James Maxwell's Physical Model

[marengo]

One might expect that a theory which removes a previous force potential from our understanding of the Universe and thus simplifies the Universe by that extent would provoke some interest from some-one, if not from Solar.

[Sparky]

You are wrong. A test charge is a real thing. It could be an electron or a proton, for example. You are effectively saying that electrons and protons do not exist as real particles. Does that also mean that you think atoms, constructed of electrons and protons, do not exist?

Theoretical physics; is theoretical physics:

In physical theories, a test particle is an idealized model of an object whose physical properties (usually mass, charge, or size) are assumed to be negligible except for the property being studied, which is considered to be insufficient to alter the behavior of the rest of the system. The concept of a test particle often simplifies problems, and can provide a good approximation for physical phenomena. In addition to its uses in the simplification of the dynamics of a system in particular limits, it is also used as a diagnostic in computer simulations of physical processes. – Test Particle: Wiki

That is what you have in your treatise, in the space above the wire; an idealized particle created by fiat. You're not the first to invent one, you won't be the last.

As relates Maxwell your treatise asserts that his flaw was in considering the “magnetic field” and the “electric field” as two distinct aspects of the Aether whereas your treatise posits that “only the electric and gravitational potentials are physical properties of the Aether.”

Is that summary about right? If not; fix it – but do get on with it.

Your summary of my explanation of magnetism loses something in the conversion.

You could, and should've, summarized it yourself. It is after all YOUR theory. Why is my conveyance of your theory more explanative than has been your very own efforts for same on this forum and in your very own thread no less??

My main point is that magnetism is a derivative of the electric field and hence is not fundamental as is the electric potential. Maxwell was therefore in error to consider magnetism to be a property of the Aether. That is why his physical model is incorrect.

Of course you may think that my explanation of magnetism is false. If so I would like to know where you think my explanation is in error.

Its neither true nor false. It is a theory - one that theoretically posits an origin for "magnetism". Nothing more; nothing less.

You have used a relativist tactic in relation to the thread title to assert that Maxwell was “wrong”. This, based on a faux desire to supposedly get a six year old thread of which you know little “back on tract”; only to then say, that you’re not an expert on Maxwell (here)- only to further, segue way into your own theory (as if no one could see that coming). It was a glaringly obvious and unnecessary shortcut.

If the totality of your explanation as to ‘Why’ or ‘How’ Maxwell is supposedly “wrong” about something only amounts to simply repeating the same statement over and over again … we’re done. I’m not trying to be harsh or mean.

I was waiting for an explanation, a few qualitative paragraphs or so as to ‘How’ it is that you are stating that Maxwell was “wrong”. Other than that; repeating the same statement, or opinion, over and over again simply amounts to pointlessly hijacking this thread relative to its title to discuss your theory when there already exist a thread for same.

Solar, I really appreciate your knowledge and command of the language...

I have characterized marengo as a troll, leading members on with obtuse, vague, and incomprehensible referenced links to his delusional hypothesis. He has shown his condescending, arrogant character and intent, while giving little useful information.

Feed the troll.... ....

[marengo]

Sparky
How about some physics from you, if only occasionally.

[viscount aero]

My own explanation has the advantage of being correct.

You never explain anything. <moderator edit>

[marengo]

[quote="viscount aero"]You never explain anything.[/quote

I tried. How I tried!

[StefanR]

Nice.

"Natural Philosophy and Relativity of Boscovich"

I have to get that.

NICE! Thanks Solar, I didn't know it was out, but it is already ordered.
BTW, if one is into this kind of literature, you might want to read this title:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Eternal-Law-P ... 0986876909
Highly recommended!

Got to read the first page of this thread again, and I think I will try to go over it again.
It was an interesting discussion concerning those models and history of thoughts.
It's a pity that some do not seem to have taken the trouble of reading at least a bit of it
before posting in this thread.

[StefanR]

$1.00 Kindle, $9.00 paper (used).
http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Natural-Ph ... 0262520036

StefanR preview, page 3

Hi C,
How is the expression? Dirt cheap, I believe!
A nice one to go along with ones Tesla, Faraday and Maxwell books.

[marengo]

Boscovich may have been a great man of his day BUT
What has he got to do with Maxwell's physical model?

How about some relevant posts.

[StefanR]

Boscovich may have been a great man of his day BUT
What has he got to do with Maxwell's physical model?

How about some relevant posts.

What does Faraday have to do with Maxwell?
What do lines of force have to do with Maxwell?
What do field considerations have to do with Maxwell?

Have you invested some time in reading perhaps the first two pages of this
thread?
It might actually interest you maybe, as this thread was partially born
in an environment were several participants of this forum were communicating
over several threads about several aether-theories or alternative electromagnetic
theory interpretations, and if they might be reconcilable. Sometimes different
languages or models were used for similar phenomena by the different authors of
such models, which gave the appearance of them being exclusive of each other.
And some of them were critical in some ways of Maxwell, but it had to be seen how
far this criticism was valid...was Maxwell all wrong or was the interpretation of
his work improper or were the simplified equations misleading?
A lot more was going on, but you missed that boat by about six years. But you might
enjoy some of it still, perusing for instance this thread. And with relevant questions
one might even get relevant answers.

[StefanR]

Boscovich may have been a great man of his day BUT
What has he got to do with Maxwell's physical model?

How about some relevant posts.

Maybe this is an interesting text to read, just to have someone talk in his own words:

Thoughts on Ray Vibrations
Michael Faraday
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wfarad1846.html

I think it has been linked in this thread before, but to say once more, superfluous probably, but
the thread came to be to find some understanding in the background of basic ideas. But to understand
the context of it, one might have to read several other older related threads, as it was a collective motion
of minds at the time, providing a jumping board to continue in researching other adjoining subjects each
personally. Its the difficulty and wonder about forums, it can be fascinating to read back an old thread,
but one misses the flow and interconnectedness of several topics at the time they were produced.
I was actually hoping that perhaps you might have provided your view on the thread content, as a thread
title is not always wholly indicative of its content. So I hope you perhaps will do some time, as I'm curious
how you look at it, as you must have a certain study background having your own model/theory/hypothesis.

[Solar]

Boscovich may have been a great man of his day BUT
What has he got to do with Maxwell's physical model?

How about some relevant posts.

What does Faraday have to do with Maxwell?
What do lines of force have to do with Maxwell?
What do field considerations have to do with Maxwell?

Have you invested some time in reading perhaps the first two pages of this
thread?
It might actually interest you maybe, as this thread was partially born
in an environment were several participants of this forum were communicating
over several threads about several aether-theories or alternative electromagnetic
theory interpretations, and if they might be reconcilable. Sometimes different
languages or models were used for similar phenomena by the different authors of
such models, which gave the appearance of them being exclusive of each other.
And some of them were critical in some ways of Maxwell, but it had to be seen how
far this criticism was valid...was Maxwell all wrong or was the interpretation of
his work improper or were the simplified equations misleading?
A lot more was going on, but you missed that boat by about six years. But you might
enjoy some of it still, perusing for instance this thread. And with relevant questions
one might even get relevant answers.

Either he doesn’t really care; thus the relativistic interpretive tactic used to shortcut the necessity of actually reading this thread in order to garner an appropriate assessment of its ‘character’ in order to then post accordingly. Or, perhaps he is unaware of yet another aspect of forum etiquette (posting in a thread based on its thread title can lead one astray; especially a thread as old as this one). Or it is purposeful. Either way he is out of line. As interest in his own theory wanes he simply tried to moved said interest to another active thread. I think we witness the results of the ‘collapsing singularity’ that can form when some of today’s relativistic theoretical physicist are imbued with the legacy that “Philosophy is dead”.

This thread has also touched on the effects of Positivism so let’s have some:

Logical positivists denied the soundness of metaphysics and traditional philosophy; they asserted that many philosophical problems are indeed meaningless.
(Philosophy is the activity by means of which the meaning of statements is clarified and defined.
(M. Schlick, 'Die Wende der Philosophie' in Erkenntnis, 1, 1930).
A scientific theory is an axiomatic system that obtains an empirical interpretation through appropriate statements called rules of correspondence, which establish a correlation between real objects (or real processes) and the abstract concepts of the theory. The language of a theory includes two kinds of terms: observational and theoretical. The statements of a theory are divided in two groups: analytic and synthetic. Observational terms denote objects or properties that can be directly observed or measured, while theoretical terms denote objects or properties we cannot observe or measure but we can only infer from direct observations. Analytic statements are a priori and their truth is based on the rules of the language; on the contrary, synthetic statements depend on experience, and their truth can be acknowledged only by means of the experience. This conception about the structure of scientific theories is perhaps the most durable philosophical principle of the logical positivism.
Its main points are:
• the distinction between observational and theoretical terms
• the distinction between synthetic and analytic statements
• the distinction between theoretical axioms and rules of correspondence
• the deductive nature of scientific theories
These four points are linked together. Rules of correspondence give an empirical meaning to theoretical terms and are analytic, while theoretical axioms express the observational portion of the theory and are synthetic. A theory must be a deductive system; otherwise, a formal distinction between the various kinds of sentences and terms is impossible.
The distinction between observational and theoretical terms depends on the verifiability criterion of meaning. A statement is meaningful only if it is verifiable; but, in scientific theories, there are many statements which are not verifiable -- for example, assertions dealing with quantum particles or relativistic gravitational fields. These statements are too "theoretical" for a direct test; strictly speaking, they are meaningless. – Logical Positivism

That is why simply repeating what is only a ("scientific") statement without clarifying meaning fails. To subvert the unwitting one then simply ask that you follow postulates. There is far to much critical thinking 'round these parts for such a thing to hold.

This thread is at once its antithesis; and its nemesis.

[Plasmatic]

Nice.

"Natural Philosophy and Relativity of Boscovich"

I have to get that.

NICE! Thanks Solar, I didn't know it was out, but it is already ordered.
BTW, if one is into this kind of literature, you might want to read this title:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Eternal-Law-P ... 0986876909
Highly recommended!

Stefan, I'd be happy to debate/discuss the errors in that book concerning Aristotleian abstractionism!

Edit: I've been spending lots of time on dissecting the problems of Carnap's influence on the scientific method...

[StefanR]

I think we witness the results of the ‘collapsing singularity’ that can form when some of today’s relativistic theoretical physicist are imbued with the legacy that “Philosophy is dead”.

Yeah, I can remember that one. Spoken by the great panjandrum of m-theory and creator of mind-doodles.
How the more admirable are the last few statements by Faraday in that text I linked to:

And now, my dear Phillips, I must conclude. I do not think I should have allowed these notions to have escaped from me, had I not been led unawares, and without previous consideration, by the circumstances of the evening on which I had to appear suddenly and occupy the place of another. Now that I have put them on paper, I feel that I ought to have kept them much longer for study, consideration, and, perhaps final rejection; and it is only because they are sure to go abroad in one way or another, in consequence of their utterance on that evening, that I give shape, if shape it may be called, in this reply to your inquiry.
[...]
I think it likely that I have made many mistakes in the preceeding pages, for even to myself, my ideas on this point appear only as the shadow of a speculation, or as one of those impressions on the mind which are allowable for a time as guides to thought and research. He who labours in experimental inquiries knows how numerous these are, and how often their apparent fitness and beauty vanish before the progress and development of real natural truth.

[marengo]

A lot more was going on, but you missed that boat by about six years. But you might
enjoy some of it still, perusing for instance this thread. And with relevant questions
one might even get relevant answers.

The relevant question is this.
Why did Maxwell's physical model of the Aether not work?

Lets get down to some answers. I have seen none so far.

[marengo]

Solar, You are full of words but where is the substance? See my question in previous post.