Understanding electromagnetism

[Tigger]

Farsights ideas are mostly that time is a property of motion. His use of existing science to explain those ideas is about as credible as Intelligent Design. It's riddled with fundamental mistakes and misunderstanding of basic theory.

But you can't point out what these "fundamental mistakes" are, or the "misunderstandings". Nor can you counter the scientific evidence. So who's on the side of Intelligent Design? Not me Twiglet. You.

That was apparant when he was unable to explain why c constitutes an absolute limit in special relativity. Never mind whether SR is right, farsight doesn't understand it even at a very basic level. Nor does he understand that magnestism is a relativistic effect of electron motion, or how Maxwells equations account that... he isn't even at an undergraduate level.

Baloney. And I can at least spell. The speed of light constitutes an absolute limit because we're essentially made of light. Pair production and annihilation along with low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to neutral pions thence gamma photons is the evidence, along with electron spin angular momentum, magnetic dipole moment, the Einstein-de Haas effect. And I say in the OP that relative motion through an electromagnetic field results in what we call a magnetic field. You've got nothing to counter this, just dishonesty and denial.

What he does do is conflate whether science is true with his own cut-and-paste of bits of science. Now if you are fooled by that Brainman, I have my doubts about your involvement in the scientific community at any level. Then again, maybe if your job has been scripting programs, understanding transistors and logic gates or learning languages, then why would you know the first thing about relativity?

LOL. Talk about intellectual arrogance cloaking an intellectual vacuum.

If farsight presented his ideas as just that: ideas, without appealing to credible science as if it supports those ideas when it blatantly doesn't - he would get a warmer reception. If you like the ideas, great, but if you want to call them scientific, that's another matter entirely.

You've got nothing, Twiglet, nothing but bile.

There are one or two items (highlighted) in here that are skating pretty close to the edge of the "playing nice" event horizon, Lest we slip over the edge, ne'er to return, I'll just remind you of the forum requirements here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 9#playnice

[lpetrich]

Only because they dismiss Einstein and Maxwell along with scientific evidence. Maxwell said what he said about vortexes and displacement current and the screw-mechanism.

Maxwell-thumping and Einstein-thumping. Farsight, don't you have any better arguments?

The electron is created via pair production, it has only one field, relative motion changes the way you feel this field, and the Einstein-de Haas effect does demonstrate that spin angular momentum is classical.

How would quantum-mechanical spin be incapable of producing that effect? Work it out mathematically.

Furthermore, literary interpretation is not a very good way to do scientific research.

No but examining the evidence is, along with understanding what you're dealing with.

Farsight, mainstream physicists have examined the same evidence, and they have NOT rediscovered your toroidal electron.

Farsight, you keep on dismissing mathematics. Why?

I don't dismiss mathematics. It's vital tool for physics. But you get somebody like ChildInAZoo who puts mathematics on a pedestal above scientific evidence, and uses it as smokescreen to try to obscure the scientific evidence that he cannot deal with.

What "evidence"? You have yet to show that mainstream physics cannot account for it. In fact, you seem to think that you don't have to learn about the Dirac equation or the results of e+e- scattering.

Also, just because an idea is "novel" and "challenging" does not mean that it is right.

No, it doesn't.

Are you willing to accept that that could be true of your ideas?

I think that a lot of professional scientists think that they have better things to do than wade through a lot of theorizing that is riddled with errors.

Agreed. But the fact remains that a lot of professional scientists can't get their papers into a journal.

Your argument can be summarized as:

[Farsight]

There are one or two items (highlighted) in here that are skating pretty close to the edge of the "playing nice" event horizon, Lest we slip over the edge, ne'er to return, I'll just remind you of the forum requirements here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 9#playnice

No problem. But I'd be grateful if you reminded one or two others about the forum requirements. I'm the model poster round here, displaying great patience, and if I occasionally dish it back, it's because of inadequate moderation. So please do your job, for the sake of the forum. Encourage posters to stay on topic and refrain from unfounded abuse, and we'll all get along just fine.

[Farsight]

Only because they dismiss Einstein and Maxwell along with scientific evidence. Maxwell said what he said about vortexes and displacement current and the screw-mechanism.

Maxwell-thumping and Einstein-thumping. Farsight, don't you have any better arguments?

Yep, the scientific evidence. Now read the OP and then we can discuss it.

How would quantum-mechanical spin be incapable of producing that effect?

Via a two-component rotation.

Work it out mathematically.

No. I've already explained it adequately, and it's simple. See http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 25#p464826. Now do excuse me from responding to the rest of your catch-22 "there's no evidence" argument, but I have to go.

[lpetrich]

and all because i like farsights work. Just shows how far gone from everyday working reality you are. We need stuff that works, if his ideas work, they can be used. Simple as that. If his concepts fit, fine, lets use them.. we will try them out, then see bout the details later.

Farsight has yet to show how the numbers work out properly.

The speed of light constitutes an absolute limit because we're essentially made of light. Pair production and annihilation along with low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to neutral pions thence gamma photons is the evidence,

Protons and antiparticles also produce *charged* pions, something which your theory does not account for, Farsight. However, it's understandable within mainstream physics. Likewise, annihilation does not mean that electrons have trapped photons inside looking for a chance to escape. It's completely explainable within mainstream physics, and it's even possible to predict how fast it happens.

[Farsight]

Thin gruel, lpetrich. You know full well that a charged pion typically decays in a nanosecond into a muon and a muon-antineutrino, and the muon typically decays a microsecond later into an electron, an electron-antineutrino, and a muon-neutrino. We've already talked about neutrino properties as compared with photon and electron properties. They have scant mass and charge, and they're fast, like photons. Set aside photons and neutrinos and you're left with electrons and protons and their antiparticles. The free neutron undergoes beta decay in circa 15 minutes. Other particles are either ephemera or they're hypothetical. Quarks are merely "partons", parts of a configuration which do not persist when the configuration is destroyed - that's why we've never seen a free quark. See

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... adron.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon

for more information. I do however expect that we'll find a stable pentaquark sometime.

[colubridae]

Bollocks! squirm all you want. you still are still on record as saying the dumbest thing imaginable for a real scientist...

But once again, a nice wiki condensate.

Busted.

You obviously dont live in the real world of science. Ill tell u what happens here. Most people working in this field are practical. They want their work to convince. For all intents and purposes the idea is to prove your point. U can say what u like about Karl popper, but that is a dream which is paid lip service to at conference presentations, press, books and articles. Scientists set out to prove their theories by the null hypothesis in the stats section, but usually its by any other means possible. In an actual study, the pressure is high, stats keep getting sent back, errors and flaws found in methods. Deadlines accelerate as a result, you rush trying to rescue what you can.

Do you think in this kind of pressure people make statments like "how do we find converging lines of evidence to disprove the null hypothesis" ? No they use fast language such "does this prove that" or plainly "how can we prove that". Get somebody else on here that have been involved in pure dog work. Ask them about this, as you are obviously too paranoid to believe not just this but just about anything i am telling you,

and all because i like farsights work. Just shows how far gone from everyday working reality you are. We need stuff that works, if his ideas work, they can be used. Simple as that. If his concepts fit, fine, lets use them.. we will try them out, then see bout the details later.

This is being disingenuous.

I said

And don’t forget the best he will ever do is find evidence to support his ‘stuff’. it will never be proved.

A perfectly legitimate thing to say. Supporting evidence is all you ever get. That’s the cornerstone of science.
I would accept if you had called me ‘a nitpicking twat…’ or something similar. But you replied:-

if you are a scientist you should know better than to make such a statement.

Scientists aren't the only ones who know how important that principle is. But apparently you did not. Hope this helps you out.

Wiki, the media etc are not scientists. You will find dawkins make this point several times and the one about ‘falsifyability ‘ and the one about theories must make predictions. Etc.

This indicates that you clearly did not understand the scientific principle. Your subsequent spin is not magnetic

[ChildInAZoo]

I do however expect that we'll find a stable pentaquark sometime.

Do you have this prediction worked out, or is it another hunch? A broken clock can be right twice a day, but that doesn't make it valuable.

[Tigger]

There are one or two items (highlighted) in here that are skating pretty close to the edge of the "playing nice" event horizon, Lest we slip over the edge, ne'er to return, I'll just remind you of the forum requirements here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 9#playnice

No problem. But I'd be grateful if you reminded one or two others about the forum requirements. I'm the model poster round here, displaying great patience, and if I occasionally dish it back, it's because of inadequate moderation. So please do your job, for the sake of the forum. Encourage posters to stay on topic and refrain from unfounded abuse, and we'll all get along just fine.

Fair comment. Sometimes the posts in these topics are very long (not just yours) and evoke a tl;dr response from some mods. It's nothing personal at all, but if the content is just skimmed over it's sometimes possible to miss an acerbic comment directed at an individual. It would be better, therefore, if any posts that anyone feels break the rules - after looking at them preferably - were reported rather than reacting within the thread. On a personal level, I feel I am doing my job, but as a member of the community you could assist in getting the result you want rather than just hoping it will be noticed. 'Twould make for more efficiency.

[Twiglet]

That was apparant when he was unable to explain why c constitutes an absolute limit in special relativity. Never mind whether SR is right, farsight doesn't understand it even at a very basic level. Nor does he understand that magnestism is a relativistic effect of electron motion, or how Maxwells equations account that... he isn't even at an undergraduate level.

Baloney. And I can at least spell. The speed of light constitutes an absolute limit because we're essentially made of light. Pair production and annihilation along with low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to neutral pions thence gamma photons is the evidence, along with electron spin angular momentum, magnetic dipole moment, the Einstein-de Haas effect. And I say in the OP that relative motion through an electromagnetic field results in what we call a magnetic field. You've got nothing to counter this, just dishonesty and denial.

I shall leave aside the fluff you wrote about intellectual dishonesty farsight. The above quote is perhaps the single most perfect illustration provided that you have no concept of why c is a limit in special relativity. The most fundamental and elementary cornerstone of relativity is why the speed of light is an absolute limit. And it sure as heck isn't for the reason you cite.

I maintain my point that you don't even understand the basics. Of relativity, electromagnetism or quantum theory. Metaphorically asking the rest of us to accompany you to the deep end of the pool in the hope we might lose our footing is just a convenient way of trying to avoid the very obvious - which is that you can't even get your feet to the ground in the shallow end, farsight.

Never mind being published papers, I doubt you would even be admitted as an undergraduate to a physics course.

[JimC]

Can I make a plea to regular posters in this thread to concentrate more on the issues rather than commenting on the attributes of other posters? Most of it is certainly inside the line as far as direct ad homs go, and thus not "warnable" but it certainly does not live up to the spirit of the "play nice" rule.

[Twiglet]

Can I make a plea to regular posters in this thread to concentrate more on the issues rather than commenting on the attributes of other posters? Most of it is certainly inside the line as far as direct ad homs go, and thus not "warnable" but it certainly does not live up to the spirit of the "play nice" rule.

The issues on this thread are really basic. Electromagnetic theory is described and understood by the application of Maxwells equations. Special relativity via the application of Einsteins equations. Whether either set of mechanisms is "absolutely true" is a matter for conjecture, but all scientific testing conducted to date, extensively in labs and through observation suggest these descriptions are consistent with observed reality.

Whether or not the laws of SR are a true representation of reality, to understand the theory of special relativity, one needs to understand both the concepts and what the theory predicts experimentally, with or without the maths. Quite simply, however valid farsights ideas are, it is clear from the above quote that he doesn't understand relativity.

Whether his ideas have any predictive value, irrespective of that, he doesn't understand basic relativity, em or QP as it is taught and practiced and validated experimentally.

There's no nicer way of saying it.

A constructive response to not understanding science is to learn it, or listen to people who already have. If a kid at school started inventing their own grammar, you might praise them for their creativity, but to be functional in the workplace, you would likely suggest that they learn conventional grammar to assist them to communicate with others.

[Brain Man]

Bollocks! squirm all you want. you still are still on record as saying the dumbest thing imaginable for a real scientist...

But once again, a nice wiki condensate.

Busted.

You obviously dont live in the real world of science. Ill tell u what happens here. Most people working in this field are practical. They want their work to convince. For all intents and purposes the idea is to prove your point. U can say what u like about Karl popper, but that is a dream which is paid lip service to at conference presentations, press, books and articles. Scientists set out to prove their theories by the null hypothesis in the stats section, but usually its by any other means possible. In an actual study, the pressure is high, stats keep getting sent back, errors and flaws found in methods. Deadlines accelerate as a result, you rush trying to rescue what you can.

Do you think in this kind of pressure people make statments like "how do we find converging lines of evidence to disprove the null hypothesis" ? No they use fast language such "does this prove that" or plainly "how can we prove that". Get somebody else on here that have been involved in pure dog work. Ask them about this, as you are obviously too paranoid to believe not just this but just about anything i am telling you,

and all because i like farsights work. Just shows how far gone from everyday working reality you are. We need stuff that works, if his ideas work, they can be used. Simple as that. If his concepts fit, fine, lets use them.. we will try them out, then see bout the details later.

This is being disingenuous.

I said

And don’t forget the best he will ever do is find evidence to support his ‘stuff’. it will never be proved.

A perfectly legitimate thing to say. Supporting evidence is all you ever get. That’s the cornerstone of science.
I would accept if you had called me ‘a nitpicking twat…’ or something similar. But you replied:-

if you are a scientist you should know better than to make such a statement.

Scientists aren't the only ones who know how important that principle is. But apparently you did not. Hope this helps you out.

Wiki, the media etc are not scientists. You will find dawkins make this point several times and the one about ‘falsifyability ‘ and the one about theories must make predictions. Etc.

This indicates that you clearly did not understand the scientific principle. Your subsequent spin is not magnetic

I understand it full well. We've only had it rammed down our throat for decades by somebody who isn't even a scientist (dawkins), and is so rigid he wouldn't be capable of recognizing a good theory when he sees one. i.e gaia, aquatic ape.

I dont agree with the pure version of the scientific principle or its application. simple as that. If you want a separate discussion on that, we can. Its something i have written extensively on, and would be better put on rational skepticism. There are many problems with the scientific method when it comes to decoding complex systems. For a start its almost impossible to use falsification for complexity as there are two many variables. Hence evolution (an extremely complex theory) has taken a decade just to get to the point of being considered having some evidence, and just as that happens its being completely outstripped by complex systems theory as a far superior means to describe the properties for living systems.

But in the meantime i would rather this thread goes back to the subject of farsights topic, which he appears to be defending with surprising depth...

[Twiglet]

But in the meantime i would rather this thread goes back to the subject of farsights topic, which he appears to be defending with surprising depth...

More like surprising breadth.

Most of farsights arguments are not even shallow.

[JimC]

Can I make a plea to regular posters in this thread to concentrate more on the issues rather than commenting on the attributes of other posters? Most of it is certainly inside the line as far as direct ad homs go, and thus not "warnable" but it certainly does not live up to the spirit of the "play nice" rule.

The issues on this thread are really basic. Electromagnetic theory is described and understood by the application of Maxwells equations. Special relativity via the application of Einsteins equations. Whether either set of mechanisms is "absolutely true" is a matter for conjecture, but all scientific testing conducted to date, extensively in labs and through observation suggest these descriptions are consistent with observed reality.

Whether or not the laws of SR are a true representation of reality, to understand the theory of special relativity, one needs to understand both the concepts and what the theory predicts experimentally, with or without the maths. Quite simply, however valid farsights ideas are, it is clear from the above quote that he doesn't understand relativity.

Whether his ideas have any predictive value, irrespective of that, he doesn't understand basic relativity, em or QP as it is taught and practiced and validated experimentally.

There's no nicer way of saying it.

A constructive response to not understanding science is to learn it, or listen to people who already have. If a kid at school started inventing their own grammar, you might praise them for their creativity, but to be functional in the workplace, you would likely suggest that they learn conventional grammar to assist them to communicate with others.

Yes, I understand that you and others are both critical of Farsight's theories, and objectively doubtful of whether he has the ability to give evidence for them in a manner demonstating competence in physics, and the mathematical tools required.

However, some (by no means a majority) of the posts in this thread have been delivered in a sneering and unpleasant way which adds nothing to the debate. It is a matter of the way in which some chose to deliver their critique. As I said, it is most probably within the rules, but I hope we can keep this thread as civilised as possible.