 |
There are currently, 260 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Laws, theories, and the passage of time
Posted on Tuesday, February 05, 2008 @ 20:16:43 UTC by vlad
|
|
From Physics Today.org/Letters:
I found the Letters Department discussion
of laws versus theories (PHYSICS TODAY, July 2007, page 8) quite interesting. I have observed that
Boyle's law, Ampère's law, Faraday's law, conservation laws, Newton's laws, and the laws
of thermodynamics all precede the Industrial Revolution, whereas relativity theory, evolutionary
theory, quantum theory, and such all follow it.
The term "law" seems to have fallen out of favor after
the Industrial Revolution. I cannot attribute this observation to any cause; perhaps others can.
Harold Metcalf
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, New
York
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Laws, theories, and the passage of time (Score: 1)
by ElectroDynaCat on Wednesday, February 06, 2008 @ 11:10:51 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | It misses the point about science, technology, and theories. Theories are a dime a dozen, most of them fade with the passage of time and exposure to reality.
If we can attribute human advancement to any group, it is usually those that actually go out and get the data, sometimes piecemeal and sloppily.
The Medieval Alchemists had absolutely no idea what they were doing. They experimented, and their theories were wierd, and usually wrong. But, they uncovered a wealth of information that enabled others to final make sense of what they found and create the science we have today.
Thats why the FE/OU community is so vital to watch. All we crazies, fooling around in an area usually off limits to conventional research and funding, will be the people that will make the next big breakthrough.
Its like throwing a handfull of peanuts at a barndoor, at least a few of them will hit something, and believe it or not, accidental discoveries are the way many advances come to light.
|
|
|
Re: Laws, theories, and the passage of time (Score: 1)
by Koen on Tuesday, February 05, 2008 @ 23:49:11 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://no.nl/tesla | I understand the hint here. Could there be something wrong with the mainstream physics theories?
Quantum theorie. Elementary particles have a particular mass, momentum, kinetic energy, charge, a wave nature, and do NOT have an internal potential energie (no internal forces). But wait a moment: the classical wave always posesses an intrinsic kinetic energy AND an intrinsic potential energy (for instance a sound wave, particles have speed and the electric fields between the particles that form the wave represent the potential energy of the sound wave).
So how come a particle wave (a Debrogly wave) has no intrinsic potential energy? Nobody knows why the creators of QM have left out this possibility that also explains the wave nature of particles without the need for non-determinism, and without the strong departure from classical physics. And here the old-fashioned laws of wave-mechanics (mainly based on direct observations) have been replaced for a theory fully characterised by an ASSUMPTION that is not based anymore on experiments/observations. The result: QM. This theory is an excuse for not further exploring the physical nature of the internal potential of particle waves.
Relativity theory.
This is a very long, old, and complicated story that eventually was dominated by a false profet and notorious plagiarist: Albert Einstein. This theory is also bases on an ASSUMPTION not backed up by experimental evidence: the speed of the electromagnetic wave in vacuum is constant with respect to any observer in any frame of reference. It is impossible to prove such an assumption experimentally, and there are several experimentists who concluded that the speed of light is NOT a constant. Santilli pointed out the many internal inconsistancies in the theory of GR, and found another relativity theory that allows for variable speed of light, and without internal inconsistancies. At this moment GR is an excuse not to explore the physical properties of space that allow for a variable speed of light.
ElectroMagnetism.
The Maxwell-Lorentz theory is the "final" theory about this subject.
The earlier electrodynamics laws describe observable forces and potentials between charges and currents, but the Maxwell theory uses a more indirect and non-observable concept: the field. The Lorentz force law is also based on field concept. Maxwell's theory was NOT accepted for quite some time by his colleque electrodynamicists, because there was 'no need' for the non-observable field concept. This all changed with the discovery of the electromagnetic wave (far field effects). But even now Andre Assis argues that also the far field effects are perfectly explainable by means of Weber's force and potential laws. Several possible force effects (such as longitudinal Ampere forces) are EXCLUDED by the Maxwell-Lorentz theory, so the Maxwell-Lorentz theory is an excuse for not exploring longitudinal forces and other effects that are not predicted by the Maxwell-Lorentz theory. Not to mention Tesla's wireless energy transfer in the form of longitudinal electrodynamical waves.
There is a possibility that these irrational and theoretical excuses prevented a second/third industrial revolution of major importance for mankind.
Now brace yourself, the third engineered world war is approaching, as "predicted" by the self-fullfilling profet and 33degree mason, Albert Pike.
|
|
|
|
|
