still exists. And is usefully described by the map!

> There are real electromagnetic FORCES and we use the mathematics of
> "fields" to attempt to describe them. The fact that so many now think
> that EM fields are somehow "real things" shows the danger of assuming
> math is more real than reality.

The two main possibilities:
(a) EM fields are a mathematical convenience for describing EM forces (as is possible from the operational definition of E and B from the Lorentz force law).
(b) EM forces are produced by fields (i.e., EM fields have real existence).

So, are EM fields real? We don't know for sure. What we do know for sure is that if EM fields don't exist, then energy isn't conserved (nor momentum, nor angular momentum).

Still, despite such issues with conservation laws, an agnostic approach is logically justifiable. No such wishy-washy attitude for you, though. Just a convinced proclamation that "EM fields are not real". That's a statement of fact that you're making - where is the evidence that EM fields are not real?

> > Don't project your sins of falling for the "reality of mathematics"
> > onto others!
>
> How is it that when I've been the one pointing out the dangers of
> thinking math is "more real than reality" your argument is that *I* am
> the guilty one and am merely "projecting" my sins onto others. This is
> utter nonsense. It needs saved for some political debate.

Your proclaimed knowledge of what other people think wasn't already political debate?

Despite your protestations of innocence, you present a mathematical description of the EM field where the field is written as the sum of three terms. You proclaim that there isn't a single EM field, but 3 distinct EM fields. That appears very much like accepting the maths as real.

Are you now recanting? Have you switched to "EM fields don't exist" as your new certainty?

> Point is: Sometimes mathematics seems to model the actions of nature
> quite nicely and when it does it's rather useful in making predictions
> to be tested and expanding understanding of the phenomena.
>
> But there is NO requirement that math reflect nature.

There is a requirement that our mathematical descriptions of nature reflect nature. Otherwise they're not very good descriptions. Whether first-principles theory or phenomenological models, mathematical models/descriptions of nature reflect nature.

Yes, one can have maths that doesn't reflect nature, but that's irrelevant when we're talking about using math to describe nature. There are animals that aren't dogs, but that doesn't stop dogs from being animals.
benj
2014-08-30 19:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/30/2014 10:03 AM, Timo wrote:
> On Saturday, August 30, 2014 7:52:35 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>> On 08/29/2014 10:05 AM, Timo wrote:
>>
>>> Meanwhile, you will look at a mathematical description of the
>>> electromagnetic field, see three different terms in the maths,
>>> and proclaim that therefore there are three physically real EM
>>> fields.
>>
>> There really are NOT EM fields. Fields are mathematics and NOT
>> real!
>
> That we have a mathematical description of <foo> does not mean that
> <foo> is real. But having a mathematical description of <foo> doesn't
> mean that <foo> is mathematics and not real. I have a map of
> Marseille, but it seems that Marseille still exists. And is usefully
> described by the map!

Well, yes, but both a map of Marseille and the City of Marseille are
real objective objects. But if we alter that slightly and have you
Memorize the city map. In this case is your mental image of the city
real? It certainly is useful to find your way around. But if I begin to
think that my mental map is more real than reality, then I could assume
that if I CHANGE the map in my mind (which would still be a perfectly
valid mental map, mind you) that therefore the CITY should change with a
new layout to match my new map.

In science we short circuit such nonsense by demanding that the mental
map be regularly checked with the actual city (experiment) and those
maps that don't match be thrown out.

>> There are real electromagnetic FORCES and we use the mathematics
>> of "fields" to attempt to describe them. The fact that so many now
>> think that EM fields are somehow "real things" shows the danger of
>> assuming math is more real than reality.
>
> The two main possibilities: (a) EM fields are a mathematical
> convenience for describing EM forces (as is possible from the
> operational definition of E and B from the Lorentz force law). (b) EM
> forces are produced by fields (i.e., EM fields have real existence).
>
> So, are EM fields real? We don't know for sure. What we do know for
> sure is that if EM fields don't exist, then energy isn't conserved
> (nor momentum, nor angular momentum).

"Don't know for sure", is doubtless the correct answer. But if we ask,
"how do we measure fields?" the answer is that we measure the forces
they "produce". So indeed EM fields are all Force Fields. So where do
these forces come from? Who knows? But to turn it around and say that
there is this imaginary thing we call a "field" which CAUSES the forces
sort of has the cart before the horse, n'est-ce pas?

When you say EM fields "don't exist" you seem to be implying that they
are therefore zero or null. Which is not the case here. We can say that
Tinker Bell does not exist (in material reality) yet she most certainly
has properties and qualities that are widely known. Its a fine point.


> Still, despite such issues with conservation laws, an agnostic
> approach is logically justifiable. No such wishy-washy attitude for
> you, though. Just a convinced proclamation that "EM fields are not
> real". That's a statement of fact that you're making - where is the
> evidence that EM fields are not real?

Where are the measurements of EM fields that DO NOT involve measurement
of forces?

Suppose I stand in a field where a wind is blowing. I have a certain
cross-section we will call "q" and that interacts with the wind to
produce a force on me that I feel. I can walk all over that field
measuring the force I feel and produce a map of the forces. I can say
there is some kind of "field" out there that produces the force and we
can term that "field" some letter say "E". Hence the force on my butt is
easily described anywhere on that plot of land by the equation F = qE!

Now. I am a "real" object. The Wind is a real object. The force I feel
is certainly a real "action". but what about that "field"? Where is it's
"reality"? It's just one more Tinker Bell! To think that there is this
mysterious object, the "field", hovering all over that land that is
creating forces on people is just pure fantasy. It explains nothing.
(but can describe it quite nicely!)

>>> Don't project your sins of falling for the "reality of
>>> mathematics" onto others!
>>
>> How is it that when I've been the one pointing out the dangers of
>> thinking math is "more real than reality" your argument is that *I*
>> am the guilty one and am merely "projecting" my sins onto others.
>> This is utter nonsense. It needs saved for some political debate.
>
> Your proclaimed knowledge of what other people think wasn't already
> political debate?
>
> Despite your protestations of innocence, you present a mathematical
> description of the EM field where the field is written as the sum of
> three terms. You proclaim that there isn't a single EM field, but 3
> distinct EM fields. That appears very much like accepting the maths
> as real.

Don't agree. Three FORCES are real! The fact that they have different
characteristics means they are different and not the same. We certainly
DESCRIBE the actions of these forces by maths so we can talk about what
they do. But are the maths real objects? Maths are NEVER real objects
because they have no connection to objective reality. Einstein himself
said so! Are you claiming you are smarter than Einstein? :-)

> Are you now recanting? Have you switched to "EM fields don't exist"
> as your new certainty?

Being imaginary is not the same as being zero.

>> Point is: Sometimes mathematics seems to model the actions of
>> nature quite nicely and when it does it's rather useful in making
>> predictions to be tested and expanding understanding of the
>> phenomena.
>>
>> But there is NO requirement that math reflect nature.
>
> There is a requirement that our mathematical descriptions of nature
> reflect nature. Otherwise they're not very good descriptions. Whether
> first-principles theory or phenomenological models, mathematical
> models/descriptions of nature reflect nature.

This is the crux of your error RIGHT HERE! This is your
misunderstanding of what maths are and where they come from. And that
makes YOU an example of exactly the problem I've been talking about!

> Yes, one can have maths that doesn't reflect nature, but that's
> irrelevant when we're talking about using math to describe nature.
> There are animals that aren't dogs, but that doesn't stop dogs from
> being animals.

But once you admit that maths are NOT more real than reality, and accept
that some animals are not dogs, then no matter how many dogs you observe
that are animals, you are NOT permitted to say that all animals are
dogs. Arguing that you've observed many animals and all were dogs means
nothing. it only takes ONE hippopotamus to crash your whole dog-animal
theory.

And even worse, the fact that your maths may or may not reflect reality
casts serious doubt on all those cases you collected where it SEEMED
that the maths reflected reality. But what if you weren't careful enough
and made a mistake. Perhaps one of the erroneous maths crept in when you
weren't looking? So admitting that not all maths reflect reality now
throws the WHOLE mathematic structure into doubt which was built up on
the assumption that maths did reflect reality!

If you say well, the mathematical models that reflect nature, certainly
all reflect nature, that may be a true statement, but it's not very
enlightening!
Timo
2014-08-31 04:17:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, August 31, 2014 5:08:51 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> On 08/30/2014 10:03 AM, Timo wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, August 30, 2014 7:52:35 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>
> >> On 08/29/2014 10:05 AM, Timo wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> Meanwhile, you will look at a mathematical description of the
>
> >>> electromagnetic field, see three different terms in the maths,
>
> >>> and proclaim that therefore there are three physically real EM
>
> >>> fields.
>
> >>
>
> >> There really are NOT EM fields. Fields are mathematics and NOT
>
> >> real!
>
> >
> > That we have a mathematical description of <foo> does not mean that
> > <foo> is real. But having a mathematical description of <foo> doesn't
> > mean that <foo> is mathematics and not real. I have a map of
> > Marseille, but it seems that Marseille still exists. And is usefully
> > described by the map!
>
> Well, yes, but both a map of Marseille and the City of Marseille are
> real objective objects.

The maths can be written in a book. The book would be real. Would that make the maths real? Does having the map - the information - printed on a paper map make it real? What about an electronic map? Don't get hung up on the reality of the piece of paper on which the information is stored.

> But if we alter that slightly and have you
> Memorize the city map. In this case is your mental image of the city
> real? It certainly is useful to find your way around. But if I begin to
> think that my mental map is more real than reality, then I could assume
> that if I CHANGE the map in my mind (which would still be a perfectly
> valid mental map, mind you) that therefore the CITY should change with a
> new layout to match my new map.

Then you would be an idiot. And if you think that's what is done with mathematical models in science, you are an idiot. If you say that's what done with maths in science you are an idiot or dishonest. So, is there any relevance in your point?

> In science we short circuit such nonsense by demanding that the mental
> map be regularly checked with the actual city (experiment) and those
> maps that don't match be thrown out.

Yes. So your complaints about maths being assumed to be more real than reality are baseless. (The map vs city is not the case we have in science; the city can (and does) change in ways that require the map to be changed, but at any time, we can know we have a correct map. When we change the math map in science, it's because we learn more. The original map was defective, and we fix it, rather than the universe deviating from our original map.)

> >> There are real electromagnetic FORCES and we use the mathematics
> >> of "fields" to attempt to describe them. The fact that so many now
> >> think that EM fields are somehow "real things" shows the danger of
> >> assuming math is more real than reality.
> >
> > The two main possibilities: (a) EM fields are a mathematical
> > convenience for describing EM forces (as is possible from the
> > operational definition of E and B from the Lorentz force law). (b) EM
> > forces are produced by fields (i.e., EM fields have real existence).
> >
> > So, are EM fields real? We don't know for sure. What we do know for
> > sure is that if EM fields don't exist, then energy isn't conserved
> > (nor momentum, nor angular momentum).
>
> "Don't know for sure", is doubtless the correct answer. But if we ask,
> "how do we measure fields?" the answer is that we measure the forces
> they "produce".

No. We measure other things. Like the position of a needle we assume is moved by the magnetic field we assume is produced by a current we assume is produced by the electric field we claim to measure. But we call it a "voltmeter", not a "needle position meter".

> So indeed EM fields are all Force Fields. So where do
> these forces come from? Who knows? But to turn it around and say that
> there is this imaginary thing we call a "field" which CAUSES the forces
> sort of has the cart before the horse, n'est-ce pas?

We don't say that it's "imaginary". We have an operational definition in terms of the Lorentz force, and existence of the fields is a matter of philosophy. YOU are the one who states fields ARE imaginary. IMO, the arguments on conservation of energy are strong, but a decision based on them is still provisional.

> When you say EM fields "don't exist" you seem to be implying that they
> are therefore zero or null.

Above, no. My "not exist" above (which I don't believe is the case) is that the fields are merely a mathematical convenience.

> Which is not the case here. We can say that
> Tinker Bell does not exist (in material reality) yet she most certainly
> has properties and qualities that are widely known. Its a fine point.
>
> > Still, despite such issues with conservation laws, an agnostic
> > approach is logically justifiable. No such wishy-washy attitude for
> > you, though. Just a convinced proclamation that "EM fields are not
> > real". That's a statement of fact that you're making - where is the
> > evidence that EM fields are not real?
>
> Where are the measurements of EM fields that DO NOT involve measurement
> of forces?

Irrelevant. If we assume that energy is conserved, then either EM fields exist, or energy is carried from place to place by magic pixies or somesuch (which seems to be a much more bizarre assumption than EM fields).

Since you claim that EM fields don't exist, which is it:
(a) energy is not conserved
(b) energy is carried from point to point by magic
(c) energy is carried from point to point by <fill in the blank>

> To think that there is this
> mysterious object, the "field", hovering all over that land that is
> creating forces on people is just pure fantasy. It explains nothing.
> (but can describe it quite nicely!)

Yes, "fields as a mathematical convenience". Rather than lengthy analogies to illustrate this already known and mentioned concept, why not say something about the actual issue? Is there any EVIDENCE that EM fields don't exist? If not, why the certainty that they don't in the face of things such as conservation laws? Things can be said about retardation, too.

Once can construct a working theory without conservation of energy etc in our usual sense, with no fields. It's been done, and does have some advantages. Notably, you can ignore the infinite self-energy due to the field of a point charge, since there are no fields. One breaks our usual conservation of energy, but in a way not needing magic (but needing assumptions about the future that might break our usual causality).

> > Despite your protestations of innocence, you present a mathematical
> > description of the EM field where the field is written as the sum of
> > three terms. You proclaim that there isn't a single EM field, but 3
> > distinct EM fields. That appears very much like accepting the maths
> > as real.
>
> Don't agree. Three FORCES are real!

You can't measure them independently. You can only measure the total force (to the extent that you can measure force).

> The fact that they have different
> characteristics means they are different and not the same.

They have different mathematical descriptions. So what? If I write the field due to a charge distribution as a sum of multipoles, every multipole order has different characteristics. Does that mean that monopole fields, dipole fields, and quadrupole fields are different fields in a meangingful physical sense?

> > Are you now recanting? Have you switched to "EM fields don't exist"
> > as your new certainty?
>
> Being imaginary is not the same as being zero.

Yes. Why avoid the question?

> >> Point is: Sometimes mathematics seems to model the actions of
> >> nature quite nicely and when it does it's rather useful in making
> >> predictions to be tested and expanding understanding of the
> >> phenomena.
> >>
> >> But there is NO requirement that math reflect nature.
> >
> > There is a requirement that our mathematical descriptions of nature
> > reflect nature. Otherwise they're not very good descriptions. Whether
> > first-principles theory or phenomenological models, mathematical
> > models/descriptions of nature reflect nature.
>
> This is the crux of your error RIGHT HERE! This is your
> misunderstanding of what maths are and where they come from. And that
> makes YOU an example of exactly the problem I've been talking about!

It isn't about where maths comes from; it's about where our mathematical models of nature come from. Our mathematical models of nature reflect nature because we have constructed them to reflect nature. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

> So admitting that not all maths reflect reality now
> throws the WHOLE mathematic structure into doubt which was built up on
> the assumption that maths did reflect reality!

It wasn't built on the assumption that maths reflects reality. (Well, maybe originally, but certainly not with the axiomatisation of mathematics.) So what would be thrown into doubt?

> If you say well, the mathematical models that reflect nature, certainly
> all reflect nature, that may be a true statement, but it's not very
> enlightening!

I see it as obvious rather than enlightening. I only mentioned it since you were arguing against it.
S***@hotmail.com
2014-09-01 00:37:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
the standard spherical coordination is not at all symmetrical
;it is pretty awful, although Bucky fulleR supposedly mastered it

> The maths can be written in a book. The book would be real. Would that make the maths real? Does having the map - the information - printed on a paper map make it real? What about an electronic map? Don't get hung up on the reality of the piece of paper on which the information is stored.
>
>
>
> > But if we alter that slightly and have you
>
> > Memorize the city map. In this case is your mental image of the city
>
> > real? It certainly is useful to find your way around. But if I begin to
>
> > think that my mental map is more real than reality, then I could assume
>
> > that if I CHANGE the map in my mind (which would still be a perfectly
>
> > valid mental map, mind you) that therefore the CITY should change with a
>
> > new layout to match my new map.
>
>
>
> Then you would be an idiot. And if you think that's what is done with mathematical models in science, you are an idiot. If you say that's what done with maths in science you are an idiot or dishonest. So, is there any relevance in your point?
>
>
>
> > In science we short circuit such nonsense by demanding that the mental
>
> > map be regularly checked with the actual city (experiment) and those
>
> > maps that don't match be thrown out.
>
>
>
> Yes. So your complaints about maths being assumed to be more real than reality are baseless. (The map vs city is not the case we have in science; the city can (and does) change in ways that require the map to be changed, but at any time, we can know we have a correct map. When we change the math map in science, it's because we learn more. The original map was defective, and we fix it, rather than the universe deviating from our original map.)
>
>
>
> > >> There are real electromagnetic FORCES and we use the mathematics
>
> > >> of "fields" to attempt to describe them. The fact that so many now
>
> > >> think that EM fields are somehow "real things" shows the danger of
>
> > >> assuming math is more real than reality.
>
> > >
>
> > > The two main possibilities: (a) EM fields are a mathematical
>
> > > convenience for describing EM forces (as is possible from the
>
> > > operational definition of E and B from the Lorentz force law). (b) EM
>
> > > forces are produced by fields (i.e., EM fields have real existence).
>
> > >
>
> > > So, are EM fields real? We don't know for sure. What we do know for
>
> > > sure is that if EM fields don't exist, then energy isn't conserved
>
> > > (nor momentum, nor angular momentum).
>
> >
>
> > "Don't know for sure", is doubtless the correct answer. But if we ask,
>
> > "how do we measure fields?" the answer is that we measure the forces
>
> > they "produce".
>
>
>
> No. We measure other things. Like the position of a needle we assume is moved by the magnetic field we assume is produced by a current we assume is produced by the electric field we claim to measure. But we call it a "voltmeter", not a "needle position meter".
>
>
>
> > So indeed EM fields are all Force Fields. So where do
>
> > these forces come from? Who knows? But to turn it around and say that
>
> > there is this imaginary thing we call a "field" which CAUSES the forces
>
> > sort of has the cart before the horse, n'est-ce pas?
>
>
>
> We don't say that it's "imaginary". We have an operational definition in terms of the Lorentz force, and existence of the fields is a matter of philosophy. YOU are the one who states fields ARE imaginary. IMO, the arguments on conservation of energy are strong, but a decision based on them is still provisional.
>
>
>
> > When you say EM fields "don't exist" you seem to be implying that they
>
> > are therefore zero or null.
>
>
>
> Above, no. My "not exist" above (which I don't believe is the case) is that the fields are merely a mathematical convenience.
>
>
>
> > Which is not the case here. We can say that
>
> > Tinker Bell does not exist (in material reality) yet she most certainly
>
> > has properties and qualities that are widely known. Its a fine point.
>
> >
>
> > > Still, despite such issues with conservation laws, an agnostic
>
> > > approach is logically justifiable. No such wishy-washy attitude for
>
> > > you, though. Just a convinced proclamation that "EM fields are not
>
> > > real". That's a statement of fact that you're making - where is the
>
> > > evidence that EM fields are not real?
>
> >
>
> > Where are the measurements of EM fields that DO NOT involve measurement
>
> > of forces?
>
>
>
> Irrelevant. If we assume that energy is conserved, then either EM fields exist, or energy is carried from place to place by magic pixies or somesuch (which seems to be a much more bizarre assumption than EM fields).
>
>
>
> Since you claim that EM fields don't exist, which is it:
>
> (a) energy is not conserved
>
> (b) energy is carried from point to point by magic
>
> (c) energy is carried from point to point by <fill in the blank>
>
>
>
> > To think that there is this
>
> > mysterious object, the "field", hovering all over that land that is
>
> > creating forces on people is just pure fantasy. It explains nothing.
>
> > (but can describe it quite nicely!)
>
>
>
> Yes, "fields as a mathematical convenience". Rather than lengthy analogies to illustrate this already known and mentioned concept, why not say something about the actual issue? Is there any EVIDENCE that EM fields don't exist? If not, why the certainty that they don't in the face of things such as conservation laws? Things can be said about retardation, too.
>
>
>
> Once can construct a working theory without conservation of energy etc in our usual sense, with no fields. It's been done, and does have some advantages. Notably, you can ignore the infinite self-energy due to the field of a point charge, since there are no fields. One breaks our usual conservation of energy, but in a way not needing magic (but needing assumptions about the future that might break our usual causality).
>
>
>
> > > Despite your protestations of innocence, you present a mathematical
>
> > > description of the EM field where the field is written as the sum of
>
> > > three terms. You proclaim that there isn't a single EM field, but 3
>
> > > distinct EM fields. That appears very much like accepting the maths
>
> > > as real.
>
> >
>
> > Don't agree. Three FORCES are real!
>
>
>
> You can't measure them independently. You can only measure the total force (to the extent that you can measure force).
>
>
>
> > The fact that they have different
>
> > characteristics means they are different and not the same.
>
>
>
> They have different mathematical descriptions. So what? If I write the field due to a charge distribution as a sum of multipoles, every multipole order has different characteristics. Does that mean that monopole fields, dipole fields, and quadrupole fields are different fields in a meangingful physical sense?
>
>
>
> > > Are you now recanting? Have you switched to "EM fields don't exist"
>
> > > as your new certainty?
>
> >
>
> > Being imaginary is not the same as being zero.
>
>
>
> Yes. Why avoid the question?
>
>
>
> > >> Point is: Sometimes mathematics seems to model the actions of
>
> > >> nature quite nicely and when it does it's rather useful in making
>
> > >> predictions to be tested and expanding understanding of the
>
> > >> phenomena.
>
> > >>
>
> > >> But there is NO requirement that math reflect nature.
>
> > >
>
> > > There is a requirement that our mathematical descriptions of nature
>
> > > reflect nature. Otherwise they're not very good descriptions. Whether
>
> > > first-principles theory or phenomenological models, mathematical
>
> > > models/descriptions of nature reflect nature.
>
> >
>
> > This is the crux of your error RIGHT HERE! This is your
>
> > misunderstanding of what maths are and where they come from. And that
>
> > makes YOU an example of exactly the problem I've been talking about!
>
>
>
> It isn't about where maths comes from; it's about where our mathematical models of nature come from. Our mathematical models of nature reflect nature because we have constructed them to reflect nature. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
>
>
>
> > So admitting that not all maths reflect reality now
>
> > throws the WHOLE mathematic structure into doubt which was built up on
>
> > the assumption that maths did reflect reality!
>
>
>
> It wasn't built on the assumption that maths reflects reality. (Well, maybe originally, but certainly not with the axiomatisation of mathematics.) So what would be thrown into doubt?
>
>
>
> > If you say well, the mathematical models that reflect nature, certainly
>
> > all reflect nature, that may be a true statement, but it's not very
>
> > enlightening!
>
>
>
> I see it as obvious rather than enlightening. I only mentioned it since you were arguing against it.
S***@hotmail.com
2014-09-01 17:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
let's see, it's good for loxodromes, a)
;any thing, elsewise

> ;it is pretty awful, although Bucky fulleR supposedly mastered it
benj
2014-09-01 18:53:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/31/2014 12:17 AM, Timo wrote:
> On Sunday, August 31, 2014 5:08:51 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>> On 08/30/2014 10:03 AM, Timo wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, August 30, 2014 7:52:35 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>>
>>>> On 08/29/2014 10:05 AM, Timo wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, you will look at a mathematical description of the
>>
>>>>> electromagnetic field, see three different terms in the maths,
>>
>>>>> and proclaim that therefore there are three physically real EM
>>
>>>>> fields.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> There really are NOT EM fields. Fields are mathematics and NOT
>>
>>>> real!
>>
>>>
>>> That we have a mathematical description of <foo> does not mean that
>>> <foo> is real. But having a mathematical description of <foo> doesn't
>>> mean that <foo> is mathematics and not real. I have a map of
>>> Marseille, but it seems that Marseille still exists. And is usefully
>>> described by the map!
>>
>> Well, yes, but both a map of Marseille and the City of Marseille are
>> real objective objects.
>
> The maths can be written in a book. The book would be real. Would that make the maths real? Does having the map - the information - printed on a paper map make it real? What about an electronic map? Don't get hung up on the reality of the piece of paper on which the information is stored.
>
>> But if we alter that slightly and have you
>> Memorize the city map. In this case is your mental image of the city
>> real? It certainly is useful to find your way around. But if I begin to
>> think that my mental map is more real than reality, then I could assume
>> that if I CHANGE the map in my mind (which would still be a perfectly
>> valid mental map, mind you) that therefore the CITY should change with a
>> new layout to match my new map.
>
> Then you would be an idiot. And if you think that's what is done with mathematical models in science, you are an idiot. If you say that's what done with maths in science you are an idiot or dishonest. So, is there any relevance in your point?
>
>> In science we short circuit such nonsense by demanding that the mental
>> map be regularly checked with the actual city (experiment) and those
>> maps that don't match be thrown out.
>
> Yes. So your complaints about maths being assumed to be more real than reality are baseless. (The map vs city is not the case we have in science; the city can (and does) change in ways that require the map to be changed, but at any time, we can know we have a correct map. When we change the math map in science, it's because we learn more. The original map was defective, and we fix it, rather than the universe deviating from our original map.)
>
>>>> There are real electromagnetic FORCES and we use the mathematics
>>>> of "fields" to attempt to describe them. The fact that so many now
>>>> think that EM fields are somehow "real things" shows the danger of
>>>> assuming math is more real than reality.
>>>
>>> The two main possibilities: (a) EM fields are a mathematical
>>> convenience for describing EM forces (as is possible from the
>>> operational definition of E and B from the Lorentz force law). (b) EM
>>> forces are produced by fields (i.e., EM fields have real existence).
>>>
>>> So, are EM fields real? We don't know for sure. What we do know for
>>> sure is that if EM fields don't exist, then energy isn't conserved
>>> (nor momentum, nor angular momentum).
>>
>> "Don't know for sure", is doubtless the correct answer. But if we ask,
>> "how do we measure fields?" the answer is that we measure the forces
>> they "produce".
>
> No. We measure other things. Like the position of a needle we assume is moved by the magnetic field we assume is produced by a current we assume is produced by the electric field we claim to measure. But we call it a "voltmeter", not a "needle position meter".
>
>> So indeed EM fields are all Force Fields. So where do
>> these forces come from? Who knows? But to turn it around and say that
>> there is this imaginary thing we call a "field" which CAUSES the forces
>> sort of has the cart before the horse, n'est-ce pas?
>
> We don't say that it's "imaginary". We have an operational definition in terms of the Lorentz force, and existence of the fields is a matter of philosophy. YOU are the one who states fields ARE imaginary. IMO, the arguments on conservation of energy are strong, but a decision based on them is still provisional.
>
>> When you say EM fields "don't exist" you seem to be implying that they
>> are therefore zero or null.
>
> Above, no. My "not exist" above (which I don't believe is the case) is that the fields are merely a mathematical convenience.
>
>> Which is not the case here. We can say that
>> Tinker Bell does not exist (in material reality) yet she most certainly
>> has properties and qualities that are widely known. Its a fine point.
>>
>>> Still, despite such issues with conservation laws, an agnostic
>>> approach is logically justifiable. No such wishy-washy attitude for
>>> you, though. Just a convinced proclamation that "EM fields are not
>>> real". That's a statement of fact that you're making - where is the
>>> evidence that EM fields are not real?
>>
>> Where are the measurements of EM fields that DO NOT involve measurement
>> of forces?
>
> Irrelevant. If we assume that energy is conserved, then either EM fields exist, or energy is carried from place to place by magic pixies or somesuch (which seems to be a much more bizarre assumption than EM fields).
>
> Since you claim that EM fields don't exist, which is it:
> (a) energy is not conserved
> (b) energy is carried from point to point by magic
> (c) energy is carried from point to point by <fill in the blank>

I choose "magic" given that HOW energy is carried is not known and
fields don't exist as real objects. Note that energy (according to
Maxwell and refuted by no one since) can ONLY be carried by A. Waves in
a medium. or B. Particles with kinetic energy. In an EM case NEITHER can
be true since A. Aether does not exist. B. Fields have nothing to do
with particles. This only leave C. Magic.

>> To think that there is this
>> mysterious object, the "field", hovering all over that land that is
>> creating forces on people is just pure fantasy. It explains nothing.
>> (but can describe it quite nicely!)
>
> Yes, "fields as a mathematical convenience". Rather than lengthy analogies to illustrate this already known and mentioned concept, why not say something about the actual issue? Is there any EVIDENCE that EM fields don't exist? If not, why the certainty that they don't in the face of things such as conservation laws? Things can be said about retardation, too.
>
> Once can construct a working theory without conservation of energy etc in our usual sense, with no fields. It's been done, and does have some advantages. Notably, you can ignore the infinite self-energy due to the field of a point charge, since there are no fields. One breaks our usual conservation of energy, but in a way not needing magic (but needing assumptions about the future that might break our usual causality).
>
>>> Despite your protestations of innocence, you present a mathematical
>>> description of the EM field where the field is written as the sum of
>>> three terms. You proclaim that there isn't a single EM field, but 3
>>> distinct EM fields. That appears very much like accepting the maths
>>> as real.
>>
>> Don't agree. Three FORCES are real!
>
> You can't measure them independently. You can only measure the total force (to the extent that you can measure force).
>
>> The fact that they have different
>> characteristics means they are different and not the same.
>
> They have different mathematical descriptions. So what? If I write the field due to a charge distribution as a sum of multipoles, every multipole order has different characteristics. Does that mean that monopole fields, dipole fields, and quadrupole fields are different fields in a meangingful physical sense?
>
>>> Are you now recanting? Have you switched to "EM fields don't exist"
>>> as your new certainty?
>>
>> Being imaginary is not the same as being zero.
>
> Yes. Why avoid the question?
>
>>>> Point is: Sometimes mathematics seems to model the actions of
>>>> nature quite nicely and when it does it's rather useful in making
>>>> predictions to be tested and expanding understanding of the
>>>> phenomena.
>>>>
>>>> But there is NO requirement that math reflect nature.
>>>
>>> There is a requirement that our mathematical descriptions of nature
>>> reflect nature. Otherwise they're not very good descriptions. Whether
>>> first-principles theory or phenomenological models, mathematical
>>> models/descriptions of nature reflect nature.
>>
>> This is the crux of your error RIGHT HERE! This is your
>> misunderstanding of what maths are and where they come from. And that
>> makes YOU an example of exactly the problem I've been talking about!
>
> It isn't about where maths comes from; it's about where our mathematical models of nature come from. Our mathematical models of nature reflect nature because we have constructed them to reflect nature. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Probably because the statement isn't true. I'm still looking for those
dimensionless or infinite objects.

>> So admitting that not all maths reflect reality now
>> throws the WHOLE mathematic structure into doubt which was built up on
>> the assumption that maths did reflect reality!
>
> It wasn't built on the assumption that maths reflects reality. (Well, maybe originally, but certainly not with the axiomatisation of mathematics.) So what would be thrown into doubt?
>
>> If you say well, the mathematical models that reflect nature, certainly
>> all reflect nature, that may be a true statement, but it's not very
>> enlightening!
>
> I see it as obvious rather than enlightening. I only mentioned it since you were arguing against it.

I'm convinced! Mathematics is obviously the true structure of all
reality, and therefore IF we have the brainpower to calculate the maths,
THEN we can immediately discover the true nature of how all of nature
works. How could I have ever argued against that?

I'm off to calculate "point charges" using infinite fields!

Discussion over.
Timo
2014-09-02 00:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, September 2, 2014 4:53:36 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> On 08/31/2014 12:17 AM, Timo wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 31, 2014 5:08:51 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> >> On 08/30/2014 10:03 AM, Timo wrote:
> >>
> > Since you claim that EM fields don't exist, which is it:
> > (a) energy is not conserved
> > (b) energy is carried from point to point by magic
> > (c) energy is carried from point to point by <fill in the blank>
>
> I choose "magic" given that HOW energy is carried is not known and
> fields don't exist as real objects.

So certain you are!

> Note that energy (according to
> Maxwell and refuted by no one since) can ONLY be carried by A. Waves in
> a medium. or B. Particles with kinetic energy.

So certain you are! And wrong, unless you have a very broad definition of "particles".

> In an EM case NEITHER can
> be true since A. Aether does not exist. B. Fields have nothing to do
> with particles. This only leave C. Magic.

In the face of your certain knowledge of what is not possible, you end up with certain knowledge of magic. Very good!

> >>> There is a requirement that our mathematical descriptions of nature
> >>> reflect nature. Otherwise they're not very good descriptions. Whether
> >>> first-principles theory or phenomenological models, mathematical
> >>> models/descriptions of nature reflect nature.
> >>
> >> This is the crux of your error RIGHT HERE! This is your
> >> misunderstanding of what maths are and where they come from. And that
> >> makes YOU an example of exactly the problem I've been talking about!
> >
> > It isn't about where maths comes from; it's about where our mathematical models of nature come from. Our mathematical models of nature reflect nature because we have constructed them to reflect nature. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
>
> Probably because the statement isn't true. I'm still looking for those
> dimensionless or infinite objects.

First, "reflect nature" is not the same as "identical to nature". The map is not the territory. How could a mathematical model be identical to nature?

Second, we use many mathematical models that are approximate. That are known to be approximate. We use them because they're simple, but still useful. If we model the Earth as an infinite conducting plane, the model can still reflect nature within its domain of applicability, even if the Earth is not an infinite conducting plane.

> >> If you say well, the mathematical models that reflect nature, certainly
> >> all reflect nature, that may be a true statement, but it's not very
> >> enlightening!
> >
> > I see it as obvious rather than enlightening. I only mentioned it since you were arguing against it.
>
> I'm convinced! Mathematics is obviously the true structure of all
> reality,

Not at all what I was saying. Try again.
benj
2014-09-02 00:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/01/2014 08:28 PM, Timo wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 2, 2014 4:53:36 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>> On 08/31/2014 12:17 AM, Timo wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 31, 2014 5:08:51 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>>>> On 08/30/2014 10:03 AM, Timo wrote:
>>>>
>>> Since you claim that EM fields don't exist, which is it: (a)
>>> energy is not conserved (b) energy is carried from point to point
>>> by magic (c) energy is carried from point to point by <fill in
>>> the blank>
>>
>> I choose "magic" given that HOW energy is carried is not known and
>> fields don't exist as real objects.
>
> So certain you are!
>
>> Note that energy (according to Maxwell and refuted by no one since)
>> can ONLY be carried by A. Waves in a medium. or B. Particles with
>> kinetic energy.
>
> So certain you are! And wrong, unless you have a very broad
> definition of "particles".

Here's your chance for the "Smarter than Maxwell" prize.

So what is the third way that energy can be transferred?

Lessee. I'll help you out ('cause you obviously need help).

Transfer of energy and transfer of information are basically the same.
Therefore, by Bell's theorem we find that we can have FTL transmissions
of energy/information by the (third) process known as "entanglement".

My comment would be that "entanglement" = Magic.


>> In an EM case NEITHER can be true since A. Aether does not exist.
>> B. Fields have nothing to do with particles. This only leave C.
>> Magic.
>
> In the face of your certain knowledge of what is not possible, you
> end up with certain knowledge of magic. Very good!

I hear that magnetic fields are made up of particles called "magnetons"!
I'm sure you've heard of them, right?
(I hear there are "magnetrons" too but they seem to be MUCH larger
particles!)

I'm waiting for YOUR "c" alternative.


>>>>> There is a requirement that our mathematical descriptions of
>>>>> nature reflect nature. Otherwise they're not very good
>>>>> descriptions. Whether first-principles theory or
>>>>> phenomenological models, mathematical models/descriptions of
>>>>> nature reflect nature.
>>>>
>>>> This is the crux of your error RIGHT HERE! This is your
>>>> misunderstanding of what maths are and where they come from.
>>>> And that makes YOU an example of exactly the problem I've been
>>>> talking about!
>>>
>>> It isn't about where maths comes from; it's about where our
>>> mathematical models of nature come from. Our mathematical models
>>> of nature reflect nature because we have constructed them to
>>> reflect nature. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
>>
>> Probably because the statement isn't true. I'm still looking for
>> those dimensionless or infinite objects.
>
> First, "reflect nature" is not the same as "identical to nature". The
> map is not the territory. How could a mathematical model be identical
> to nature?

Ah, progress. So then maths are not "identical" to reality after all!

> Second, we use many mathematical models that are approximate. That
> are known to be approximate. We use them because they're simple, but
> still useful. If we model the Earth as an infinite conducting plane,
> the model can still reflect nature within its domain of
> applicability, even if the Earth is not an infinite conducting
> plane.

More progress, Maths are not only not "identical" to reality they aren't
even CLOSE to reality as they use all manner of "approximations and
inaccurate descriptions of reality!

Therefore, you conclude with me that math is NOT more real than reality.
In fact you say even more than I said, which is that it's not even a
precise model of reality but just some fudged approximation good enough
for engineers, but not scientists! Whew!

>>>> If you say well, the mathematical models that reflect nature,
>>>> certainly all reflect nature, that may be a true statement, but
>>>> it's not very enlightening!
>>>
>>> I see it as obvious rather than enlightening. I only mentioned it
>>> since you were arguing against it.
>>
>> I'm convinced! Mathematics is obviously the true structure of all
>> reality,
>
> Not at all what I was saying. Try again.

I guess not since you clearly have come around to agreeing with me (and
Einstein) and my premise! Woo Hoo for you!
Timo
2014-09-02 01:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, September 2, 2014 10:54:50 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> On 09/01/2014 08:28 PM, Timo wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 2, 2014 4:53:36 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> >> On 08/31/2014 12:17 AM, Timo wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, August 31, 2014 5:08:51 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> >>>> On 08/30/2014 10:03 AM, Timo wrote:
> >>>>
> >>> Since you claim that EM fields don't exist, which is it: (a)
> >>> energy is not conserved (b) energy is carried from point to point
> >>> by magic (c) energy is carried from point to point by <fill in
> >>> the blank>
> >>
> >> I choose "magic" given that HOW energy is carried is not known and
> >> fields don't exist as real objects.
> >
> > So certain you are!
> >
> >> Note that energy (according to Maxwell and refuted by no one since)
> >> can ONLY be carried by A. Waves in a medium. or B. Particles with
> >> kinetic energy.
> >
> > So certain you are! And wrong, unless you have a very broad
> > definition of "particles".
>
> Here's your chance for the "Smarter than Maxwell" prize.
>
> So what is the third way that energy can be transferred?
>
> Lessee. I'll help you out ('cause you obviously need help).
>
> Transfer of energy and transfer of information are basically the same.
> Therefore, by Bell's theorem we find that we can have FTL transmissions
> of energy/information by the (third) process known as "entanglement".
>
> My comment would be that "entanglement" = Magic.

But we don't have FTL transmission of energy or information by entanglement.

> >> In an EM case NEITHER can be true since A. Aether does not exist.
> >> B. Fields have nothing to do with particles. This only leave C.
> >> Magic.
> >
> > In the face of your certain knowledge of what is not possible, you
> > end up with certain knowledge of magic. Very good!
[...]
> I'm waiting for YOUR "c" alternative.

The simpler alternative is that EM fields are real, and are what carry the energy from point A to point B. You could say that "photons" are real, if you prefer. Neither EM fields nor photons are waves in a medium, or "particles with kinetic energy", with "particle" meaning something like a classical particle.

And if you look closely, things like electrons aren't classical particles either.

> > First, "reflect nature" is not the same as "identical to nature". The
> > map is not the territory. How could a mathematical model be identical
> > to nature?
>
> Ah, progress. So then maths are not "identical" to reality after all!

Of course not. How is this progress? I never said otherwise.

> More progress, Maths are not only not "identical" to reality they aren't
> even CLOSE to reality as they use all manner of "approximations and
> inaccurate descriptions of reality!

Note well the distinction between MATHS and A MATHEMATICAL MODEL.

> Therefore, you conclude with me that math is NOT more real than reality.

Sure. It's obviously the case.

> In fact you say even more than I said, which is that it's not even a
> precise model of reality but just some fudged approximation good enough
> for engineers, but not scientists! Whew!

No. Some MATHEMATICAL MODELS are fudged approximations good enough for engineers AND scientists. Other MATHEMATICAL MODELS reflect reality more accurately.

Any successful MATHEMATICAL MODEL of nature reflects nature. Because we built it (the mathematical model) that way.

Does the English language reflect nature? An English language description of nature will reflect nature. Some will do so better than others. A description of something in the English language is NOT identical to the English language. The English language is not more real than reality, yet we can describe real things using it.

> I guess not since you clearly have come around to agreeing with me (and
> Einstein) and my premise! Woo Hoo for you!

What I disagreed with was your assertion that maths is assumed to be more real than reality. That isn't a common assertion.
benj
2014-09-02 20:24:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/01/2014 09:21 PM, Timo wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 2, 2014 10:54:50 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>> On 09/01/2014 08:28 PM, Timo wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 2, 2014 4:53:36 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>>>> On 08/31/2014 12:17 AM, Timo wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, August 31, 2014 5:08:51 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/30/2014 10:03 AM, Timo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> Since you claim that EM fields don't exist, which is it: (a)
>>>>> energy is not conserved (b) energy is carried from point to
>>>>> point by magic (c) energy is carried from point to point by
>>>>> <fill in the blank>
>>>>
>>>> I choose "magic" given that HOW energy is carried is not known
>>>> and fields don't exist as real objects.
>>>
>>> So certain you are!
>>>
>>>> Note that energy (according to Maxwell and refuted by no one
>>>> since) can ONLY be carried by A. Waves in a medium. or B.
>>>> Particles with kinetic energy.
>>>
>>> So certain you are! And wrong, unless you have a very broad
>>> definition of "particles".
>>
>> Here's your chance for the "Smarter than Maxwell" prize.
>>
>> So what is the third way that energy can be transferred?
>>
>> Lessee. I'll help you out ('cause you obviously need help).
>>
>> Transfer of energy and transfer of information are basically the
>> same. Therefore, by Bell's theorem we find that we can have FTL
>> transmissions of energy/information by the (third) process known as
>> "entanglement".
>>
>> My comment would be that "entanglement" = Magic.
>
> But we don't have FTL transmission of energy or information by
> entanglement.

Well, nobody has proved it yet, but Bell's theorem clearly states that
you only have two choices. 1. FTL transmission. 2. Hidden variables.

Nobody believes in hidden variables since Einstein died!

>>>> In an EM case NEITHER can be true since A. Aether does not
>>>> exist. B. Fields have nothing to do with particles. This only
>>>> leave C. Magic.
>>>
>>> In the face of your certain knowledge of what is not possible,
>>> you end up with certain knowledge of magic. Very good!
> [...]
>> I'm waiting for YOUR "c" alternative.
>
> The simpler alternative is that EM fields are real, and are what
> carry the energy from point A to point B. You could say that
> "photons" are real, if you prefer. Neither EM fields nor photons are
> waves in a medium, or "particles with kinetic energy", with
> "particle" meaning something like a classical particle.

Just what do you mean "fields are real"? We've already established
that Field math is not real. It's just an inaccurate model according to
you. So then the question arises just what is the REALITY that the field
math is modeling? What is going on that creates the forces that we model
with fields? I've seen no hints. I guess that makes it "magic"! If
energy isn't transferred by waves or by kinetic energy in some form
(doesn't have to be "particles" as such, does it? But obviously need
"mass" and hence is "real") then by what? If you accept that photons are
not waves (I don't) and not particles (clearly exhibit some particle
behavior in the transfer times of energy), then one is by elimination
left with "c". For which you have no mechanism so I called it "magic"!
You basically are saying "well, maths says the energy is transferred,
therefore that "explains" it!" But maths is fantasy, It "transfers"
nothing. It only models the transfers. Figuring out WHAT is doing the
energy transfers is not the job of maths but of Philosophy!

> And if you look closely, things like electrons aren't classical
> particles either.

True, but oddly people work hard at calculating electrons as these
"dimensionless" (point) charges. How can something exist with no
dimensions? I suggest it can't. Hence electrons are not just "nothing"
but actually "less than nothing"!

>>> First, "reflect nature" is not the same as "identical to nature".
>>> The map is not the territory. How could a mathematical model be
>>> identical to nature?
>>
>> Ah, progress. So then maths are not "identical" to reality after
>> all!
>
> Of course not. How is this progress? I never said otherwise.

Of course you did (and do!) You just said above that "fields are real"!
Your definitions of things are all mixed up swinging wildly back and
forth between reality (forces) and fantasy (math). You need to sort that
mess out!

>> More progress, Maths are not only not "identical" to reality they
>> aren't even CLOSE to reality as they use all manner of
>> "approximations and inaccurate descriptions of reality!
>
> Note well the distinction between MATHS and A MATHEMATICAL MODEL.

What the hell? So MATHS are real and are the foundation of nature, but
when you use maths to model reality, it suddenly is now an inaccurate
representation of nature that is not real? Hint: When you find yourself
in a hole: Stop digging!


>> Therefore, you conclude with me that math is NOT more real than
>> reality.
>
> Sure. It's obviously the case.
>
>> In fact you say even more than I said, which is that it's not even
>> a precise model of reality but just some fudged approximation good
>> enough for engineers, but not scientists! Whew!
>
> No. Some MATHEMATICAL MODELS are fudged approximations good enough
> for engineers AND scientists. Other MATHEMATICAL MODELS reflect
> reality more accurately.

But not perfectly you admit!

> Any successful MATHEMATICAL MODEL of nature reflects nature. Because
> we built it (the mathematical model) that way.

But how does one "build" a mathematical model? You must start with
axioms. Do those axioms then reflect reality? In other words are the
axioms you built your maths with "true"?

What does Einstein say?

“The question of the “truth” of the individual geometrical propositions
is thus reduced to one of the “truth” of the axioms. Now it has long
been known that the last question is not only unanswerable by the
methods of geometry, but that it is in itself entirely without meaning..."

The question not only can't be answered but is "entirely without meaning..."

> Does the English language reflect nature? An English language
> description of nature will reflect nature. Some will do so better
> than others. A description of something in the English language is
> NOT identical to the English language. The English language is not
> more real than reality, yet we can describe real things using it.
>
>> I guess not since you clearly have come around to agreeing with me
>> (and Einstein) and my premise! Woo Hoo for you!
>
> What I disagreed with was your assertion that maths is assumed to be
> more real than reality. That isn't a common assertion.

And yet while you boldly assert that nobody thinks this way, you then
turn around and tell me that "fields are real"! If fields are "real"
then what are they composed of? How does one create a field? Nobody
knows because the "field" is just mathematical fantasy. The fantasy is
constructed so as to reflect the forces observed which are obviously
real even though we have no idea where they come from, but again I used
my example of the wind and the field describing the forces produced by
the wind. The field is not real. It is a mathematical description. The
axioms behind that description can't be proved real. The question is
stupid. The wind is real and the forces are real but the "field" is
clearly NOT the wind! And to pretend that it is would simply be making
mathematics more real than reality.
Timo
2014-09-02 21:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 6:24:22 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> On 09/01/2014 09:21 PM, Timo wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, September 2, 2014 10:54:50 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>
> >> On 09/01/2014 08:28 PM, Timo wrote:
>
> >>> On Tuesday, September 2, 2014 4:53:36 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>
> >>>> On 08/31/2014 12:17 AM, Timo wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Sunday, August 31, 2014 5:08:51 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 08/30/2014 10:03 AM, Timo wrote:
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>> Since you claim that EM fields don't exist, which is it: (a)
>
> >>>>> energy is not conserved (b) energy is carried from point to
>
> >>>>> point by magic (c) energy is carried from point to point by
>
> >>>>> <fill in the blank>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> I choose "magic" given that HOW energy is carried is not known
>
> >>>> and fields don't exist as real objects.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> So certain you are!
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> Note that energy (according to Maxwell and refuted by no one
>
> >>>> since) can ONLY be carried by A. Waves in a medium. or B.
>
> >>>> Particles with kinetic energy.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> So certain you are! And wrong, unless you have a very broad
>
> >>> definition of "particles".
>
> >>
>
> >> Here's your chance for the "Smarter than Maxwell" prize.
>
> >>
>
> >> So what is the third way that energy can be transferred?
>
> >>
>
> >> Lessee. I'll help you out ('cause you obviously need help).
>
> >>
>
> >> Transfer of energy and transfer of information are basically the
>
> >> same. Therefore, by Bell's theorem we find that we can have FTL
>
> >> transmissions of energy/information by the (third) process known as
>
> >> "entanglement".
>
> >>
>
> >> My comment would be that "entanglement" = Magic.
>
> >
>
> > But we don't have FTL transmission of energy or information by
>
> > entanglement.
>
>
>
> Well, nobody has proved it yet, but Bell's theorem clearly states that
> you only have two choices. 1. FTL transmission. 2. Hidden variables.

More of your certainty! Yet Bell's theorem doesn't state that.

> >>>> In an EM case NEITHER can be true since A. Aether does not
> >>>> exist. B. Fields have nothing to do with particles. This only
> >>>> leave C. Magic.
> >>>
>
> >>> In the face of your certain knowledge of what is not possible,
>
> >>> you end up with certain knowledge of magic. Very good!
>
> > [...]
>
> >> I'm waiting for YOUR "c" alternative.
> >
> > The simpler alternative is that EM fields are real, and are what
> > carry the energy from point A to point B. You could say that
> > "photons" are real, if you prefer. Neither EM fields nor photons are
> > waves in a medium, or "particles with kinetic energy", with
> > "particle" meaning something like a classical particle.
>
> Just what do you mean "fields are real"?

> We've already established
> that Field math is not real.

If I use maths to describe a dog, the unreality of maths doesn't make dogs not exist. Likewise, if I use maths to describe fields, it doesn't make fields cease to exist.

> It's just an inaccurate model according to
> you. So then the question arises just what is the REALITY that the field
> math is modeling?

That we don't know. Does our ignorance make fields cease to exist?

> If
> energy isn't transferred by waves or by kinetic energy in some form
> (doesn't have to be "particles" as such, does it?

Earlier, you claimed "particles" as such. And waves in a MEDIUM. If you generalise "kinetic energy" to any moving energy, then, yes, movement of energy involves "kinetic energy".

> But obviously need
> "mass" and hence is "real") then by what?

"Obviously need" mass! Such certainty! Define "mass".

> >>> First, "reflect nature" is not the same as "identical to nature".
> >>> The map is not the territory. How could a mathematical model be
> >>> identical to nature?
> >>
> >> Ah, progress. So then maths are not "identical" to reality after
> >> all!
> >
> > Of course not. How is this progress? I never said otherwise.
>
> Of course you did (and do!) You just said above that "fields are real"!

"Fields" are not "maths". We describe them mathematically; we have mathematical models of their behaviour. Those models don't make fields cease to exist.

We don't directly measure them. So what? We don't directly measure forces, either.

> > Note well the distinction between MATHS and A MATHEMATICAL MODEL.
>
> What the hell? So MATHS are real and are the foundation of nature, but
> when you use maths to model reality, it suddenly is now an inaccurate
> representation of nature that is not real? Hint: When you find yourself
> in a hole: Stop digging!

No. Learn what "maths" is, and what a mathematical model is. They're different things.

> > No. Some MATHEMATICAL MODELS are fudged approximations good enough
> > for engineers AND scientists. Other MATHEMATICAL MODELS reflect
> > reality more accurately.
>
> But not perfectly you admit!

We don't know. Our best mathematical models appear to work. We don't know that they work perfectly. It's likely that they don't work perfectly. So what?

> > Any successful MATHEMATICAL MODEL of nature reflects nature. Because
> > we built it (the mathematical model) that way.
>
> But how does one "build" a mathematical model? You must start with
> axioms. Do those axioms then reflect reality? In other words are the
> axioms you built your maths with "true"?

If one starts with axioms, one is typically a philosopher, not a scientist. (See Bunge's book axiomatising a whole bunch of mathematical models in physics.)

For your mathematical model of reality, you choose maths that reflects reality. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Is it a mystery why a curve fit closely follows the points the curve is fitted to?

> > What I disagreed with was your assertion that maths is assumed to be
> > more real than reality. That isn't a common assertion.
>
> And yet while you boldly assert that nobody thinks this way,

I said that YOU think that way at times, and gave an example. Your "3 EM fields".

> you then
> turn around and tell me that "fields are real"! If fields are "real"
> then what are they composed of?

Did iron not exist before we knew about atoms? About chemical elements? Our ignorance does not make things cease to exist.

> How does one create a field? Nobody
> knows because the "field" is just mathematical fantasy. The fantasy is
> constructed so as to reflect the forces observed which are obviously
> real even though we have no idea where they come from, but again I used
> my example of the wind and the field describing the forces produced by
> the wind. The field is not real. It is a mathematical description. The
> axioms behind that description can't be proved real. The question is
> stupid. The wind is real and the forces are real but the "field" is
> clearly NOT the wind! And to pretend that it is would simply be making
> mathematics more real than reality.

A rational person would simply identify the wind as the physically real "field". Yes, the wind is not the same as the mathematical model of the wind, even if we attach the label "field" to both. So what?
benj
2014-09-03 06:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/02/2014 05:29 PM, Timo wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 6:24:22 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>> On 09/01/2014 09:21 PM, Timo wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, September 2, 2014 10:54:50 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>>
>>>> On 09/01/2014 08:28 PM, Timo wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, September 2, 2014 4:53:36 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On 08/31/2014 12:17 AM, Timo wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 31, 2014 5:08:51 AM UTC+10, benj
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> On 08/30/2014 10:03 AM, Timo wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> Since you claim that EM fields don't exist, which is it:
>>>>>>> (a)
>>
>>>>>>> energy is not conserved (b) energy is carried from point
>>>>>>> to
>>
>>>>>>> point by magic (c) energy is carried from point to point
>>>>>>> by
>>
>>>>>>> <fill in the blank>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> I choose "magic" given that HOW energy is carried is not
>>>>>> known
>>
>>>>>> and fields don't exist as real objects.
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>> So certain you are!
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> Note that energy (according to Maxwell and refuted by no
>>>>>> one
>>
>>>>>> since) can ONLY be carried by A. Waves in a medium. or B.
>>
>>>>>> Particles with kinetic energy.
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>> So certain you are! And wrong, unless you have a very broad
>>
>>>>> definition of "particles".
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Here's your chance for the "Smarter than Maxwell" prize.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> So what is the third way that energy can be transferred?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Lessee. I'll help you out ('cause you obviously need help).
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Transfer of energy and transfer of information are basically
>>>> the
>>
>>>> same. Therefore, by Bell's theorem we find that we can have
>>>> FTL
>>
>>>> transmissions of energy/information by the (third) process
>>>> known as
>>
>>>> "entanglement".
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> My comment would be that "entanglement" = Magic.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> But we don't have FTL transmission of energy or information by
>>
>>> entanglement.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, nobody has proved it yet, but Bell's theorem clearly states
>> that you only have two choices. 1. FTL transmission. 2. Hidden
>> variables.
>
> More of your certainty! Yet Bell's theorem doesn't state that.

Are you saying that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies to what
Bell's theorem states? I don't think you are correct!

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bell%27s_theorem


>>>>>> In an EM case NEITHER can be true since A. Aether does not
>>>>>> exist. B. Fields have nothing to do with particles. This
>>>>>> only leave C. Magic.
>>>>>
>>
>>>>> In the face of your certain knowledge of what is not
>>>>> possible,
>>
>>>>> you end up with certain knowledge of magic. Very good!
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>>>> I'm waiting for YOUR "c" alternative.
>>>
>>> The simpler alternative is that EM fields are real, and are what
>>> carry the energy from point A to point B. You could say that
>>> "photons" are real, if you prefer. Neither EM fields nor photons
>>> are waves in a medium, or "particles with kinetic energy", with
>>> "particle" meaning something like a classical particle.
>>
>> Just what do you mean "fields are real"?
>
>> We've already established that Field math is not real.
>
> If I use maths to describe a dog, the unreality of maths doesn't make
> dogs not exist. Likewise, if I use maths to describe fields, it
> doesn't make fields cease to exist.

Depends what you MEAN by "fields". The actual mathematical description
is clearly fantasy. What it refers to is unknown! That existence is not
proved one way or the other by the fact the maths exist! If I use maths
to describe a unicorn, does that prove that unicorns exist?

>> It's just an inaccurate model according to you. So then the
>> question arises just what is the REALITY that the field math is
>> modeling?
>
> That we don't know. Does our ignorance make fields cease to exist?

No. But being able to write a mathematical description doesn't prove
they exist either!

>> If energy isn't transferred by waves or by kinetic energy in some
>> form (doesn't have to be "particles" as such, does it?
>
> Earlier, you claimed "particles" as such. And waves in a MEDIUM. If
> you generalise "kinetic energy" to any moving energy, then, yes,
> movement of energy involves "kinetic energy".

You did read that little part about "moving mass" that keeps things
"real", right? We do understand what "kinetic energy means, right?

>> But obviously need "mass" and hence is "real") then by what?
>
> "Obviously need" mass! Such certainty! Define "mass".

Mass is the coefficient between force and motion of objects

>>>>> First, "reflect nature" is not the same as "identical to
>>>>> nature". The map is not the territory. How could a
>>>>> mathematical model be identical to nature?
>>>>
>>>> Ah, progress. So then maths are not "identical" to reality
>>>> after all!
>>>
>>> Of course not. How is this progress? I never said otherwise.
>>
>> Of course you did (and do!) You just said above that "fields are
>> real"!
>
> "Fields" are not "maths". We describe them mathematically; we have
> mathematical models of their behaviour. Those models don't make
> fields cease to exist.

But it doesn't make them exist either! Point (again) is that
mathematical description known as "fields" is fantasy and does not exist
in reality. Whether or not there is an analog to that description in
reality that approximates the characteristics of the the fields is
unknown and unproven. So to talk about mathematical fields as if they
were real objects is simply wrong. To talk about the thing in reality
that may be an analog to mathematical fields is correct, but there is
very little actual knowledge to prove such a proposal. The main
"argument" seems to be that since the mathematical descriptions "works"
therefore reality must be just like maths. See how we are edging toward
"maths more real than reality" here?

> We don't directly measure them. So what? We don't directly measure
> forces, either.

Well, direct enough. Anyone can take a couple of magnets and move them
around and certainly SOMETHING is pulling them together and pushing them
apart! You can easily FEEL it. Once one learns how to describe that
action using field theory, there is a grave temptation to decide that
there are "invisible fields" out there producing the forces. Well, the
things producing the forces are invisible all right, but there is no
evidence of some physical things that is an analog to the mathematical
field, nor is there any requirement for such a thing to exist!

>>> Note well the distinction between MATHS and A MATHEMATICAL
>>> MODEL.
>>
>> What the hell? So MATHS are real and are the foundation of nature,
>> but when you use maths to model reality, it suddenly is now an
>> inaccurate representation of nature that is not real? Hint: When
>> you find yourself in a hole: Stop digging!
>
> No. Learn what "maths" is, and what a mathematical model is. They're
> different things.

So you think that mathematical models are somehow constructed using
number systems DIFFERENT from the maths studied and developed by
mathematicians? I don't think so. You may be selective about which maths
you choose to employ but the rules don't change.

>>> No. Some MATHEMATICAL MODELS are fudged approximations good
>>> enough for engineers AND scientists. Other MATHEMATICAL MODELS
>>> reflect reality more accurately.
>>
>> But not perfectly you admit!
>
> We don't know. Our best mathematical models appear to work. We don't
> know that they work perfectly. It's likely that they don't work
> perfectly. So what?

What, is that if maths were "more real than reality" which is to say
represent something TOTALLY fundamental about how the universe is
constructed, then obviously when we get the maths right the models will
be PERFECT! That's what.

>>> Any successful MATHEMATICAL MODEL of nature reflects nature.
>>> Because we built it (the mathematical model) that way.
>>
>> But how does one "build" a mathematical model? You must start with
>> axioms. Do those axioms then reflect reality? In other words are
>> the axioms you built your maths with "true"?
>
> If one starts with axioms, one is typically a philosopher, not a
> scientist. (See Bunge's book axiomatising a whole bunch of
> mathematical models in physics.)

A philosopher IS a scientist, just at a higher level! You know the
degree is called "Doctor of philosophy" for a reason.

> For your mathematical model of reality, you choose maths that
> reflects reality. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
>
> Is it a mystery why a curve fit closely follows the points the curve
> is fitted to?

No, but if a curve is fitted to points does that automatically imply
that not the DATA but the analytic expression MUST be the way nature
operates down it's wheel work as is so often supposed? There is no
reason to presume so.

>>> What I disagreed with was your assertion that maths is assumed to
>>> be more real than reality. That isn't a common assertion.
>>
>> And yet while you boldly assert that nobody thinks this way,
>
> I said that YOU think that way at times, and gave an example. Your "3
> EM fields".

Right. Got it. I think that math is more real than reality but you are
setting me straight about the issue.

>> you then turn around and tell me that "fields are real"! If fields
>> are "real" then what are they composed of?
>
> Did iron not exist before we knew about atoms? About chemical
> elements? Our ignorance does not make things cease to exist.

Nor does our knowledge mean that what we know MUST be correct.

>> How does one create a field? Nobody knows because the "field" is
>> just mathematical fantasy. The fantasy is constructed so as to
>> reflect the forces observed which are obviously real even though we
>> have no idea where they come from, but again I used my example of
>> the wind and the field describing the forces produced by the wind.
>> The field is not real. It is a mathematical description. The axioms
>> behind that description can't be proved real. The question is
>> stupid. The wind is real and the forces are real but the "field"
>> is clearly NOT the wind! And to pretend that it is would simply be
>> making mathematics more real than reality.
>
> A rational person would simply identify the wind as the physically
> real "field". Yes, the wind is not the same as the mathematical model
> of the wind, even if we attach the label "field" to both. So what?

By "rational person" I presume you mean one who does not discriminate
between their fantasies and actual experiences. In other words a "lib".

Sorry, the wind is NOT the field. You haven't been paying attention. We
developed a field with the the equation F = qE. Wind is producing the
force, but there is the factor "q" (the size of your butt) so the
"field" is a construction with properties different from the wind which
is the TRUE reality of the phenomena! Hence to say the wind is the
'field" is just wrong. Wind is real. Field is fantasy describing
reality. It is very common (as you well know) to do a calculation and
then extract various "terms" and then assign "meaning" to each of those
terms as if they each were real physical objects. Convenient, yes.
Proper philosophy, no.

To simply assign mathematical terms to actual phenomena is simply sloppy
thinking. People like to say 2 + 2 = 4 as if that somehow "proved" that
maths are real. Of course even if we ignore the fact that the statement
is blatantly wrong, there is the problem of just what "2" is. Is it a
pair of oranges? is it the symbol printed above? Is it the semantic
meaning that the symbol represents? Just what is "2" exactly! And THAT
is precisely where the problem lies.
S***@hotmail.com
2014-09-03 19:05:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<guy, really like to type. so. aany waay

multiplicative properties are easily shown
by the area of matrix in "unit boxes,
as "sets of sets of sets ... of course,
two times two is zero, in any even base,
base < 5 (including of course base_one

in short, there is an easy proof that "zero is an even number,
even though it is the reciprocal of infinity,
whcih is of odd parity in any even base,
in the canonical sense of repdigits

> To simply assign mathematical terms to actual phenomena is simply sloppy
>
> thinking. People like to say 2 + 2 = 4 as if that somehow "proved" that
>
> maths are real. Of course even if we ignore the fact that the statement
>
> is blatantly wrong, there is the problem of just what "2" is. Is it a
>
> pair of oranges? is it the symbol printed above? Is it the semantic
>
> meaning that the symbol represents? Just what is "2" exactly! And THAT
>
> is precisely where the problem lies.
Timo
2014-09-07 02:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 4:15:13 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> On 09/02/2014 05:29 PM, Timo wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 6:24:22 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> >> On 09/01/2014 09:21 PM, Timo wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, September 2, 2014 10:54:50 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> >>>> On 09/01/2014 08:28 PM, Timo wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, September 2, 2014 4:53:36 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> >>>>>> On 08/31/2014 12:17 AM, Timo wrote:
> >>>>>>> Since you claim that EM fields don't exist, which is it:
> >>>>>>> (a)
> >>>>>>> energy is not conserved (b) energy is carried from point
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> point by magic (c) energy is carried from point to point
> >>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>> <fill in the blank>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I choose "magic" given that HOW energy is carried is not
> >>>>>> known
> >>>>>> and fields don't exist as real objects.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So certain you are!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Note that energy (according to Maxwell and refuted by no
> >>>>>> one
> >>>>>> since) can ONLY be carried by A. Waves in a medium. or B.
> >>>>>> Particles with kinetic energy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So certain you are! And wrong, unless you have a very broad
> >>>>> definition of "particles".
> >>>>
> >>>> Here's your chance for the "Smarter than Maxwell" prize.
> >>>>
> >>>> So what is the third way that energy can be transferred?
> >>>>
> >>>> Lessee. I'll help you out ('cause you obviously need help).
> >>>>
> >>>> Transfer of energy and transfer of information are basically
> >>>> the
> >>>> same. Therefore, by Bell's theorem we find that we can have
> >>>> FTL
> >>>> transmissions of energy/information by the (third) process
> >>>> known as
> >>>> "entanglement".
> >>>>
> >>>> My comment would be that "entanglement" = Magic.
> >>>
> >>> But we don't have FTL transmission of energy or information by
> >>> entanglement.
> >>
> >> Well, nobody has proved it yet, but Bell's theorem clearly states
> >> that you only have two choices. 1. FTL transmission. 2. Hidden
> >> variables.
> >
> > More of your certainty! Yet Bell's theorem doesn't state that.
>
> Are you saying that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies to what
> Bell's theorem states? I don't think you are correct!
>
> http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bell%27s_theorem

Where is the "clear statement"? That page says "The fact that non-locality does not imply the possibility of superluminal signalling might appear particularly surprising; this fact will seem less surprising, however, if one keeps in mind that the concept of superluminal signalling involves anthropocentric notions such as controllability and observability that play no role in the concept of locality." which is a clear statement of the opposite.

> >>>>>> In an EM case NEITHER can be true since A. Aether does not
> >>>>>> exist. B. Fields have nothing to do with particles. This
> >>>>>> only leave C. Magic.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the face of your certain knowledge of what is not
> >>>>> possible,
> >>>>> you end up with certain knowledge of magic. Very good!
> >>> [...]
> >>>> I'm waiting for YOUR "c" alternative.
> >>>
> >>> The simpler alternative is that EM fields are real, and are what
> >>> carry the energy from point A to point B. You could say that
> >>> "photons" are real, if you prefer. Neither EM fields nor photons
> >>> are waves in a medium, or "particles with kinetic energy", with
> >>> "particle" meaning something like a classical particle.
> >>
> >> Just what do you mean "fields are real"?
> >> We've already established that Field math is not real.
> >
> > If I use maths to describe a dog, the unreality of maths doesn't make
> > dogs not exist. Likewise, if I use maths to describe fields, it
> > doesn't make fields cease to exist.
>
> Depends what you MEAN by "fields". The actual mathematical description
> is clearly fantasy. What it refers to is unknown! That existence is not
> proved one way or the other by the fact the maths exist! If I use maths
> to describe a unicorn, does that prove that unicorns exist?

No. Why would it? There's a reason why experimental evidence is important in science.

What kinds of experimental evidence do we have that EM fields exist?

(a) Energy appears to be conserved, for things not involving EM fields (and some other kinds of fields). If EM fields don't exist, we have difficulties with conservation of energy. We could (i) assume that EM fields exist, and they transport energy, (ii) assume that something else transports the energy, and has transports the energy in the same way, quantitatively, as predicted by our models assuming the EM fields transport energy, but is NOT an EM field, or (iii) give up conventional conservation of energy. When a lizard sunbathes to warm itself, is it being warmed up by the light, or by some other "thing" transporting energy from the sun to the lizard? If I concentrate the light, I concentrate the energy. I'd say that burning glasses, lasers, solar cells, vision, radio, x-rays, and more - physical phenomena involving energy going from point A to point B are good evidence of the physical existence of EM fields. Indirect evidence, since we measure energy transfer and forces, but still evidence.

(b) From QED, we have the suggestion that photons have as much reality as electrons. Why should the existence of EM fields be in any more doubt than the existence of matter?

> >> It's just an inaccurate model according to you. So then the
> >> question arises just what is the REALITY that the field math is
> >> modeling?
> >
> > That we don't know. Does our ignorance make fields cease to exist?
>
> No. But being able to write a mathematical description doesn't prove
> they exist either!
>
> >> If energy isn't transferred by waves or by kinetic energy in some
> >> form (doesn't have to be "particles" as such, does it?
> >
> > Earlier, you claimed "particles" as such. And waves in a MEDIUM. If
> > you generalise "kinetic energy" to any moving energy, then, yes,
> > movement of energy involves "kinetic energy".
>
> You did read that little part about "moving mass" that keeps things
> "real", right? We do understand what "kinetic energy means, right?

It depends on how you define "mass".

> >> But obviously need "mass" and hence is "real") then by what?
> >
> > "Obviously need" mass! Such certainty! Define "mass".
>
> Mass is the coefficient between force and motion of objects

So, "relativistic mass" or similar. Which means that moving energy has "mass", too. Unless you artificially restrict it to "objects".

Since moving energy has inertia, this can readily lead to a useless circular argument: "transport of energy can be done by moving energy".

> >>>>> First, "reflect nature" is not the same as "identical to
> >>>>> nature". The map is not the territory. How could a
> >>>>> mathematical model be identical to nature?
> >>>>
> >>>> Ah, progress. So then maths are not "identical" to reality
> >>>> after all!
> >>>
> >>> Of course not. How is this progress? I never said otherwise.
> >>
> >> Of course you did (and do!) You just said above that "fields are
> >> real"!
> >
> > "Fields" are not "maths". We describe them mathematically; we have
> > mathematical models of their behaviour. Those models don't make
> > fields cease to exist.
>
> But it doesn't make them exist either! Point (again) is that
> mathematical description known as "fields" is fantasy and does not exist
> in reality. Whether or not there is an analog to that description in
> reality that approximates the characteristics of the the fields is
> unknown and unproven. So to talk about mathematical fields as if they
> were real objects is simply wrong. To talk about the thing in reality
> that may be an analog to mathematical fields is correct, but there is
> very little actual knowledge to prove such a proposal. The main
> "argument" seems to be that since the mathematical descriptions "works"
> therefore reality must be just like maths. See how we are edging toward
> "maths more real than reality" here?

No.

> > We don't directly measure them. So what? We don't directly measure
> > forces, either.
>
> Well, direct enough.

We measure accelerations, we measure displacements, we measure deformations. We don't measure forces directly.

> Anyone can take a couple of magnets and move them
> around and certainly SOMETHING is pulling them together and pushing them
> apart! You can easily FEEL it. Once one learns how to describe that
> action using field theory, there is a grave temptation to decide that
> there are "invisible fields" out there producing the forces. Well, the
> things producing the forces are invisible all right, but there is no
> evidence of some physical things that is an analog to the mathematical
> field, nor is there any requirement for such a thing to exist!

Wrong. There is evidence. Beyond what was already said about conservation of energy, we could say something about conservation of momentum. Force is the rate of transfer of momentum. How does the momentum get from point A to point B? Hint: don't about retardation.

> >>> Note well the distinction between MATHS and A MATHEMATICAL
> >>> MODEL.
> >>
> >> What the hell? So MATHS are real and are the foundation of nature,
> >> but when you use maths to model reality, it suddenly is now an
> >> inaccurate representation of nature that is not real? Hint: When
> >> you find yourself in a hole: Stop digging!
> >
> > No. Learn what "maths" is, and what a mathematical model is. They're
> > different things.
>
> So you think that mathematical models are somehow constructed using
> number systems DIFFERENT from the maths studied and developed by
> mathematicians? I don't think so. You may be selective about which maths
> you choose to employ but the rules don't change.

So what? Mathematics and a mathematical model are not the same thing, even if the mathematical model uses mathematics (whether conventional mathematics or otherwise). The English language and a novel written in English are different things, too.

> >>> No. Some MATHEMATICAL MODELS are fudged approximations good
> >>> enough for engineers AND scientists. Other MATHEMATICAL MODELS
> >>> reflect reality more accurately.
> >>
> >> But not perfectly you admit!
> >
> > We don't know. Our best mathematical models appear to work. We don't
> > know that they work perfectly. It's likely that they don't work
> > perfectly. So what?
>
> What, is that if maths were "more real than reality" which is to say
> represent something TOTALLY fundamental about how the universe is
> constructed, then obviously when we get the maths right the models will
> be PERFECT! That's what.

Do we expect 2+2=4 to fail for predicting that 2 oranges and 2 more oranges gives us 4 oranges? If not, then it's a perfect model! Where does "more real than reality" come into it?

> >>> Any successful MATHEMATICAL MODEL of nature reflects nature.
> >>> Because we built it (the mathematical model) that way.
> >>
> >> But how does one "build" a mathematical model? You must start with
> >> axioms. Do those axioms then reflect reality? In other words are
> >> the axioms you built your maths with "true"?
> >
> > If one starts with axioms, one is typically a philosopher, not a
> > scientist. (See Bunge's book axiomatising a whole bunch of
> > mathematical models in physics.)
>
> A philosopher IS a scientist, just at a higher level! You know the
> degree is called "Doctor of philosophy" for a reason.

The disciplines diverged. The name of the degree is a Medieval relic. But even before they did, the term "natural philosophy" recognised the distinction between science and what we call philosophy now.

Of course, it is useful for a scientist to know something of philosophy (despite comments about the value of ornithology to birds), just as it is useful for a scientist to know something of mathematics. That doesn't make the disciplines identical.

> > For your mathematical model of reality, you choose maths that
> > reflects reality. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
> >
> > Is it a mystery why a curve fit closely follows the points the curve
> > is fitted to?
>
> No, but if a curve is fitted to points does that automatically imply
> that not the DATA but the analytic expression MUST be the way nature
> operates down it's wheel work as is so often supposed? There is no
> reason to presume so.

Of course. That's why such mathematical descriptions are accepted as provisional, or even as "known to be approximate only".

"Reflects reality" is NOT "is reality".

> >>> What I disagreed with was your assertion that maths is assumed to
> >>> be more real than reality. That isn't a common assertion.
> >>
> >> And yet while you boldly assert that nobody thinks this way,
> >
> > I said that YOU think that way at times, and gave an example. Your "3
> > EM fields".
>
> Right. Got it. I think that math is more real than reality but you are
> setting me straight about the issue.

You were insisting on the reality of 3 different EM fields, based on a separation of the mathematical description into 3 terms.

> >> you then turn around and tell me that "fields are real"! If fields
> >> are "real" then what are they composed of?
> >
> > Did iron not exist before we knew about atoms? About chemical
> > elements? Our ignorance does not make things cease to exist.
>
> Nor does our knowledge mean that what we know MUST be correct.

And yet, you make many claims of "MUST".

> >> How does one create a field? Nobody knows because the "field" is
> >> just mathematical fantasy. The fantasy is constructed so as to
> >> reflect the forces observed which are obviously real even though we
> >> have no idea where they come from, but again I used my example of
> >> the wind and the field describing the forces produced by the wind.
> >> The field is not real. It is a mathematical description. The axioms
> >> behind that description can't be proved real. The question is
> >> stupid. The wind is real and the forces are real but the "field"
> >> is clearly NOT the wind! And to pretend that it is would simply be
> >> making mathematics more real than reality.
>
> > A rational person would simply identify the wind as the physically
> > real "field". Yes, the wind is not the same as the mathematical model
> > of the wind, even if we attach the label "field" to both. So what?
>
> By "rational person" I presume you mean one who does not discriminate
> between their fantasies and actual experiences. In other words a "lib".

You presume wrong.

> Sorry, the wind is NOT the field. You haven't been paying attention. We
> developed a field with the the equation F = qE.

That's the "mathematical field", not the "physical field".


> Wind is producing the
> force, but there is the factor "q" (the size of your butt) so the
> "field" is a construction with properties different from the wind which
> is the TRUE reality of the phenomena! Hence to say the wind is the
> 'field" is just wrong. Wind is real. Field is fantasy describing
> reality. It is very common (as you well know) to do a calculation and
> then extract various "terms" and then assign "meaning" to each of those
> terms as if they each were real physical objects. Convenient, yes.
> Proper philosophy, no.

Map, territory. Not the same thing, and the map doesn't have to be the same as the territory. The dots on the map are dots on the map, not towns and cities. As shorthand, we will call them "towns" and "cities", but this doesn't mean that we believe that they are towns and cities. We will point at a dot and say "this city here". So what? We call our "Delta x" in a mathematical formula the "displacement of <...>", when it isn't. So what? Don't be confused by our usual shorthand!

Language is flexible enough so that it's common to use the same term for a physical object, a mathematical concept, an abstract idea, and a picture. That doesn't mean we uncritically confuse the different things.

> To simply assign mathematical terms to actual phenomena is simply sloppy
> thinking. People like to say 2 + 2 = 4 as if that somehow "proved" that
> maths are real. Of course even if we ignore the fact that the statement
> is blatantly wrong, there is the problem of just what "2" is. Is it a
> pair of oranges? is it the symbol printed above? Is it the semantic
> meaning that the symbol represents? Just what is "2" exactly! And THAT
> is precisely where the problem lies.

And yet, 2 oranges and another 2 oranges gives a total of 4 oranges. The mathematical 2+2=4 corresponds to reality.

These days, with the axiomatisation of much of mathematics, one can say exactly what "2" means. But it's largely irrelevant. What matters is that 2+2=4 works to describe stuff in the real world. It doesn't work for everything in the real world; the solution to that difficulty is to use it where it works, and to not use it where it doesn't work.

Anyway, as I said earlier, the mathematisation of physics predates modern physics. The success of Galileian/Newtonian science, and Newtonianism in general, says something about the success of such mathematisation. There were objections, even at that time. Simplicio on maths and reality from "Two New Sciences": "The arguments and demonstrations which you have advanced are mathematical, abstract, and far removed from concrete matter; and I do not believe that when applied to the physical and natural world these laws will hold."
Odd Bodkin
2014-09-03 00:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/2/2014 3:24 PM, benj wrote:
> Well, nobody has proved it yet, but Bell's theorem clearly states that
> you only have two choices. 1. FTL transmission. 2. Hidden variables.

That's not at all what Bell's theorem says, according to what I've read.
Why not
2014-09-03 09:43:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Odd Bodkin <***@gmail.com> wrote in news:lu5m7q$60v$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

> On 9/2/2014 3:24 PM, benj wrote:
>> Well, nobody has proved it yet, but Bell's theorem clearly states that
>> you only have two choices. 1. FTL transmission. 2. Hidden variables.
>
> That's not at all what Bell's theorem says, according to what I've read.

You are correct, that is not what the theorem states. Nothing like it. It
says hidden variabls are not able to model everything quantum physics
predicts.

However, see this (second paragraph)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Metaphysical_objections

If the hidden variables can communicate with each other faster than light,
Bell's inequality can easily be violated. Once one particle is measured, it
can communicate the necessary correlations to the other particle. Since in
relativity the notion of simultaneity is not absolute, this is
unattractive. One idea is to replace instantaneous communication with a
process that travels backwards in time along the past light cone. This is
the idea behind a transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics, which
interprets the statistical emergence of a quantum history as a gradual
coming to agreement between histories that go both forward and backward in
time.[23]

This may be what benj is thinking about.
S***@hotmail.com
2014-09-03 18:59:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
pure sophistry, akin to Russell's (tenseless paradoxi, or
not being able to afford one's own flipbook
;well, hah, neither can I

> unattractive. One idea is to replace instantaneous communication with a
>
> process that travels backwards in time along the past light cone. This is
>
> the idea behind a transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics, which
>
> interprets the statistical emergence of a quantum history as a gradual
>
> coming to agreement between histories that go both forward and backward in
>
> time.[23]
>
>
>
> This may be what benj is thinking about.
f***@gmail.com
2014-09-04 19:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
atoms of free space are the ski-disant "aether,
which accounts for the anomaly of the Michelson-Morley thing
(the "no null results

> > you only have two choices. 1. FTL transmission. 2. Hidden variables.
>
>
>
> That's not at all what Bell's theorem says, according to what I've read.
RichD
2014-09-04 21:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On September 2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> nobody has proved it yet, but Bell's theorem clearly
>> states that you only have two choices.
>> 1. FTL transmission. 2. Hidden variables.

And experiment rejects (2)

> That's not at all what Bell's theorem says, according
> to what I've read.

But that's how everyone interprets it, at first
blush. It takes effort to understand that
entanglement doesn't imply FTL signaling.

Even some bright bulbs have been fooled.
Check Nick Herbert's FLASH device, which putatively
accomplished superluminal communication. It took a
lot of head scratching, before the flaw was discovered.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mistakes-faster-than-light-telegraph-that-wasnt/

In Herbert's defense, he performed a service -
by stimulating research, progress ensued.
We learn from errors, right?


--
Rich
DanB
2014-09-04 22:06:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
RichD wrote:
> On September 2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> nobody has proved it yet, but Bell's theorem clearly
>>> states that you only have two choices.
>>> 1. FTL transmission. 2. Hidden variables.
>
> And experiment rejects (2)
>
>> That's not at all what Bell's theorem says, according
>> to what I've read.
>
> But that's how everyone interprets it, at first
> blush. It takes effort to understand that
> entanglement doesn't imply FTL signaling.

It supports it though. From:
<http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/pdf/1206.6578v1.pdf>

If it can be done per event, there is no good reason that an ensemble of
photons can not be used to transmit information. The only reason folks
argue with this is that it doesn't 'feel' right in relativistic terms.
There is nothing in SR that says information must be part of the SR
domain. It is only a human desire.

Best, Dan.
j***@hotmail.com
2014-09-03 09:27:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Timo wrote...sept 2
>But we don't have FTL transmission of energy or information by entanglement.

Wrong. We do have ftl transmission. Its just that theorists using
maths have removed that information from the observed data
S***@hotmail.com
2014-09-02 01:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
stringtheory (Kaluza's already wrote that "off

> I'm off to calculate "point charges" using infinite fields!
>
>
>
> Discussion over.
benj
2014-09-02 20:36:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/01/2014 09:26 PM, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> stringtheory (Kaluza's already wrote that "off
>
>> I'm off to calculate "point charges" using infinite fields!
>>
>>
>>
>> Discussion over.

"String theory" = proof that maths are more real than reality!
S***@hotmail.com
2014-09-03 18:56:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
actually, Klein's notion of a hidden 0-d "string dimension,
is not really needed ;Kaluza' formularum still works,
just fine

> "String theory" = proof that maths are more real than reality!
Odd Bodkin
2014-09-02 01:36:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/1/2014 1:53 PM, benj wrote:
> Note that energy (according to Maxwell and refuted by no one since) can
> ONLY be carried by A. Waves in a medium. or B. Particles with kinetic
> energy.

Sorry, but that's simply not so that it's not been refuted.
Boy are you stuck in the 19th century.
S***@hotmail.com
2014-09-02 02:05:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
light is waves in free space (at least one atom
in the expanding spherical wavefront (c^2,
the rate of its growth "at the speed of light,
mod the indices of refraction as it passes through the medium of free space (atoms,
at least one

not the "velocity of a newt onion rock ton of "no dimensionality
S***@hotmail.com
2014-08-29 20:20:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
teh sole open problem De fermatttT,
is the characterization of the Fermat primes,
only five of which are known (shown by Gauss
to be the factors of the numbers of sides
of compass-constructibel polygona

> As Einstein notes the reason math cannot represent reality is because it
>
> is not based on reality at all. The idea is stupid. Math is based only
>
> on self-consistency. The "truth" of the beginning postulates is not even
>
> a question that makes sense.
Y.Porat
2014-09-07 06:57:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, August 29, 2014 10:51:21 AM UTC+3, benj wrote:
> On 08/28/2014 07:47 PM, Timo wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, August 28, 2014 4:41:17 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>
> >> On 08/28/2014 02:00 AM, Timo wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>> I haven't read the original source of the quote (the 1944
>
> >>> article), so I don't know what students Armstrong refers to. If
>
> >>> he's writing about beginning students, he's talking mechanics,
>
> >>> not EM theory. He is just talking about classical theory.
>
> >>
>
> >> The students Armstrong is talking about were likely Electrical
>
> >> Engineering students of the 1930s and 1940s. (Math and engineering
>
> >> were rather different then...note his reference to plots and
>
> >> charts)
>
> >
>
> > ... and trigonometric functions.
>
> >
>
> > Have you read the original article, or are you guessing?
>
>
>
> Not exactly guessing but I have not read the original. Story is I
>
> encountered the article reference in working on another (unrelated)
>
> piece by a different author. He suggested that Armstrong committed
>
> suicide because of the extreme resistance to his views on science and
>
> mathematics (a conclusion I think is rather over reached). But didn't
>
> give the reference to the article. I found that the Armstrong biography
>
> had his bibliography in it so I bought it for the reference. The Bio
>
> included the quote from the article and a brief description of the
>
> events surounding it. That's what I know. The quote speaks for itself.
>
>
>
> >> However his beef, is relevant, which was the worship of mathematics
>
> >> as more real than reality.
>
> >
>
> > No. Nothing about "real" in the quote. Just about how to go about
>
> > getting results. He's complaining about over-dependence on
>
> > mathematics in coming up with ideas and results. Nothing to do with
>
> > your philosophy of the (un)reality of mathematics.
>
>
>
> Note you are trying to pretend that this needs to be some kind of
>
> irrefutable prove of my premise and that since it's not, I lose.
>
>
>
> Sorry, this was only one nail in the coffin of math more real than
>
> reality, not a proof of itself. You need to move on to my next post
>
> with the quote from Einstein in which he characterizes geometry as fantasy.
>
>
>
> The difference here between you and Armstrong is that you feel that
>
> somehow math reflects the underlying wheelwork of nature. Therefore if
>
> one does enough math and comes up with a prediction based upon that math
>
> all that is then needed is to go measure the prediction, verify that the
>
> math indeed was correct in the prediction et voila! It's another huge
>
> success for math as the underlying basis for all reality.
>
>
>
> Armstrong takes the opposite view, namely that while not denying the
>
> above can work it is ALSO true that math can predict things that prove
>
> totally false when measured. Hence the mathematics is NOT a
>
> representation of the underlying wheelwork of nature but just a tool to
>
> quantify results ONCE the person has a philosophy that seems to reflect
>
> how nature works down in the wheelwork. In other words nature is real,
>
> but mathematics is not.
>
>
>
> As Einstein notes the reason math cannot represent reality is because it
>
> is not based on reality at all. The idea is stupid. Math is based only
>
> on self-consistency. The "truth" of the beginning postulates is not even
>
> a question that makes sense.

==================
well said Benj !!!

MATHEMATICS CANNOT BE THE LEADER OF PHYSICS
INSTEAD OF PHYSICS THINKING !!!
iow
the leaders of physics
must have physics thinking !!
before mathematics thinking !!!

and it is not the same !

ATB
Y.Porat
============================
Why not
2014-09-07 13:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Y.Porat" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4d96246e-ba49-441d-8377-***@googlegroups.com:

> ==================
> well said Benj !!!
>
> MATHEMATICS CANNOT BE THE LEADER OF PHYSICS
> INSTEAD OF PHYSICS THINKING !!!
> iow
> the leaders of physics
> must have physics thinking !!
> before mathematics thinking !!!
>
> and it is not the same !
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ============================

Act like a real, honest, decent human being and answer my questions

>> Lets says you have a torch which, in one second, emits 1,000,000,000
>> photons.
>>
>> Can you then see that the torch emits 2,000,000,000 in two seconds?
>>
>> Can you then see that the torch emits the same number of photons each
>> second?
>>
>> Can you then see that the torch emits twice as much total energy in
>> two
>> seconds than in one second?
>>
>> Can you then see that the total energy is proportional to the number
>> of
>> photons.
>>
>> Can you then see that each photon has the SAME energy, that is why
>> when
>> you double the number of photons, you double the photon energy?
>>
>> Can you then see that the energy of each photon is the same?
>>
>> Can you then see that the energy of each photon is NOT time
>> dependent?
>>
>> If you don't see any of those facts, why not?
S***@hotmail.com
2014-09-07 18:05:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
*mathematica is four subjeets, one of which is not arithmetic,
even if you can't do THAT

> > MATHEMATICS CANNOT BE THE LEADER OF PHYSICS
>
> > INSTEAD OF PHYSICS THINKING !!!
>
> > iow
>
> > the leaders of physics
>
> > must have physics thinking !!
>
> > before mathematics thinking !!!
>
> >
>
> > and it is not the same !
>
> >
>
> > ATB
>
> > Y.Porat
>
> > ============================
>
>
>
> Act like a real, honest, decent human being and answer my questions
>
>
>
> >> Lets says you have a torch which, in one second, emits 1,000,000,000
>
> >> photons.
>
> >>
>
> >> Can you then see that the torch emits 2,000,000,000 in two seconds?
>
> >>
>
> >> Can you then see that the torch emits the same number of photons each
>
> >> second?
>
> >>
>
> >> Can you then see that the torch emits twice as much total energy in
>
> >> two
>
> >> seconds than in one second?
>
> >>
>
> >> Can you then see that the total energy is proportional to the number
>
> >> of
>
> >> photons.
>
> >>
>
> >> Can you then see that each photon has the SAME energy, that is why
>
> >> when
>
> >> you double the number of photons, you double the photon energy?
>
> >>
>
> >> Can you then see that the energy of each photon is the same?
>
> >>
>
> >> Can you then see that the energy of each photon is NOT time
>
> >> dependent?
>
> >>
>
> >> If you don't see any of those facts, why not?
Y.Porat
2014-09-08 07:37:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 4:31:05 PM UTC+3, Why not wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> news:4d96246e-ba49-441d-8377-***@googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > ==================
>
> > well said Benj !!!
>
> >
>
> > MATHEMATICS CANNOT BE THE LEADER OF PHYSICS
>
> > INSTEAD OF PHYSICS THINKING !!!
>
> > iow
>
> > the leaders of physics
>
> > must have physics thinking !!
>
> > before mathematics thinking !!!
>
> >
>
> > and it is not the same !
>
> >
>
> > ATB
>
> > Y.Porat
>
> > ============================
>
>
>
> Act like a real, honest, decent human being and answer my questions
>
>
>
> >> Lets says you have a torch which, in one second, emits 1,000,000,000
>
> >> photons.
>
> >>
>
> >> Can you then see that the torch emits 2,000,000,000 in two seconds?
>
> >>
>
> >> Can you then see that the torch emits the same number of photons each
>
> >> second?
>
> >>
>
> >> Can you then see that the torch emits twice as much total energy in
>
> >> two
>
> >> seconds than in one second?
>
> >>
>
> >> Can you then see that the total energy is proportional to the number
>
> >> of
>
> >> photons.
>
> >>
>
> >> Can you then see that each photon has the SAME energy, that is why
>
> >> when
>
> >> you double the number of photons, you double the photon energy?
>
> >>
>
> >> Can you then see that the energy of each photon is the same?
>
> >>
>
> >> Can you then see that the energy of each photon is NOT time
>
> >> dependent?
>
> >>
>
> >> If you don't see any of those facts, why not?

========================
most of the above of yours]
is ''in general'' stolen from me !!
yet not the main innovative point

ie !!
the main important question was

WHAT IS THE ENERGY OF THE REAL SMALLEST ** SINGLE **PHOTON energy

for me
and as i showed it
the smallest **single photon energy **is about :

exp - 90 KILOGRAMS ( THE ONLY KILOGRAMS !


a dreck mathematician like you
will never get it
even if someone will hammer it to your straw brain
during 5 years

because basically
yo are more than just a stupid blockhead
you are
a dishonest man starting with being anonymous ...

BYE
Y.Porat
==================================
Why not
2014-09-08 08:10:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Y.Porat" <***@gmail.com> wrote in news:1411274d-19a2-4ec4-8377-
***@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, September 7, 2014 4:31:05 PM UTC+3, Why not wrote:
>> "Y.Porat" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>>
>> news:4d96246e-ba49-441d-8377-***@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > ==================
>>
>> > well said Benj !!!
>>
>> >
>>
>> > MATHEMATICS CANNOT BE THE LEADER OF PHYSICS
>>
>> > INSTEAD OF PHYSICS THINKING !!!
>>
>> > iow
>>
>> > the leaders of physics
>>
>> > must have physics thinking !!
>>
>> > before mathematics thinking !!!
>>
>> >
>>
>> > and it is not the same !
>>
>> >
>>
>> > ATB
>>
>> > Y.Porat
>>
>> > ============================
>>
>>
>>
>> Act like a real, honest, decent human being and answer my questions
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Lets says you have a torch which, in one second, emits
1,000,000,000
>>
>> >> photons.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Can you then see that the torch emits 2,000,000,000 in two seconds?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Can you then see that the torch emits the same number of photons
each
>>
>> >> second?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Can you then see that the torch emits twice as much total energy in
>>
>> >> two
>>
>> >> seconds than in one second?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Can you then see that the total energy is proportional to the
number
>>
>> >> of
>>
>> >> photons.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Can you then see that each photon has the SAME energy, that is why
>>
>> >> when
>>
>> >> you double the number of photons, you double the photon energy?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Can you then see that the energy of each photon is the same?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Can you then see that the energy of each photon is NOT time
>>
>> >> dependent?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> If you don't see any of those facts, why not?
>
> ========================
> most of the above of yours]
> is ''in general'' stolen from me !!

They are questions .. the answers prove you wrong. That is why you still
refuse to answer. You're a coward

[snip porat making excuses]

Lets says you have a torch which, in one second, emits 1,000,000,000
photons.
Can you then see that the torch emits 2,000,000,000 in two seconds?
Can you then see that the torch emits the same number of photons each
second?
Can you then see that the torch emits twice as much total energy in two
seconds than in one second?
Can you then see that the total energy is proportional to the number of
photons.
Can you then see that each photon has the SAME energy, that is why when
you
double the number of photons, you double the photon energy?
Can you then see that the energy of each photon is the same?
Can you then see that the energy of each photon is NOT time dependent?
If you don't see any of those facts, why not?
Y.Porat
2014-09-08 08:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, September 8, 2014 10:37:52 AM UTC+3, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Sunday, September 7, 2014 4:31:05 PM UTC+3, Why not wrote:
>
> > "Y.Porat" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> >
>
> > news:4d96246e-ba49-441d-8377-***@googlegroups.com:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > ==================
>
> >
>
> > > well said Benj !!!
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > MATHEMATICS CANNOT BE THE LEADER OF PHYSICS
>
> >
>
> > > INSTEAD OF PHYSICS THINKING !!!
>
> >
>
> > > iow
>
> >
>
> > > the leaders of physics
>
> >
>
> > > must have physics thinking !!
>
> >
>
> > > before mathematics thinking !!!
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > and it is not the same !
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > ATB
>
> >
>
> > > Y.Porat
>
> >
>
> > > ============================
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Act like a real, honest, decent human being and answer my questions
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >> Lets says you have a torch which, in one second, emits 1,000,000,000
>
> >
>
> > >> photons.
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> Can you then see that the torch emits 2,000,000,000 in two seconds?
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> Can you then see that the torch emits the same number of photons each
>
> >
>
> > >> second?
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> Can you then see that the torch emits twice as much total energy in
>
> >
>
> > >> two
>
> >
>
> > >> seconds than in one second?
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> Can you then see that the total energy is proportional to the number
>
> >
>
> > >> of
>
> >
>
> > >> photons.
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> Can you then see that each photon has the SAME energy, that is why
>
> >
>
> > >> when
>
> >
>
> > >> you double the number of photons, you double the photon energy?
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> Can you then see that the energy of each photon is the same?
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> Can you then see that the energy of each photon is NOT time
>
> >
>
> > >> dependent?
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> If you don't see any of those facts, why not?
>
>
>
> ========================
>
> most of the above of yours]
>
> is ''in general'' stolen from me !!
>
> yet not the main innovative point
>
>
>
> ie !!
>
> the main important question was
>
>
>
> WHAT IS THE ENERGY OF THE REAL SMALLEST ** SINGLE **PHOTON energy
>
>
>
> for me
>
> and as i showed it
>
> the smallest **single photon energy **is about :
>
>
>
> exp - 90 KILOGRAMS ( THE ONLY KILOGRAMS !
>
>
>
>
>
> a dreck mathematician like you
>
> will never get it
>
> even if someone will hammer it to your straw brain
>
> during 5 years
>
>
>
> because basically
>
> yo are more than just a stupid blockhead
>
> you are
>
> a dishonest man starting with being anonymous ...
>
>
>
> BYE
>
> Y.Porat
>
> ==================================

sorry typo:

the smallest photon energy is

exp-79 Joule !
(not Kilograms as wrote above )

the smallest photon ***mass** is
about exp -93 kilograms !!!!!!! the only mass

ATB
Y.Porat
=======================================
Why not
2014-09-08 11:47:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Y.Porat" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
news:cc4f7380-3a0d-48f7-9df0-***@googlegroups.com:


> sorry typo:

[snip coward]

You're still a coward who is afraid to discuss physics, I see, otherwise
you'd answer these questions ...

Lets says you have a torch which, in one second, emits 1,000,000,000
photons.
Can you then see that the torch emits 2,000,000,000 in two seconds?
Can you then see that the torch emits the same number of photons each
second?
Can you then see that the torch emits twice as much total energy in
two seconds than in one second?
Can you then see that the total energy is proportional to the number
of photons.
Can you then see that each photon has the SAME energy, that is why
when you double the number of photons, you double the photon energy?
Can you then see that the energy of each photon is the same?
Can you then see that the energy of each photon is NOT time dependent?
If you don't see any of those facts, why not?
S***@hotmail.com
2014-09-08 16:46:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
if that is so, what is its frequency

> the smallest photon ***mass** is
>
> about exp -93 kilograms !!!!!!! the only mass
>
>
>
> ATB
>
> Y.Porat
>
> =======================================
S***@hotmail.com
2014-09-09 03:37:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
in deed,
teh speed of light is the mean proportional
(secondroot of the product of mass & totally-converted-to-energy
[scottY ,beam me a broad ... say, a nice Redhead

> if that is so, what is its frequency
>
>
>
> > the smallest photon ***mass** is
Y.Porat
2014-09-09 04:52:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, September 8, 2014 7:46:03 PM UTC+3, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> if that is so, what is its frequency
>
>===========================
a very good question!!
frequency
is the number of wave lengths per SECOND
but what is behind that ??
---a lot !!
a lot that too many people still dont know or understand
--
it is the mass smallest units of mass and energy !!!

please note
each wave length has the same mass
no matter if a big wave length
or a small one !!
and now you can start to understand my historic forlulation
of the smallest photon energy unit

ie
E photon minimum - hf times n
while
n is the scalar part of Planck time !!
and if you divide it by c%2
you get the smallest photon mass unit
to be
about exp-90 kilograms
if you like a visual metaphor
to help you remember it
think about
a machine gun
shooting bullets that all of them are of the same mass
yet
there is such machine gun that shoots quick
and another one --that shoots slower etc etc
(yet all the bullets '' are the same mass and energy )

BTW
that is an old copyright metaphor of mine
from a few years ago !!!

yet it is a bit more than just a metaphor !
it is a metaphor close to reality
and explains a lot about that 100yeas long 'enigmas !

TIA
Y.Porat
=======================================
Why not
2014-09-09 06:28:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Y.Porat" <***@gmail.com> wrote in news:bfef3996-5f91-48a2-bf68-
***@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, September 8, 2014 7:46:03 PM UTC+3, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
>> if that is so, what is its frequency
>>
>>===========================
> a very good question!!

I have better questions .. but you refuse to answer because you're afraid
of the answers.

>> Lets says you have a torch which, in one second, emits 1,000,000,000
>> photons.
>>
>> Can you then see that the torch emits 2,000,000,000 in two seconds?
>> Can you then see that the torch emits the same number of photons each
>> second?
>> Can you then see that the torch emits twice as much total energy in
>> two seconds than in one second?
>> Can you then see that the total energy is proportional to the number
>> of photons.
>> Can you then see that each photon has the SAME energy, that is why
>> when you
>> double the number of photons, you double the photon energy?
>> Can you then see that the energy of each photon is the same?
>> Can you then see that the energy of each photon is NOT time
>> dependent?
>> If you don't see any of those facts, why not?

Go on .. be a man and not a coward.
Y.Porat
2014-09-09 06:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 9:28:21 AM UTC+3, Why not wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <***@gmail.com> wrote in news:bfef3996-5f91-48a2-bf68-
>
> ***@googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Monday, September 8, 2014 7:46:03 PM UTC+3, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> if that is so, what is its frequency
>
> >>
>
> >>===========================
>
> > a very good question!!
>
>
>
> I have better questions .. but you refuse to answer because you're afraid
>
> of the answers.
>
>
>
> >> Lets says you have a torch which, in one second, emits 1,000,000,000
>
> >> photons.
>
> >>
>
> >> Can you then see that the torch emits 2,000,000,000 in two seconds?
>
> >> Can you then see that the torch emits the same number of photons each
>
> >> second?
>
> >> Can you then see that the torch emits twice as much total energy in
>
> >> two seconds than in one second?
>
> >> Can you then see that the total energy is proportional to the number
>
> >> of photons.
>
> >> Can you then see that each photon has the SAME energy, that is why
>
> >> when you
>
> >> double the number of photons, you double the photon energy?
>
> >> Can you then see that the energy of each photon is the same?
>
> >> Can you then see that the energy of each photon is NOT time
>
> >> dependent?
>
> >> If you don't see any of those facts, why not?
>
>
>
> Go on .. be a man and not a coward.

======================
imbecile pig crock fuckhead! psychopath !

CAN YOU PROVE IT IS **NOT LIKE THAT??!! ***
---------------------------------------------------
you are not a seitist
you are a dreak sub human being

HOW OLD ARE YOU ??
YOU SEEM DEFINITELY AS THEN AGER !!

Y.Porat
=============================
Why not
2014-09-09 07:42:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Y.Porat" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
news:f60321e9-f210-4031-b63e-***@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 9:28:21 AM UTC+3, Why not wrote:
>> "Y.Porat" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:bfef3996-5f91-48a2-bf68-
>>
>> ***@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Monday, September 8, 2014 7:46:03 PM UTC+3, ***@hotmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> if that is so, what is its frequency
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>===========================
>>
>> > a very good question!!
>>
>>
>>
>> I have better questions .. but you refuse to answer because you're
>> afraid
>>
>> of the answers.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Lets says you have a torch which, in one second, emits
>> >> 1,000,000,000
>>
>> >> photons.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Can you then see that the torch emits 2,000,000,000 in two
>> >> seconds?
>>
>> >> Can you then see that the torch emits the same number of photons
>> >> each
>>
>> >> second?
>>
>> >> Can you then see that the torch emits twice as much total energy
>> >> in
>>
>> >> two seconds than in one second?
>>
>> >> Can you then see that the total energy is proportional to the
>> >> number
>>
>> >> of photons.
>>
>> >> Can you then see that each photon has the SAME energy, that is why
>>
>> >> when you
>>
>> >> double the number of photons, you double the photon energy?
>>
>> >> Can you then see that the energy of each photon is the same?
>>
>> >> Can you then see that the energy of each photon is NOT time
>>
>> >> dependent?
>>
>> >> If you don't see any of those facts, why not?
>>
>>
>>
>> Go on .. be a man and not a coward.
>
> ======================
> imbecile pig crock fuckhead! psychopath !

Porat's respons to relevant physics questions is insults

> CAN YOU PROVE IT IS **NOT LIKE THAT??!! ***

What .. that you're a man and not a coward .. it appears you are
definitely a coward. You've been asked at least a dozen times now and
still won't answer. You just pile insults on me for asking relevant
physics questions.

> ---------------------------------------------------
> you are not a seitist
> you are a dreak sub human being
>
> HOW OLD ARE YOU ??
> YOU SEEM DEFINITELY AS THEN AGER !!

Porat drifts into incomprehensibility

Now .. when you come back to your sense, how about actually ANSWERING the
questions. Be honest for a change and not just respond with mindless
insults. Here they are .. still waiting for you to answer.

Lets says you have a torch which, in one second, emits 1,000,000,000
photons.

Can you then see that the torch emits 2,000,000,000 in two seconds?

Can you then see that the torch emits the same number of photons each
second?

Can you then see that the torch emits twice as much total energy in two
seconds than in one second?

Can you then see that the total energy is proportional to the number of
photons.

Can you then see that each photon has the SAME energy, that is why when
you double the number of photons, you double the photon energy?

Can you then see that the energy of each photon is the same?

Can you then see that the energy of each photon is NOT time dependent?

If you don't see any of those facts, why not?
Why not
2014-09-09 06:34:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Y.Porat" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
news:bfef3996-5f91-48a2-bf68-***@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, September 8, 2014 7:46:03 PM UTC+3, ***@hotmail.com
> wrote:
>> if that is so, what is its frequency
>>
>>===========================
> a very good question!!
> frequency
> is the number of wave lengths per SECOND
> but what is behind that ??
> ---a lot !!
> a lot that too many people still dont know or understand
> --
> it is the mass smallest units of mass and energy !!!

NO .. frequency is just a rate. It is NOT a unit of mass. IT is NOT a
unit of energy

> please note
> each wave length has the same mass

Wavelengths are just lengths. That don't have mass. Just like a meter
doesn't have mass

> no matter if a big wave length
> or a small one !!

Its just a length

> and now you can start to understand my historic forlulation
> of the smallest photon energy unit

I understand what you're saying .. its just ignorance.

> ie
> E photon minimum - hf times n

Wrong .. experimentally proven wrong.

> while
> n is the scalar part of Planck time !!

In which system of units? Seconds? That is just an arbitrary human
define value. It can't have any significance in nature as you claim.

> and if you divide it by c%2
> you get the smallest photon mass unit
> to be
> about exp-90 kilograms

More nonsense

> if you like a visual metaphor
> to help you remember it
> think about
> a machine gun
> shooting bullets that all of them are of the same mass
> yet
> there is such machine gun that shoots quick
> and another one --that shoots slower etc etc
> (yet all the bullets '' are the same mass and energy )

That machine gun is like a torch .. the bullets are the photons. There
is nothing smaller

> BTW
> that is an old copyright metaphor of mine
> from a few years ago !!!
> yet it is a bit more than just a metaphor !
> it is a metaphor close to reality
> and explains a lot about that 100yeas long 'enigmas !

It explains that you are wrong. Let me show you .. if you're not a
coward you will answer

Lets says you have a torch which, in one second, emits 1,000,000,000
photons.

Can you then see that the torch emits 2,000,000,000 in two seconds?

Can you then see that the torch emits the same number of photons each
second?

Can you then see that the torch emits twice as much total energy
in two seconds than in one second?

Can you then see that the total
energy is proportional to the number of photons?

Can you then see that
each photon has the SAME energy, that is why when you double the number
of photons, you double the photon energy?

Can you then see that the
energy of each photon is the same?

Can you then see that the energy of
each photon is NOT time dependent?

If you don't see any of those facts,
why not?

Go on .. be a man and not a coward.
Y.Porat
2014-09-09 07:06:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 > coward you will answer
>
>
>
> Lets says you have a torch which, in one second, emits 1,000,000,000
>
> photons.
>
>
>
> Can you then see that the torch emits 2,000,000,000 in two seconds?
>
>
>
> Can you then see that the torch emits the same number of photons each
>
> second?
>
>
>
> Can you then see that the torch emits twice as much total energy
>
> in two seconds than in one second?
> --------------------------
little psychopath
in the above insane example question of yours
not me not you psychopath
--not anyone can count any number of photons
as in your mad example
there are other sane experiments as i presented
that it can be done
at least qualitatively !!
got it deack ??
got it ka ka
a real scientist bring **feasible experiments**
not ones that are created in the retarded
distorted head of a 3 yours old child !!!
and now piss off to you sanatorium
Y.P
=====================================


>
Why not
2014-09-09 07:39:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Y.Porat" <***@gmail.com> wrote in news:fbd3f77d-c8d0-4025-ae6c-
***@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 > coward you will answer
>>
>>
>>
>> Lets says you have a torch which, in one second, emits 1,000,000,000
>>
>> photons.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you then see that the torch emits 2,000,000,000 in two seconds?

Porat can't see that

>> Can you then see that the torch emits the same number of photons each
>> second?

Porat can't see that

>> Can you then see that the torch emits twice as much total energy
>> in two seconds than in one second?

Porat can't see that

>> --------------------------
> little psychopath
> in the above insane example question of yours
> not me not you psychopath
> --not anyone can count any number of photons

I didn't ask you to count them .. I said "lets say" that's how many there
are

[snip more excuses and insults]

Porat still refuses to answer.

Here are the questions again .. come on Porat, stop with the pathetic
excuses and weaseling .. be honest for a change

Lets says you have a torch which, in one second, emits 1,000,000,000
photons.

Can you then see that the torch emits 2,000,000,000 in two seconds?

Can you then see that the torch emits the same number of photons each
second?

Can you then see that the torch emits twice as much total energy in two
seconds than in one second?

Can you then see that the total energy is proportional to the number of
photons.

Can you then see that each photon has the SAME energy, that is why when
you double the number of photons, you double the photon energy?

Can you then see that the energy of each photon is the same?

Can you then see that the energy of each photon is NOT time dependent?

If you don't see any of those facts, why not?
Y.Porat
2014-09-09 08:37:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 9
>
> Can you then see that the torch emits the same number of photons each
>
> second?
>
>
>
> Can you then see that the torch emits twice as much total energy
>
> in two seconds than in one second?
>
>
>
> Can you then see that the total
>
> energy is proportional to the number of photons?
>
>
>
> Can you then see that
>
> each photon has the SAME energy, that is why when you double the number
>
> of photons, you double the photon energy?
>
>
>
> Can you then see that the
>
> energy of each photon is the same?
>
>
>
> Can you then see that the energy of
>
> each photon is NOT time dependent?
>
>
>
> If you don't see any of those facts,
>
> why not?
>
>
>
> Go on .. be a man and not a coward.

=======================
little psychopath
i was discussing with a human being called
Spac
not with you psychopath

an forget about me discussing with an **anonymous** Dreck subhuman

Y.P
=================================
Why not
2014-09-09 09:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Y.Porat" <***@gmail.com> wrote in news:fe133666-1417-4441-8d60-
***@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 9
>>
>> Can you then see that the torch emits the same number of photons each
>>
>> second?
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you then see that the torch emits twice as much total energy
>>
>> in two seconds than in one second?
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you then see that the total
>>
>> energy is proportional to the number of photons?
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you then see that
>>
>> each photon has the SAME energy, that is why when you double the
number
>>
>> of photons, you double the photon energy?
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you then see that the
>>
>> energy of each photon is the same?
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you then see that the energy of
>>
>> each photon is NOT time dependent?
>>
>>
>>
>> If you don't see any of those facts,
>>
>> why not?
>>
>>
>>
>> Go on .. be a man and not a coward.
>
> =======================
> little psychopath
> i was discussing with a human being called
> Spac
> not with you psychopath
> an forget about me discussing with an **anonymous** Dreck subhuman

Again, all Porat can do is insults. He just can't talk physics if his
life depended on it. Show how honest and clever you are .. answer my
questions.

IF YOU DO NOT ANSWER ALL THESE QUESTIONS THEN YOU ARE ADMITING YOU ARE
WRONG AN A LIAR

Lets says you have a torch which, in one second, emits 1,000,000,000
photons (a lot less than for the laser pointer, so not very bright)

Can you then see that the torch emits 2,000,000,000 in two seconds?

Can you then see that the torch emits the same number of photons each
second?

Can you then see that the torch emits twice as much total energy in two
seconds than in one second?

Can you then see that the total energy is proportional to the number of
photons.

Can you then see that each photon has the SAME energy, that is why when
you double the number of photons, you double the photon energy?

Can you then see that the energy of each photon is the same?

Can you then see that the energy of each photon is NOT time dependent?

If you don't see any of those facts, why not?

IF YOU DO NOT ANSWER ALL THESE QUESTIONS THEN YOU ARE ADMITING YOU ARE
WRONG AN A LIAR
S***@hotmail.com
2014-09-09 17:27:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
wves of light have no mass per se (at all; however,
the common parlance is that higher frequency is higher energy,
which is than calibrated in "mass of elctron-volts, meaning that
it isn't actually massive, but the Higgs bosoN is "superdupermassive

> Wavelengths are just lengths. That don't have mass. Just like a meter
>
> doesn't have mass
>
>
>
> > no matter if a big wave length
>
> > or a small one !!
>
>
>
> Its just a length
>
>
>
> > and now you can start to understand my historic forlulation
>
> > of the smallest photon energy unit
>
>
>
> I understand what you're saying .. its just ignorance.
>
>
>
> > ie
>
> > E photon minimum - hf times n
>
>
>
> Wrong .. experimentally proven wrong.
>
>
>
> > while
>
> > n is the scalar part of Planck time !!
>
>
>
> In which system of units? Seconds? That is just an arbitrary human
>
> define value. It can't have any significance in nature as you claim.
>
>
>
> > and if you divide it by c%2
>
> > you get the smallest photon mass unit
>
> > to be
>
> > about exp-90 kilograms
>
>
>
> More nonsense
>
>
>
> > if you like a visual metaphor
>
> > to help you remember it
>
> > think about
>
> > a machine gun
>
> > shooting bullets that all of them are of the same mass
>
> > yet
>
> > there is such machine gun that shoots quick
>
> > and another one --that shoots slower etc etc
>
> > (yet all the bullets '' are the same mass and energy )
>
>
>
> That machine gun is like a torch .. the bullets are the photons. There
>
> is nothing smaller
>
>
>
> > BTW
>
> > that is an old copyright metaphor of mine
>
> > from a few years ago !!!
>
> > yet it is a bit more than just a metaphor !
>
> > it is a metaphor close to reality
>
> > and explains a lot about that 100yeas long 'enigmas !
>
>
>
> It explains that you are wrong. Let me show you .. if you're not a
>
> coward you will answer
>
>
>
> Lets says you have a torch which, in one second, emits 1,000,000,000
>
> photons.
>
>
>
> Can you then see that the torch emits 2,000,000,000 in two seconds?
>
>
>
> Can you then see that the torch emits the same number of photons each
>
> second?
>
>
>
> Can you then see that the torch emits twice as much total energy
>
> in two seconds than in one second?
>
>
>
> Can you then see that the total
>
> energy is proportional to the number of photons?
>
>
>
> Can you then see that
>
> each photon has the SAME energy, that is why when you double the number
>
> of photons, you double the photon energy?
>
>
>
> Can you then see that the
>
> energy of each photon is the same?
>
>
>
> Can you then see that the energy of
>
> each photon is NOT time dependent?
>
>
>
> If you don't see any of those facts,
>
> why not?
>
>
>
> Go on .. be a man and not a coward.
Lord Androcles
2014-08-28 07:41:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Timo" wrote in message
news:ad8dcb59-b5df-4360-a2b2-***@googlegroups.com...

On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 6:44:54 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> On 08/27/2014 02:23 AM, Timo wrote:
>
> > What does Einstein have to do with the mathematisation of classical
> > mechanics? Blame Galileo and Newton for that.
>
> I don't know what the quote has to do with classical mechanics. Unless
> you are saying that Galileo and Newton started the worship of
> mathematics as reality that was finished by the worshipers of Einstein.

They (and many of their predecessors and contemporaries) started the primacy
of mathematical models in physics. Galileo also pushed the idealised thought
experiment quite strongly.

I haven't read the original source of the quote (the 1944 article), so I
don't know what students Armstrong refers to. If he's writing about
beginning students, he's talking mechanics, not EM theory. He is just
talking about classical theory.

> Note that I'm not saying that mathematics is useless or not an
> interesting and important endeavor, only that it is fantasy and not
> reality so far as we know. Though many here have asserted that
> mathematics is the ONLY reality!

The relevance of your quote to that? Armstrong is complaining about
over-dependence on "thinking in mathematics". That is, using mathematics as
the tool to get results rather than physical reasoning.
================================================================

-- Watch out for Nieminen.
Quote/
Muon frame:
xi0=0
tau0=0
And since xi0 is the location of the Earth at tau=tau0
(in the muon frame) and t=t0=0 (in the Earth frame), xi0=0.

tau = beta*(t-vx/c^2)
tau0 = beta*(t0 - v*x0/c^2)
= beta*(0 - v*0/c^2)
= beta * 0
= 0

As expected, since the origins coincide (as they must,
since we are using the homogeneous Lorentz transformation,
which assumes that the origins coincide).
\unquote -- Moron Nieminen
=================================

Idiot Nieminen knows xi = (x-vt) * beta and ASSUMES the
origins coincide, so we can't start the clock when the
muon is at the top of the atmosphere to measure its speed.
He's one of those morons that get the result they want
by assuming it.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR4kids/x'=x-vt.JPG
Timo
2014-08-28 23:43:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, August 28, 2014 5:41:00 PM UTC+10, Lord Androcles wrote:
> "Timo" wrote:
>
> The relevance of your quote to that? Armstrong is complaining about
> over-dependence on "thinking in mathematics". That is, using mathematics as
> the tool to get results rather than physical reasoning.
> ================================================================
> -- Watch out for Nieminen.

Did it hurt so much to be proved wrong?
Lord Androcles
2014-08-29 02:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Timo" wrote in message
news:35cc578e-9caa-4588-be1e-***@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, August 28, 2014 5:41:00 PM UTC+10, Lord Androcles wrote:
> "Timo" wrote:
>
> The relevance of your quote to that? Armstrong is complaining about
> over-dependence on "thinking in mathematics". That is, using mathematics
> as
> the tool to get results rather than physical reasoning.
> ================================================================
> -- Watch out for Nieminen.

Did it hurt so much to be proved wrong?
=====================================
Assertion carries no weight.


-- Watch out for Nieminen.
Quote/
Muon frame:
xi0=0
tau0=0
And since xi0 is the location of the Earth at tau=tau0
(in the muon frame) and t=t0=0 (in the Earth frame), xi0=0.

tau = beta*(t-vx/c^2)
tau0 = beta*(t0 - v*x0/c^2)
= beta*(0 - v*0/c^2)
= beta * 0
= 0

As expected, since the origins coincide (as they must,
since we are using the homogeneous Lorentz transformation,
which assumes that the origins coincide).
\unquote -- Moron Nieminen
=================================

Idiot Nieminen knows xi = (x-vt) * beta and ASSUMES the
origins coincide, so we can't start the clock when the
muon is at the top of the atmosphere to measure its speed.
He's one of those morons that get the result they want
by assuming it.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR4kids/x'=x-vt.JPG
Odd Bodkin
2014-08-28 13:35:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/28/2014 1:00 AM, Timo wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 6:44:54 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>> On 08/27/2014 02:23 AM, Timo wrote:
>>
>>> What does Einstein have to do with the mathematisation of classical mechanics? Blame Galileo and Newton for that.
>>
>> I don't know what the quote has to do with classical mechanics. Unless
>> you are saying that Galileo and Newton started the worship of
>> mathematics as reality that was finished by the worshipers of Einstein.
>
> They (and many of their predecessors and contemporaries) started the primacy of mathematical models in physics. Galileo
> also pushed the idealised thought experiment quite strongly.
>
> I haven't read the original source of the quote (the 1944 article), so I don't know what students Armstrong refers to. If
> he's writing about beginning students, he's talking mechanics, not EM theory. He is just talking about classical theory.

He was writing about electrical engineering students, and he was
critiquing mathematicians.

>
>> Note that I'm not saying that mathematics is useless or not an
>> interesting and important endeavor, only that it is fantasy and not
>> reality so far as we know. Though many here have asserted that
>> mathematics is the ONLY reality!
>
> The relevance of your quote to that? Armstrong is complaining about over-dependence on "thinking in mathematics". That is,
> using mathematics as the tool to get results rather than physical reasoning.
>
Lord Androcles
2014-08-27 09:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Timo" wrote in message
news:bbda7c45-008f-4193-b773-***@googlegroups.com...

On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:13:44 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>
> Professor Armstrong of Columbia University wrote about this in an article:
>
> "The student picking up a textbook... does not get this picture. He
> finds, instead a series of mathematical expressions almost totally
> divorced from any basis of physical reasoning. He gets the impression
> that he must learn to think in terms of trigonometrical functions, reams
> of calculations and tables of all sorts. Nothing could be more
> fantastic... the impression has been created that in some magical way
> invention is connected a bewildering maze of symbols and curves."
>
> Thank you Einstein!

What does Einstein have to do with the mathematisation of classical
mechanics? Blame Galileo and Newton for that.
================================================
x0 = 0, x1 = 0 because Nieminen's brain is at rest in Nieminen' rest frame
and measures x1-x0 in diameter. Blame Nieminen for that.

-- The Reverend Lord Androcles.
REWARD £500
I'm not the government,
if I were it would £20,000,000,
but I am offering £500 for the
head of the murderer of James
Foley, on a spike, mounted on
London Bridge as we would have
done in medieval times. Add your
own contribution and spread the
word. It's eye for an eye, tooth
for a tooth, head for a head,
barbarism for barbarism.
Odd Bodkin
2014-08-27 13:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/26/2014 6:13 PM, benj wrote:
> Back before everyone began to worship Einstein's sphincter science and
> invention, especially IMPORTANT inventions and science that greatly
> changed the way every one lives and looks at the world, used to hold up
> the practical persistence of Edison and the brilliant inspiration of
> Tesla as examples.

From what I've read, pre-Einstein science did not have to do as much
with practical invention as you think. Classical mechanics was advanced
by the works of Lagrange and Hamilton. Electric and magnetic fields were
studied extensively by Heaviside, Faraday, and Maxwell, without much
thought for invention. And the big lion in the room was thermodynamics,
with blazing contributions by Boltzmann, Gibbs, Carnot, Lord Kelvin, and
a host of others.

Now you say below that the work of Tesla and Edison were understandable,
which may be, because that's technology, not science. But I'd be
interested to see whether the work of the above physicists (all
pre-Einstein) were of the same "comprehensible" sort that you think
Einstein and others trashed. So perhaps you can tell me something about
the significance of the Hamiltonian and perhaps solve a simple problem
with it. You can also talk to me about the definition of Gibbs free
energy and how exact differentials in thermodynamics are important for
it. I think you'll find that this complaint that you have about
post-Einsteinian physics in fact applies to pre-Einsteinian physics too:
You don't really understand ANY of it. So in that case, you're misfiring
at Einstein.

We've already established that you have trouble with the first four
chapters of an introductory physics text, which is all BASIC physics
from the pre-Einstein era. And so you call introductory physics material
"more advanced" because it is beyond you, and therefore it must be a
snow job.

Has it not occurred to you, Ben, that the problem is that you just don't
have a good understanding of any of it?

>
> But then came Einstein and everything changed. Suddenly the measure of
> science was not how practical you could make it in everyone's life but
> rather how incomprehensible you could make it. The bigger the snow job,
> the "higher" and "more advanced" the science was thought to be. The
> measure of a scientist was no longer their discoveries of how Nature
> worked as in the 19th century days of "Natural Philosophers" but rather
> how obscure your mathematical derivations were. Science turned on it's
> head.
>
> And oddly Einstein himself took the opposite viewpoint asserting that
> advanced physics could be explained to a barmaid if you understood it.

Well, that was a pithy comment by Einstein, yes. He was known for his
pithy comments. But as you see, we got bogged down on chapter 1 of his
book written for barmaids. So what does that tell you about pithy
comments, or about the comprehension level of you and barmaids?

>
> Professor Armstrong of Columbia University wrote about this in an article:
>
> "The student picking up a textbook... does not get this picture. He
> finds, instead a series of mathematical expressions almost totally
> divorced from any basis of physical reasoning. He gets the impression
> that he must learn to think in terms of trigonometrical functions, reams
> of calculations and tables of all sorts. Nothing could be more
> fantastic... the impression has been created that in some magical way
> invention is connected a bewildering maze of symbols and curves."
>
>
> Thank you Einstein! And you see it here in a host of paul drapers and
> others worshiping Albert's sphincter and assuring everyone that science
> is really all about a semantic debate over words and that mathematics is
> more real than reality.
>
Odd Bodkin
2014-08-27 18:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/26/2014 6:13 PM, benj wrote:
> Professor Armstrong of Columbia University wrote about this in an article:
>
> "The student picking up a textbook... does not get this picture. He
> finds, instead a series of mathematical expressions almost totally
> divorced from any basis of physical reasoning. He gets the impression
> that he must learn to think in terms of trigonometrical functions, reams
> of calculations and tables of all sorts. Nothing could be more
> fantastic... the impression has been created that in some magical way
> invention is connected a bewildering maze of symbols and curves."

It's worth mentioning that the Professor Armstrong cited here is Edwin
Howard Armstrong, who was written about in a book called "Man of High
Fidelity" by Lawrence Lessing, and in which the above quote is
mentioned. E.H. Armstrong was an electrical engineer and inventor,
principally in the area of radio. He was also (and again this fits in
with Ben's adoration of contentious geniuses like Tesla) heavily engaged
in frequent and prolonged legal battles, and this eventually took a toll
on his mental health. He battered his wife with a fireplace poker, and
when she left him, he threw himself out of a window to his death.

The quote above was actually not so much about physics and CERTAINLY not
about relativity, as it was about the engineering technology behind FM
transmission, principally the battle between narrow-band and wide-band
FM. His target in the article was in fact applied mathematicians, as
Lessing's book makes abundantly clear.
Osher
2014-08-28 16:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:13:44 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> Back before everyone began to worship Einstein's sphincter science and
>

I used to worship mathematics, and then I worshiped physics and engineering, and now I don't worship any of them. As I see it, there are:

1. Physics intuition (very good!).
2. Mathematics intuition (very good!).
3. Reality-orientation (very good!).
4. Abstract-orientation (very good!).
5. Experimental-orientation (very good!).
6. Proof (logical-mathematical)-orientation (very good!).
7. Invention-Discovery-orientation (very very very good!).
8. Ethics, Honesty, Consistency (very very very good!).
9. Orientation toward the Scientific Method (very very very good!).

I don't think that one can get very far without ALL of the above, at least not in the long run or beyond one or two discoveries. I should also add, including regarding my comment on not getting very far:

10. STOP ATTACKING OTHER WRITERS ON SCI.PHYSICS (this is directed not to Benj but to all TROLLS, even those who abandon Trollness in some threads) without have balanced critiques (mention some good things and don't leave out any of the above in your critique - more or less). Even totally mixed-up writers deserve better than to be attacked endlessly by negativistic trolls (usually with short one-line or two-line criticisms).

Osher Doctorow
Osher
2014-08-28 16:43:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, August 28, 2014 12:23:57 PM UTC-4, Osher wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:13:44 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
>

I'd also recommend that all readers/writers on sci.physics learn PSYCHOLOGY and POLITICS. Admittedly, much if not 99%+ of politics is for the birds so to speak, but there's a tiny bit that is very relevant to the real world including JOBS for scientists and ETHICS for scientists.

As for psychology, some of it is for the birds (especially exclusive focus on the "Oedipus complex" and one's mother), but it's really need for TROLLS, for people who want to counter TROLLS, for people with gripes about over-emphases in physics or by physicists, etc. It also would greatly help COURTESY on sci.physics. The super-discourteous TROLLS on sci.physics (and now we allegedly have part-time TROLLS who seem to recover their brains in some threads) are tending to worship EMOTIONALITY instead of focusing on science, regardless of what they claim to say. Some of them may also be politically motivated - the psychology of politics is quite interesting and relates to DOGMATISM, Achievement Motivation, Self-Regulation, etc.

Osher Doctorow
Osher
2014-08-28 16:44:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, August 28, 2014 12:43:25 PM UTC-4, Osher wrote:
> On Thursday, August 28, 2014 12:23:57 PM UTC-4, Osher wrote:
>

It also relates to money - "Follow the Money" often tends to work.

Osher Doctorow
benj
2014-08-28 19:21:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/28/2014 12:43 PM, Osher wrote:
> On Thursday, August 28, 2014 12:23:57 PM UTC-4, Osher wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:13:44 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
>>
>
> I'd also recommend that all readers/writers on sci.physics learn
> PSYCHOLOGY and POLITICS. Admittedly, much if not 99%+ of politics is
> for the birds so to speak, but there's a tiny bit that is very
> relevant to the real world including JOBS for scientists and ETHICS
> for scientists.
>
> As for psychology, some of it is for the birds (especially exclusive
> focus on the "Oedipus complex" and one's mother), but it's really
> need for TROLLS, for people who want to counter TROLLS, for people
> with gripes about over-emphases in physics or by physicists, etc.
> It also would greatly help COURTESY on sci.physics. The
> super-discourteous TROLLS on sci.physics (and now we allegedly have
> part-time TROLLS who seem to recover their brains in some threads)
> are tending to worship EMOTIONALITY instead of focusing on science,
> regardless of what they claim to say. Some of them may also be
> politically motivated - the psychology of politics is quite
> interesting and relates to DOGMATISM, Achievement Motivation,
> Self-Regulation, etc.
>
> Osher Doctorow

Actually the trolls here to disrupt Sci.physics know EXACTLY what they
are doing. They are extreme and discourteous for a reason. They
understand the psychology of what they are trying to do (and so do I)
and play it to the max.

Politics is about power and fooling the gullible for your own gain.
Psychology is what you use to fool the gullible. And that means fantasy
and lies. You make up plausible lies. You create an emotional
atmosphere. You attempt to trigger all those childhood behaviors that
have reflexive responses (name-calling, and all other recess behaviors)
and you do it to create your purpose. Typically the purpose is either to
promote some falsehoods in the name of science (which the public
generally still respects) like say "global warming" or the purpose is to
discourage a discussion from drifting into topics where information may
come to light that should remain hidden for political reasons (most of
the "forbidden" topics in science).

This is what "strategic writers" are for. They run terminals with as
many 20 or so "personalities", all fake and all designed to troll the
relevant internet groups for disruption and manipulation. They use their
emotional tricks to make sure that reasonable, polite, intelligent
discussions of important topics NEVER can take place.

Of course it would be best if such discussions never had a place to
occur in the first place, so disruption would not be necessary, thus,
the effort to eliminate USENET from the INTERNET. Google was by far the
simplest and easiest to use for most people, so trashed their system
making it useless. ISPs pulled USENET servers off their service.
Internet Backbone service was changed to make USENET servers pay large
fees to continue to operate. In short, those in power DO NOT want you
discussing what they are up to or figuring out what part of the
"official" news is lies.

So when Obama says "global warming is real and careening out of control"
there will be nobody allowed to say he's lying.

And that's how it is.
S***@hotmail.com
2014-08-29 01:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
there is no global warming per se, unless you say,
Ahrrenius really meant a huge, glass sphhere around rrth,
by "glassal housing

> So when Obama says "global warming is real and careening out of control"
>
> there will be nobody allowed to say he's lying.
>
>
>
> And that's how it is.
benj
2014-08-28 19:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/28/2014 12:23 PM, Osher wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:13:44 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
>> Back before everyone began to worship Einstein's sphincter science and
>>
>
> I used to worship mathematics, and then I worshiped physics and engineering, and now I don't worship any of them. As I see it, there are:
>
> 1. Physics intuition (very good!).
> 2. Mathematics intuition (very good!).
> 3. Reality-orientation (very good!).
> 4. Abstract-orientation (very good!).
> 5. Experimental-orientation (very good!).
> 6. Proof (logical-mathematical)-orientation (very good!).
> 7. Invention-Discovery-orientation (very very very good!).
> 8. Ethics, Honesty, Consistency (very very very good!).
> 9. Orientation toward the Scientific Method (very very very good!).
>
> I don't think that one can get very far without ALL of the above, at least not in the long run or beyond one or two discoveries. I should also add, including regarding my comment on not getting very far:
>
> 10. STOP ATTACKING OTHER WRITERS ON SCI.PHYSICS (this is directed not to Benj but to all TROLLS, even those who abandon Trollness in some threads) without have balanced critiques (mention some good things and don't leave out any of the above in your critique - more or less). Even totally mixed-up writers deserve better than to be attacked endlessly by negativistic trolls (usually with short one-line or two-line criticisms).
>
> Osher Doctorow

HEY! Home come you left me out! Who here believes in #8? Nobody!

Ethics, Honesty, consistency, morality are all for the atheist scientist
nothing but religious fairy tales!

Everyone knows that humanity developed from animals through evolootion.

Animals have no ethics or morality. They only have survival instinct. So
it is with man. Might makes right! If animals want something they take
it. IF someone gets in their way they kill them. There is no hand (paw)
wringing over "sin"! Animals survive by "spoofing" each other. They
survive by evolving the coloration of other predators or they survive by
coloration or behavior that imitates other animals or objects of no
interest to potential predators. Lies and disinformation assure survival
of the species. Can man do any better?

Most scientist have atheism as their religion and know evolootion to be
the true nature of man. And that more than enough justifies all the
political lies, the back-stabbing, the use of power to further your own
reputation over that of others no matter how smart they are or what
they've achieved. It's all about who "wins"!

Climate science, Secret weapons, political science lies, stalling of the
advancement of civilization to further your own ends are ALL justified
beyond any question by science and evolootion. It's just how life on
Earth is. Science says so.
Jamshīb al-Kāshī
2014-09-01 15:21:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/26/2014 6:13 PM, benj wrote:
> Back before ... science and
> invention, especially IMPORTANT inventions and science that greatly
> changed the way every one lives and looks at the world, used to hold up
> the practical persistence of Edison and the brilliant inspiration of
> Tesla as examples.


> But then came Einstein and everything changed. Suddenly the measure of
> science was not how practical you could make it in everyone's life but
> rather how incomprehensible you could make it.

not "science", "theoretical physics" yes

and not "everyone's life"


> The bigger the snow job,
> the "higher" and "more advanced" the science was thought to be. The
> measure of a scientist was no longer their discoveries of how Nature
> worked as in the 19th century days of "Natural Philosophers" but rather
> how obscure your mathematical derivations were. Science turned on it's
> head.

not so, funding follows the ideas that make it into production, the
others are strangulated


>
> Professor Armstrong of Columbia University wrote about this in an article:
>
> "The student picking up a textbook... does not get this picture. He
> finds, instead a series of mathematical expressions almost totally
> divorced from any basis of physical reasoning. He gets the impression
> that he must learn to think in terms of trigonometrical functions, reams
> of calculations and tables of all sorts. Nothing could be more
> fantastic... the impression has been created that in some magical way
> invention is connected a bewildering maze of symbols and curves."

well, the student needs to take more classes.


>
>
> Thank you Einstein! And you see it here in a host of paul drapers and
> others worshiping Albert's sphincter and assuring everyone that science
> is really all about a semantic debate over words and that mathematics is
> more real than reality.
>

you overstate stuff. math is a language, a tool, a modeling. thats it.
benj
2014-09-01 19:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/01/2014 11:21 AM, Jamshīb al-Kāshī wrote:
> On 8/26/2014 6:13 PM, benj wrote:
>> Back before ... science and
>> invention, especially IMPORTANT inventions and science that greatly
>> changed the way every one lives and looks at the world, used to hold up
>> the practical persistence of Edison and the brilliant inspiration of
>> Tesla as examples.
>
>
>> But then came Einstein and everything changed. Suddenly the measure of
>> science was not how practical you could make it in everyone's life but
>> rather how incomprehensible you could make it.
>
> not "science", "theoretical physics" yes
>
> and not "everyone's life"
>
>
>> The bigger the snow job,
>> the "higher" and "more advanced" the science was thought to be. The
>> measure of a scientist was no longer their discoveries of how Nature
>> worked as in the 19th century days of "Natural Philosophers" but rather
>> how obscure your mathematical derivations were. Science turned on it's
>> head.
>
> not so, funding follows the ideas that make it into production, the
> others are strangulated
>
>
>>
>> Professor Armstrong of Columbia University wrote about this in an
>> article:
>>
>> "The student picking up a textbook... does not get this picture. He
>> finds, instead a series of mathematical expressions almost totally
>> divorced from any basis of physical reasoning. He gets the impression
>> that he must learn to think in terms of trigonometrical functions, reams
>> of calculations and tables of all sorts. Nothing could be more
>> fantastic... the impression has been created that in some magical way
>> invention is connected a bewildering maze of symbols and curves."
>
> well, the student needs to take more classes.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Thank you Einstein! And you see it here in a host of paul drapers and
>> others worshiping Albert's sphincter and assuring everyone that science
>> is really all about a semantic debate over words and that mathematics is
>> more real than reality.
>>
>
> you overstate stuff. math is a language, a tool, a modeling. thats it.

You turn my argument on it's head! Of course math is a tool. The problem
I'm discussing is that people have decided that math represents reality
and that IF you can just develop enough math, you can therefore learn
how reality works. This idea is totally false because math (fantasy) can
NEVER "prove" reality.

======

“The question of the “truth” of the individual geometrical propositions
is thus reduced to one of the “truth” of the axioms. Now it has long
been known that the last question is not only unanswerable by the
methods of geometry, but that it is in itself entirely without meaning..."

"The concept of “true” does not tally with the assertions of pure
geometry, because by the word “true” we are eventually in the habit of
designating always the correspondence with a “real” object; geometry,
however, is not concerned with the relation of the ideas involved in it
to objects of experience, but only with the logical connection of these
ideas among themselves”

Albert Einstein “Relativity” 1919


Got that? "entirely without meaning"! Seems clear enough.
S***@hotmail.com
2014-09-02 20:06:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"proof is defined per Lebniz's "necessity & sufficiency, or iff
;the proof of a new physical principle may rely in large part
on a mathematical formalism (say, quantum mechanical
Osher
2014-09-03 16:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:13:44 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> Back before everyone began to worship Einstein's sphincter science and
>

There are two especially dangerous "instruments" of "anti-science" of the Einstein-Heisenberg type:

1. Bad Teaching (almost universally prevalent).
2. Worship of scientists.

I am also tempted to add, which I will:

3. Living in an anti-science nation dedicated to EMOTIONALITY.

Einstein was a DUNCE in teaching, he contributed heavily to worship of scientists (even his house cleaner, with whom he lived, worshipped him), and he was utterly uninterested in changing the Emotionality of whatever nation he lived in, from Switzerland and Germany to the USA except insofar as Germany hated Jews.

Osher Doctorow
Osher
2014-09-03 16:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 12:00:06 PM UTC-4, Osher wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:13:44 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
>

It was no coincidence that Einstein believed in worship of scientists. He and Heisenberg were Germans, and Germany was almost synonymous over millennia with worship of leaders. Even Luther, who rebelled against the Catholic Church, came to be worshipped. That's how Hitler came to power - not because he had mysterious hypnotic ability on his own, but because both he and his audiences were hypnotized by Leader-Worship.

Osher Doctorow
micky
2018-04-03 07:20:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Assume a large metal tank of water is placed on top of a house to
provide hot water for the kithen sink and the bathroom sink and tub.

Assume sundown is at 6. What color should the tank be?

AIUI, white will not absord the heat as well, but it will keep the head
it does absorb longer, so there will be hot water until 7,8,9 PM

But black will absorb the heat faster, will be able to absorb more heat
on grey days, and will have hot water r eady by noon instead of 2PM.
However it will cool off sooner and the tank will be losing heat evbn
maybe before sundown and very likely the water will be almost cold by 7.


Which of my statements, clauses, adjectives, are incorrect.

What color should the tank be for best hot water.


Ignore the possibility of sometimes using an electric heater, except
that the solar portion is to be designed to make that as little
necessary as possible..
Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž
2018-04-03 08:09:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dne 03/04/2018 v 09:20 micky napsal(a):
> Assume a large metal tank of water is placed on top of a house to
> provide hot water for the kithen sink and the bathroom sink and tub.
>
> Assume sundown is at 6. What color should the tank be?

Black.
>
> AIUI, white will not absord the heat as well, but it will keep the head
> it does absorb longer, so there will be hot water until 7,8,9 PM

It does not absorb heat, it absorbs visible light.
Majority of Sun energy is visible light.
>
> But black will absorb the heat faster, will be able to absorb more heat
> on grey days, and will have hot water r eady by noon instead of 2PM.
> However it will cool off sooner and the tank will be losing heat evbn
> maybe before sundown and very likely the water will be almost cold by 7.
>
>
> Which of my statements, clauses, adjectives, are incorrect.
>
> What color should the tank be for best hot water.
>
>
> Ignore the possibility of sometimes using an electric heater, except
> that the solar portion is to be designed to make that as little
> necessary as possible..

Optimal would be some thermally isolated reservoir
along the path from the collector to warm water tap.

Note that there is huge difference
between properties of surfaces
for visible light and thermal IR radiation.

E.g. for the latter, snow is near "IR black"
in sense it absorbs near all thermal IR radiation,
and is for this also near ideal black body radiation source.
That is reason,
why during winter season areas with a snow cover
have usually lower morning temperature.
( at comparable weather conditions )

Generally, most of materials are very good thermal IR absorbers.
Exceptions are e.g. metallic thermal foils that reflect most of it.

So it should have black colour,
as majority of energy of Sun radiation
is in the visible range.

For radiation of the heat during the night,
it almost does not matter, as black and white colours
are comparably "black" for thermal radiation.

It cannot be the foil, as it would reflect the light.



--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.
j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
2018-04-03 19:15:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
micky <***@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Assume a large metal tank of water is placed on top of a house to
> provide hot water for the kithen sink and the bathroom sink and tub.
>
> Assume sundown is at 6. What color should the tank be?
>
> AIUI, white will not absord the heat as well, but it will keep the head
> it does absorb longer, so there will be hot water until 7,8,9 PM
>
> But black will absorb the heat faster, will be able to absorb more heat
> on grey days, and will have hot water r eady by noon instead of 2PM.
> However it will cool off sooner and the tank will be losing heat evbn
> maybe before sundown and very likely the water will be almost cold by 7.
>
>
> Which of my statements, clauses, adjectives, are incorrect.
>
> What color should the tank be for best hot water.

No one with the slightest bit of sense would attempt to use a tank
to collect solar heat.

--
Jim Pennino
benj
2018-04-03 21:24:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/3/2018 3:15 PM, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> micky <***@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> Assume a large metal tank of water is placed on top of a house to
>> provide hot water for the kithen sink and the bathroom sink and tub.
>>
>> Assume sundown is at 6. What color should the tank be?
>>
>> AIUI, white will not absord the heat as well, but it will keep the head
>> it does absorb longer, so there will be hot water until 7,8,9 PM
>>
>> But black will absorb the heat faster, will be able to absorb more heat
>> on grey days, and will have hot water r eady by noon instead of 2PM.
>> However it will cool off sooner and the tank will be losing heat evbn
>> maybe before sundown and very likely the water will be almost cold by 7.
>>
>>
>> Which of my statements, clauses, adjectives, are incorrect.
>>
>> What color should the tank be for best hot water.
>
> No one with the slightest bit of sense would attempt to use a tank
> to collect solar heat.
>
Greens are "idea men", Jim. They solve all the big problems to save the
world and then leave it to guys like you to work out the details of
their ideas and make them work.

I have an electric hot water tank run from a coal-fired power plant. It
gives me great hot water no matter what the weather outside! What is the
best color for my tank?
Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž
2018-04-04 06:47:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dne 03/04/2018 v 23:24 benj napsal(a):
> On 4/3/2018 3:15 PM, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
water.
>>
>> No one with the slightest bit of sense would attempt to use a tank
>> to collect solar heat.

Sure, flat collectors are better.
Only advantage for the directly heated tank
is a low badget.

> I have an electric hot water tank run from a coal-fired power plant. It
> gives me great hot water no matter what the weather outside! What is the
> best color for my tank?

What is the best tank colour
if there is no electricity grid ?

It happens even in such countries as US or Canada
if one has got an outdoor hut or a log cabin.

Additionally, direct thermal conversion
has better efficiency that heating the water tank
by electricity from solar panels.

And even if there is grid electricity,
why to pay for it if you need not to ?


--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.
j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
2018-04-04 15:52:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> Dne 03/04/2018 v 23:24 benj napsal(a):
>> On 4/3/2018 3:15 PM, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> water.
>>>
>>> No one with the slightest bit of sense would attempt to use a tank
>>> to collect solar heat.
>
> Sure, flat collectors are better.
> Only advantage for the directly heated tank
> is a low badget.

Since such will not "work", there is no advantage.

>> I have an electric hot water tank run from a coal-fired power plant. It
>> gives me great hot water no matter what the weather outside! What is the
>> best color for my tank?
>
> What is the best tank colour
> if there is no electricity grid ?

There is no electrical connection to my hot water tank.

<snip remaining>


--
Jim Pennino
Emory Walpole
2018-04-04 16:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
jimp wrote:

>> What is the best tank colour if there is no electricity grid ?
>
> There is no electrical connection to my hot water tank.

You may try turning on yur shithouse into a bio-gas driving current
generator, so you can heat your water as you like.
Sergio
2018-04-04 16:19:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/4/2018 1:47 AM, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
> Dne 03/04/2018 v 23:24 benj napsal(a):
>> On 4/3/2018 3:15 PM, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> water.
>>>
>>> No one with the slightest bit of sense would attempt to use a tank
>>> to collect solar heat.
>
> Sure, flat collectors are better.
> Only advantage for the directly heated tank
> is a low badget.
>
>> I have an electric hot water tank run from a coal-fired power plant. It
>> gives me great hot water no matter what the weather outside! What is the
>> best color for my tank?
>
> What is the best tank colour
> if there is no electricity grid ?
>
> It happens even in such countries as US or Canada
> if one has got an outdoor hut or a log cabin.
>
> Additionally, direct thermal conversion
> has better efficiency that heating the water tank
> by electricity from solar panels.
>
> And even if there is grid electricity,
> why to pay for it if you need not to ?
>
>

google around, this technology is well developed

https://metaefficient.com/hot-water-systems/90-of-israel-homes-have-solar-water-heaters.html

https://www.greenprophet.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/solar-water-heaters-on-roof_lbiRv_5784111-500x282.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Calefon_solar_termosifonico_compacto.jpg/1200px-Calefon_solar_termosifonico_compacto.jpg

http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j10fKtakpdlOQcq/-Calentador-de-agua-solar-residencial-de-la-.jpg
micky
2018-04-03 07:40:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ignore the post with the mistaken Subject. I dion't kow where that came
from.


Assume a large metal tank of water is placed on top of a house to
provide hot water for the kithen sink and the bathroom sink and tub.

Assume sundown is at 6. What color should the tank be?

AIUI, white will not absord the heat as well, but it will keep the head
it does absorb longer, so there will be hot water until 7,8,9 PM

But black will absorb the heat faster, will be able to absorb more heat
on grey days, and will have hot water r eady by noon instead of 2PM.
However it will cool off sooner and the tank will be losing heat evbn
maybe before sundown and very likely the water will be almost cold by 7.


Which of my statements, clauses, adjectives, are incorrect.

What color should the tank be for best hot water.


Ignore the possibility of sometimes using an electric heater, except
that the solar portion is to be designed to make that as little
necessary as possible..
Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž
2018-04-03 08:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dne 03/04/2018 v 09:40 micky napsal(a):
> Ignore the post with the mistaken Subject. I dion't kow where that came
> from.
>
>
> Assume a large metal tank of water is placed on top of a house to
> provide hot water for the kithen sink and the bathroom sink and tub.
>
> Assume sundown is at 6. What color should the tank be?
>
> AIUI, white will not absord the heat as well, but it will keep the head
> it does absorb longer, so there will be hot water until 7,8,9 PM
>
> But black will absorb the heat faster, will be able to absorb more heat
> on grey days, and will have hot water r eady by noon instead of 2PM.
> However it will cool off sooner and the tank will be losing heat evbn
> maybe before sundown and very likely the water will be almost cold by 7.
>
>
> Which of my statements, clauses, adjectives, are incorrect.
>
> What color should the tank be for best hot water.
>
>
> Ignore the possibility of sometimes using an electric heater, except
> that the solar portion is to be designed to make that as little
> necessary as possible..

General truth is,
the better some surface absorbs some EM radiation,
the better it thermally emits it.

But the point is,
while the collector radiates thermal IR during the night,
it does not absorb significant thermal IR during the day,
but in majority the visible light.

The difference in absorption/emission properties
for IR radiation is much smaller that for visible light,
For thermal IR, most of surfaces
are like "IR black" ( e.g. snow ) or at least "IR dark".

So I would go for black.

But Optimal would be
a thermally isolated reservoir along the water path.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.
Sergio
2018-04-03 15:00:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/3/2018 3:21 AM, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
> Dne 03/04/2018 v 09:40 micky napsal(a):
>> Ignore the post with the mistaken Subject. I dion't kow where that came
>> from.
>>
>>
>> Assume a large metal tank of water is placed on top of a house to
>> provide hot water for the kithen sink and the bathroom sink and tub.
>>
>> Assume sundown is at 6. What color should the tank be?
>>
>> AIUI, white will not absord the heat as well, but it will keep the head
>> it does absorb longer, so there will be hot water until 7,8,9 PM
>>
>> But black will absorb the heat faster, will be able to absorb more heat
>> on grey days, and will have hot water r eady by noon instead of 2PM.
>> However it will cool off sooner and the tank will be losing heat evbn
>> maybe before sundown and very likely the water will be almost cold by 7.
>>
>>
>> Which of my statements, clauses, adjectives, are incorrect.
>>
>> What color should the tank be for best hot water.
>>
>>
>> Ignore the possibility of sometimes using an electric heater, except
>> that the solar portion is to be designed to make that as little
>> necessary as possible..
>
> General truth is,
> the better some surface absorbs some EM radiation,
> the better it thermally emits it.
>
> But the point is,
> while the collector radiates thermal IR during the night,
> it does not absorb significant thermal IR during the day,
> but in majority the visible light.
>
> The difference in absorption/emission properties
> for IR radiation is much smaller that for visible light,
> For thermal IR, most of surfaces
> are like "IR black" ( e.g. snow ) or at least "IR dark".
>
> So I would go for black.
>
> But Optimal would be
> a thermally isolated reservoir along the water path.
>

needs to be insulated by an optical filter, that lets in white light,
and reflects IR. (plain glass sheet, (greenish with iron is better),
two sheets is better. Solar water heating.

the white light goes through it, hits the black absorber paint which
converts white light to IR, and the IR is trapped inside the box so you
can remove it using water or air.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissivity
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html

you can also cool at night, without the glass, radiate from a pool of
water to cold space, but that effect is smaller, and you have to keep
the sun off it, and it should only see the sky above not much
environment. the sky is very cold, measure it with an IR temp sensor.
Some guy did that to his house, had a 6" pool of water above his house,
wind protected, etc.
Lofty Goat
2018-04-04 01:07:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 10:40:30 +0300, micky <***@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>Ignore the post with the mistaken Subject. I dion't kow where that came
>from.
>
>Assume a large metal tank of water is placed on top of a house to
>provide hot water for the kithen sink and the bathroom sink and tub.
>
>Assume sundown is at 6. What color should the tank be?
>
>AIUI, white will not absord the heat as well, but it will keep the head
>it does absorb longer, so there will be hot water until 7,8,9 PM
>
>But black will absorb the heat faster, will be able to absorb more heat
>on grey days, and will have hot water r eady by noon instead of 2PM.
>However it will cool off sooner and the tank will be losing heat evbn
>maybe before sundown and very likely the water will be almost cold by 7.
>
>Which of my statements, clauses, adjectives, are incorrect.
>
>What color should the tank be for best hot water.
>
>Ignore the possibility of sometimes using an electric heater, except
>that the solar portion is to be designed to make that as little
>necessary as possible.

Don't use the tank itself to heat the water. Use flat, black water
circulation-type rooftop collectors, passive circulation, and a
well-insulated tank painted any color you find pleasing.

When the sun stops heating the collectors, circulation slows waaay down,
and the hot water in the tank won't radiate heat back out of the
collectors.

All mature technology. You can find plans on-line for assembling it.
You can buy the parts right off the shelf.

--
Goat
Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž
2018-04-04 06:26:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dne 04/04/2018 v 03:07 Lofty Goat napsal(a):

>
> Don't use the tank itself to heat the water. Use flat, black water
> circulation-type rooftop collectors, passive circulation, and a
> well-insulated tank painted any color you find pleasing.
>
> When the sun stops heating the collectors, circulation slows waaay down,
> and the hot water in the tank won't radiate heat back out of the
> collectors.
>
> All mature technology. You can find plans on-line for assembling it.
> You can buy the parts right off the shelf.

Yes, exactly as Lofty says.

I remember seeing that at a donated native community
running a backpacker accommodation near the Coffee Bay
in the province of Eastern Cape of South Africa.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.
Sergio
2018-04-04 13:50:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/3/2018 8:07 PM, Lofty Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 10:40:30 +0300, micky <***@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ignore the post with the mistaken Subject. I dion't kow where that came
>> from.
>>
>> Assume a large metal tank of water is placed on top of a house to
>> provide hot water for the kithen sink and the bathroom sink and tub.
>>
>> Assume sundown is at 6. What color should the tank be?
>>
>> AIUI, white will not absord the heat as well, but it will keep the head
>> it does absorb longer, so there will be hot water until 7,8,9 PM
>>
>> But black will absorb the heat faster, will be able to absorb more heat
>> on grey days, and will have hot water r eady by noon instead of 2PM.
>> However it will cool off sooner and the tank will be losing heat evbn
>> maybe before sundown and very likely the water will be almost cold by 7.
>>
>> Which of my statements, clauses, adjectives, are incorrect.
>>
>> What color should the tank be for best hot water.
>>
>> Ignore the possibility of sometimes using an electric heater, except
>> that the solar portion is to be designed to make that as little
>> necessary as possible.
>
> Don't use the tank itself to heat the water. Use flat, black water
> circulation-type rooftop collectors, passive circulation, and a
> well-insulated tank painted any color you find pleasing.
>
> When the sun stops heating the collectors, circulation slows waaay down,
> and the hot water in the tank won't radiate heat back out of the
> collectors.
>
> All mature technology. You can find plans on-line for assembling it.
> You can buy the parts right off the shelf.
>

various panels on ebay; cheap ones ineffecient ones without glass,
better ones have glass

https://www.ebay.com/sch/items/?_nkw=solar+water+heater+collector&_sacat=&_ex_kw=&_mPrRngCbx=1&_udlo=&_udhi=&_sop=12&_fpos=&_fspt=1&_sadis=&LH_CAds=&rmvSB=true

I have a book around here that has all of the design equations for these
water collectors that came out in 1986, part of a Gov project, and what
surface materiials to use for absorbing heat.
Interesting design area.

You can build these yourself, I think Copper Black was very good
(oxidize copper), wood frame, insulation, double glass, Tank should be
above panel for passive circulation, Israel has scades of these deployed
20 years ago.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2018-04-08 03:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
micky wrote:
^^^^^
It is considered polite here to post using one’s real name.

Also, with address munging, you are in violation of the rules of your
service provider, eternal-september.org, which can cause your account there
to be terminated without prior notice. I have added that pseudo-address to
my killfile now. (I will not see further postings with it.)

> Ignore the post with the mistaken Subject. I dion't kow where that came
> from.

You can change the Subject or start a new thread in the first place, you
know.

With that said, I have no idea what posting you are talking about; the
precursor of your posting is not available via my server.

> Assume a large metal tank of water is placed on top of a house to
> provide hot water for the kithen sink and the bathroom sink and tub.
>
> Assume sundown is at 6. What color should the tank be?

White on the outside, white on the inside, would be ideal, for the reason
that you mentioned.

There is a problem with that: There is no suitable white-colored metal (at
least I do not know of any, nor do I know a suitable alloy that would have a
white color). Suitable metals, like aluminium, and their alloys, tend to be
silvery, so colored varnish would be required to for a white color. But
varnish is not very heat-resistant; it is also highly flammable, affected by
contact with water, and can be toxic as it can give off formaldehyde
(methanal), which is toxic and carcinogenic.

Sunset time is irrelevant, of course, as sunset will not be at the same time
during the year, ignoring other factors.

> Which of my statements, clauses, adjectives, are incorrect.

To answer your non-question:

1. You are falsely assuming that a water tank would have to be of one color
on the inside and outside;

2. You are falsely assuming that water would have only one phase, liquid;

3. You are making uneducated guesses about the temperature of water at
certain times of the day, without knowing or considering the physical
properties of the water tank’s material, such as its thickness, its
heat capacity and conductivity, and that of water. Nor are you
considering environmental factors, such as the intensity of the incoming
radiation, the albedo of the surface, wind, and precipitation.
This approach is hopeless.

> What color should the tank be for best hot water.

Those are not questions. Learn what a question mark is.

To answer your non-question: White, very heat-resistant varnish on the
outside, no varnish on the inside. Otherwise (no varnish or dark varnish
outside in an attempt to get hot water more easily) the tank will heat up
faster when exposed to sunlight, and the water in it will evaporate more
easily, leaving less *liquid* water for use. A tank that is painted dark on
the outside might also burst more easily due to temperature-induced stresses
(hot during the day, cold at night).

Incidentally, you will find that public water tanks, for example in the
United States of America and in Australia, tend to have white varnish on the
outside if they are out of metal. The all-white old water tower at Warner
Bros. Studios in Burbank, California, readily comes to mind there.

And the plastic containers for all kinds of liquids are usually out of white
plastic. I do not think that is a coincidence either.


PointedEars
--
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)
Arindam Banerjee
2018-04-04 01:15:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Benj had sense once.
micky
2018-04-08 04:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Assume a large metal tank of water is placed on top of a house to
provide hot water for the kithen sink and the bathroom sink and tub.

Assume sundown is at 6. What color should the tank be?

AIUI, white will not absord the heat as well, but it will keep the heat
it does absorb longer, so there will be hot water until 7,8,9 PM

But black will absorb the heat faster, will be able to absorb more heat
on grey days, and will have hot water ready by noon instead of 2PM.
However it will cool off sooner and the tank will be losing heat even
maybe before sundown and very likely the water will be almost cold by 7.


Which of my statements, clauses, adjectives, are incorrect?

What color should the tank be for best hot water? The most hot water?


Ignore the possibility of sometimes using a supplemental electric
heater, except that the solar heater is to be designed to make that as
little necessary as possible..
Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž
2018-04-08 08:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dne 08/04/2018 v 06:58 micky napsal(a):
>
> Assume a large metal tank of water is placed on top of a house to
> provide hot water for the kithen sink and the bathroom sink and tub.
>
> Assume sundown is at 6. What color should the tank be?
>
> AIUI, white will not absord the heat as well, but it will keep the heat
> it does absorb longer, so there will be hot water until 7,8,9 PM
>
> But black will absorb the heat faster, will be able to absorb more heat
> on grey days, and will have hot water ready by noon instead of 2PM.
> However it will cool off sooner and the tank will be losing heat even
> maybe before sundown and very likely the water will be almost cold by 7.
>
>
> Which of my statements, clauses, adjectives, are incorrect?
>
> What color should the tank be for best hot water? The most hot water?
>
>
> Ignore the possibility of sometimes using a supplemental electric
> heater, except that the solar heater is to be designed to make that as
> little necessary as possible..

Why do you post the same question again,
when you have already got a lot of answers ?

The majority of absorbed energy is visible light, not heat,
as majority of incident power is in visible range.
The heat is created when the light is absorbed.

In thermal IR region, both black and white colours
are generally comparably "IR black or at least dark",
in sense of absorption and emission of thermal IR.

Therefore, heat loses difference is negligible.
( Blacking of electronic cooler radiators is
because they are metallic, not light,
and difference is not drastic )

So, the solution is black. FIG 1

Optional, but with high advantage,
is to create a passive water circuit, FIG2
with the collector separated from a reservoir,
powered by water density difference.

The collector is best to have a low volume,
from set of black tubes,
surrounded by focusing reflecting surface,
like alufoil in half circle shape.
This would increase the water temperature

Separation of the collector and reservoir
has another reason for higher efficiency:

Until the reservoir is full,
the collector is still filled by cool water,
so water heating rate is not disturbed.


------------------------------------

Watch with a monospace font.

FIG 1

3
<-----o---------------------------o
| |
| water down | water up
| ----------
| | |
| | 2 |
| | |
..... |......................|........|.....
| | |
| | |
| | |
| ----------
| |
| | 1
\-------------------------- o---------<-

1 - a water supply
2 - a black reservoir
3 - to warm tap water
. - floating cold/warm water fuzzy boundary.


FIG 2
<-----o-<-/------------------\
3 | | 4 |
| \------------------/--<-\
| |
| |
| |
| water down | water up
| |
..............................................
| |
| |
| |
| ----------
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | 2| |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| ----------
| |
| | 1
\-------------------------- o-----<---

1 - a water supply
2 - a black collectors with reflective focusing alufoil.
3 - to warm tap water
4 - insulated warm water reservoir ( any colour )
. - floating cold/warm water fuzzy boundary.



--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.
micky
2018-04-08 05:14:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Assume a large metal tank of water is placed on top of a house to
provide hot water for the kithen sink and the bathroom sink and tub.

Assume sundown is at 6. What color should the tank be?

AIUI, white will not absord the heat as well, but it will keep the heat
it does absorb longer, so there will be hot water until 7,8,9 PM

But black will absorb the heat faster, will be able to absorb more heat
on grey days, and will have hot water ready by noon instead of 2PM.
However it will cool off sooner and the tank will be losing heat even
maybe before sundown and very likely the water will be almost cold by 7.


Which of my statements, clauses, adjectives, are incorrect?

What color should the tank be for best hot water? The most hot water?


Ignore the possibility of sometimes using a supplemental electric
heater, except that the solar heater is to be designed to make that as
little necessary as possible..
Loading...