The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How electricity and magnetism are (dis)connected from relativity  (Read 12825 times)

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
I don't understand why again the same question is posed in the front in your message. I was not the reason for ,,highly aggressive way of conversing". I have reacted after the second provocation (I consider the first time when someone makes a error is human..., but second time for me it means a intentional act).
As I have wrote yesterday on the Daniell cell posts, I made again a step backward and I have considered that it is not nice to exists a adversity in discussion here.
Why do you put again mulch on the fire?
Are you interested to maintain a climate of animosity and to show to the others ,,my instable comportment"?
I think it's better to focus your messages punctually to the scientific discussion.

I don't understand what proofs are asked from me...
Why the actual theory is accepted without proofs and I must give proofs?
Have you ever seen a electron running in a conductor?
Probably I'm a superman and I run after electrons.. sorry after electromagnetic waves because electrons are moving too slow...
I don't think that Copernicus had so much experimental proofs when he proposed a new theory. It is your problem or a individual problem of everyone if after reading these posted materials  they decide to maintain the old theory or to change to a new theory.
What I observed and can be observed by everyone is the periodicity and  the repetition of history template.
Now, as in the past, there is from one side a epicycles theory ... which is working nearly good if someone look at the apparency, but is very stinky when is entered into deep grounds.
On the other part is a new theory which is still incompletely formulated able to give a consistency to experimental reality. Of course the new theory explains better and simpler the accumulated experimental facts, but in the same time make to smell fresh the stinky regions from actual one.
Of course, besides the explanations of known phenomena, there are new prediction proposed by the new theory.
But, as far as I fight with the scientific community in order to count 4 positive and 4 negative ions from where they appear and where they disappear (if they disappear or remain uncompensated), how can I give new predictions?
I have proposed a experiment of 3 Eur regarding the simultaneous evolve of oxidation and reduction to the same electrode and to measure a predicted difference of potential at the same electrod. Who from the entire forum has manifested the intention to make the experiment? All have answered that are uninterested in repeating the experiment.
If  3 Eur experiment and half an hour time is too much for a repetition, do you believe that a experiment of 1 milion Eur is more interesting?
Maybe now there are persons interested in my theory and my proposed experiments, but as I said, for the moment, I'm not interested to convince nobody.
Every time when I posted a material it was shown what are the deficiencies of the actual theory and why I propose a new explanation.
If you believe that actual theory is so firmly established in solid foundation please make a math calculation of up proposed experiment.
But be prepared because soon a new experiment will be proposed...
« Last Edit: 15/08/2008 20:01:55 by sorincosofret »
 

lyner

  • Guest
OK We'll look forward to this experiment. You never know; it may prove you to be right(?).
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Could you clarify this bit "I have proposed a experiment of 3 Eur regarding the simultaneous evolve of oxidation and reduction to the same electrode and to measure a predicted difference of potential at the same electrod. Who from the entire forum has manifested the intention to make the experiment? All have answered that are uninterested in repeating the experiment.
If  3 Eur experiment and half an hour time is too much for a repetition, do you believe that a experiment of 1 milion Eur is more interesting? " please- I don't see any sugested experiment here.
Anyway Re.
"I don't think that Copernicus had so much experimental proofs when he proposed a new theory."
He did, a whole lot of astronomical observation.
Now, if you can provide us with some sort of evidence that there's anything wrong with modern physics I'm sure we will listen. Until then your writings are not going to be well received.
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
The Daniel cell II is describing these phenomena; I will make a simplified scheme in order to be more close to the experimental reality. I've put the original photo in order to avoid again accusation that I'm only speaking.

Let's start with a little bit history.

In 1543 (after other materials in 1542)  the Polish monk Nicholas Copernicus has published a book - De revolutionibus, proposing the Sun in the center of Solar System and not the Earth as accepted by official theory and formulated long time ago by Ptolemy.
The book was published few month before his death (it was still the Inquisition period), but the ideas of a heliocentric system were formulated about 30 years ago in a first paper called Comentariolus - around 1513.
In order to argument this theory, he did not have any previous and useful experimental data, and therefore he dedicate a long time for studying of old Greeks books. These books gave him more philosophical arguments instead of useful data.
The existent experimental data were few and deformed by official interpretation and therefore he tried to execute some measurements.  Copernicus succeeds to execute about 60 experimental observations up to 1541, with the same instruments like Ptolemy. These observations were too few and imprecise in comparison with observations of consecrated astronomer of that time -Regiomontanus, Walther- both adepts of geocentrism. Supplementary, Copernicus was a pale mathematician in comparison with Ptolemy.
 ,,Unable to free himself from the constraints of classical thinking, Copernicus was able to imagine only circular planetary orbits”.
Therefore, he takes as valid the system of deferents and epicycles, and tries to adapt to the heliocentric motion. In Copernican original conception, the Earth was revolving around a centre that revolved around another centre, which in turn orbited the Sun. He obtains a simplified motion with 14 less epicycles in comparison with Ptolemy’s theory. Copernicus also held to the notion of spheres, in which the planets were supposed to travel, concept removed by Tycho Brahe later.

Finally anyone can ask what stimulate Copernicus to turn back to geocentric theory, so precise elaborated and in good concordance with observed movement of the celestial bodies?
He did not have any new experimental phenomena (unexplained by official theory); his observation were rudimentary reported to the observation of entire elite of official astronomers; from mathematical point of view he does not formulated any new methods or procedures.
The answer is very simple: Copernicus has observed the incoherence of Ptolemaic system; He has observed that beyond of perfectly elaborated mathematical procedure it was hidden a very complicate edifice of not correlated hypothesis, more precisely he observed the absence of a unitary system.
In the preface of his book, dedicated to pope Paul III, known for his astrological predilection, Copernicus wrote (approximate translation from Romanian):
,,For this idea of a new system of celestial body, I was stimulate only by the observations that mathematicians themselves, in their researches about celestial bodies are in contradictions and fight one with another. “
At that time, the Copernicus book did not faced to elaborated Almageste written by Regiomontanus. The proposed system was for close to a century a simple hypothesis, even for very cultivated people at that time.
In 1610, Galileo observed the Jupiter satellites and Venus phases as first experimental arguments in favor of Copernicus idea.
The Catholic Church reacted furiously after Copernicus book publishing, and placed the book at the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, the list of forbidden books; this book was forbidden long time, late 1840 circa.
From experimental point of view the predictions of planetary position on basis of Copernicus ideas presents differences of 4º-5º in respect to the observed positions. These differences was quite large even for that period and the existent instrumentation. There were necessary more precise observations like those made by Copernicus.
These observations were made by Tycho Brahe. Tycho read the Copernicus theory, but he was not convinced by the model.
For about 20 years, Tycho having the newest and most precise instruments of that time, build a data base with observations about known celestial bodies movement. 
Based on these measurements Tycho elaborate his proper description of solar System. Now we know that this system is false even it’s corresponds with the apparent movement of celestial bodies as observed from Earth.
The fiasco of Tycho Brahe system leaves us the possibility to judge what it means the persistence of dogma in scientific research.
After Tycho Brahe death, his successor- Kepler modified the form of the orbit in the solar system from circular to elliptic one.
For those who are interested in the history of astronomy there is a nice book. I have the Romanian edition and I think the name in English is ,,Star Observer” written by Ley W. before 1968. 

On the following link (and in others): http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Copernican
The following assertion is made:
Copernicus began to make astronomical observations in 1497, although he relied mainly on data accumulated by others. Where observational facts failed he found them himself, but he was essentially a thinker rather than an observer.

How many epicycles should be necessary for having a theory at the actual precision of measuremeants?
Max Born was first to formulate (and is accepted by scientific world), that from general relativity point of view, Ptolomy and Copernic have both right, and is a question of commodity to prefere one to another.
Of course the proposed theory of relativity does not agree with general relativity point of view.

For the consequences of the posted experiment in the frame of actual relativity theory, there will be added a low level text with interpretation.
 
« Last Edit: 17/08/2008 08:31:52 by sorincosofret »
 

lyner

  • Guest
Why is it that tho loony fringe always seem to back up their views by giving us all a history lesson about stuff we already know?
Does it, somehow, prove their point if they  can show how really brilliant Scientists changed the course of Science history?

But, to quote from a famous presidential election confrontation, "You're no Jack Kennedy".
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
I note with no great suprise that Sorin hasn't provided the data we asked for. Perhaps that's because he can't.
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
"I don't think that Copernicus had so much experimental proofs when he proposed a new theory."
He did, a whole lot of astronomical observation.

Sophie,
You must ask Bored chemist to not post simple and very well known questions. In my quality I must answer to all persons who put questions or presents doubts related to my posted message.
It is very well known that Copernicus was not a astronomer and surely not a mathematician.
In any case these things are not well known as you suppose.
If I ask you what other thinks maintained Copernicus in his original Solar System theory from the Ptolemy model, I'm sure that you will go search in a speciality book.
Of course Copernicus has his own value. But from here, up to consider him as a great astronomer is a difference.

By the way, Sophie, who was J Keneddy?

Now, if you can provide us with some sort of evidence that there's anything wrong with modern physics I'm sure we will listen. Until then your writings are not going to be well received.

Surely for a person who is considering the physics a science of circumstances I don't bother to bring some evidence. So you must consider these posts and discussions are not addressed to you.
In fact I will ask to Naked scientist operators (if it's possible)) to limitate your comments, ant to block the messages non related to scientific problem.
« Last Edit: 17/08/2008 17:47:35 by sorincosofret »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Sorry Sorin, we wont be limiting BC's comments, and after all, he's only asking for evidence.
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
Ben V,
I was thinking that it is not possible the limitations, but BC does not ask for evidence. Because any schoolboy when count up to four in one part and up to three in another observe that something is not in order.
For BC, this is only a circumstance.
It is not a fair fight. If this would happened in my theory, it is not necessary to have a lot of imagination to describe what will be happened.
Again being to small, and without any possibility to change the rules I must obey.
I'm not considering necessary to loose the time (at the moment) learning to count up to 4 the PhD persons, so for me the adventure with naked scientist forum stops here.
There is no hurry for me in convincing the actual scientific community about the exactly of my theory.
Maybe next year I will have more time..
Maybe next year my English will be improved..
Maybe...

« Last Edit: 17/08/2008 19:58:56 by sorincosofret »
 

lyner

  • Guest
Quote
By the way, Sophie, who was J Keneddy?
google J F Kennedy.
He had quite an effect on Space Technology.
He wasn 't a Scientist.
I guess that many people who read my comment will appreciate what I meant.
You may need to read around to find out.
You should read more History - not just popular Science History.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums