Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

> bertietaylor wrote:

>> Even if he was a crackpot, I wondered why he managed to generate so
>> much hatred; after following his links with one leading to his
>> Facebook timeline I think I have found the answer.

> If you call that hatred, you don't want to see real hate.

Of course not, but this might, arguably, set a nicer definition.

That being, doing the worst one possibly can, given the constraints...

Tighter the constraints, lesser the possibility of natural human viciousness.

So Arindam being deprived of dues, made an outcast, being called names, having his intellectual property stolen is certainly better off than being burnt at the stake.

bt

On 06/04/2024 11:35, Snidely wrote:
> occam explained on 4/6/2024 :
>> On 06/04/2024 02:23, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 05/04/24 23:59, occam wrote:
>>>
>>>> My main scepticism of the 'Big Bang' theory is that it has only
>>>> occurred
>>>> once (as far as we know). Whatever the initial conditions, what is it
>>>> stopping it happening again? Imagine the interference patterns that
>>>> would result with two (or more) Big Bangs.
>>>
>>> How would we know? If it happened again, this newsgroup would no longer
>>> exist.
>>>
>>
>> Please explain.
>>
>> 13.8 billion years ago there was nothing. No mass, no energy, no time -
>> as we know it.
>>
>> Then the universe spontaneously exploded into existence through an
>> instability ('Big Bang') due to some unknown initial conditions. I
>> appreciate we _think_ we understand the first milliseconds of the
>> process. But we do not know what caused the initial spontaneous
>> explosion.
>>
>> My original question  - why have there not been other similar
>> spontaneous explosions elsewhere in the vastness of space?  By that I
>> mean parts of the unknown universe we have not yet expanded into?
>>
>> (Back to my coffee.)
>
> "why have there not been .. [in] the unknown universe?"
> Why do you speak of something not being in the unknown universe, when
> you don't know anything about the unknown universe?
>
> By the way, multiple bangs  is usually discussed by
> archaeoastrophysicists as the "many bubbles" concept, although Jerry
> will likely correct me by providing the usual term.  I think it is often
> considered one version of myriad "multiverse" conjectures.
>

The 'many bubbles' concept as I understand it is 'one bang, one
universe'. The two bubbles never interact with each other. In that sense
is of no interest to anyone, as it cannot be observed or verified and
is doomed to remain a conjecture.

Previously:
> you don't know anything about the unknown universe?

I know we are currently expanding into an unknown part of our universe.
As the horizon of our bubble extends, we know 'the beyond' exists. (Not
so with any parallel universes, which are currently only mathematical
constructs.)

bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>
> >> > Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
[-]
> >> >> >Tesla about Tesla's thoughts on relativity.
> >> >> >That was interesting!
> >>
> >> > Summary: Tesla was a brilliant scientist/engineer when young,
> >> > and a crackpot in old age.
> >>
> >> An arbitrary statement.
>
> > Yes, merely factual.
>
> Opinion is not fact.

As factual as all other well established historical facts.

> > [snip railguns]
> > Sorry, no crackpot physics discussion in AUE.
> > Take it elsewhere, where it is on topic.
>
> Tell that to Peter Moylan. He started it, and that caught my interest.
> Who are you to give orders?

What makes you think I am?
I am merely telling you what I won't do.

> >> > Another is that the sbject has to often been dealt with
> >> > by, how shall I say it, less than competent people.
> >>
> >> > Less mildly, a lot of nonsense has been written about.
> >> > Summary: Electromagnetic railguns do conserve momentum,
> >> > just like everything else.
> >>
> >> Another arbitrary statement.
>
> > Yes, merely laws of physcs.
>
> As currently understood, but all scientific laws are provisional. Change
> is the way for progress and also regress.

You misunderstood the history and philosophy of science.
Progress in science must be cumulative.
The new must encompass the old as a special case.

So if you want new laws of physics that have momentum conservation
everywhere, except for rail guns,
you must formulate new laws of physics
that explain how this comes about.

> > PS (not for discussion here)
> > Like for all perpetum mobile inventors:
> > If our resident genius wants to be taken seriously
> > he should explain what is wrong with Maxwell/Lorentz,
> > and how their equations must be modified.
> > (without coming into conflict with 150 years
> > of science and engineering experience.
>
> Does he care to be taken seriously by those he despises?

Why ask me?

Jan

Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:04:22 +1000, Peter Moylan
> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On 07/04/24 11:04, bertietaylor wrote:
> >>> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >[Arindam]
> >>>> IIRC, his physics department rejected his thesis and refused to
> >>>> grant him a Ph.D. He was probably specific about what was in the
> >>>> thesis, but that detail did not stick. I read him in some cites
> >>>> by people who might have had something to say. Kill-filing by
> >>>> eyeball.
> >>
> >> That is mean, so I followed his links and what shall I say, I am
> >> enchanted!
> >
> >Nevertheless, the people who understand physics were not enchanted.
> >There were so many holes in his "logic" that he ends up making no sense
> >at all. For a while we regarded it as a comedy act, but in the long run
> >it was just boring.
> >
> >By the way, nobody can get a PhD by designing and building a railgun,
> >although it might qualify as a good undergraduate project. A PhD
>
> The U.S. will not award a patent for a perpetual motion machine
> unless you provide a working model. I think that is an actual rule,
> but I don't remmeber a statement by an authority.

I don't think it is a rule.
It is merely a policy that the US patent office
will not even consider such paper-only applications.
(they said so long ago at a time when they were flooded
with wanabee PM inventions)

> On reading about the rail gun provided for his Ph.D., I assumed
> it was supposed to be a similar sort of demonstration. If
> momentum is not conserved, show us.

In fact there is a minor industry devoted to such experiments,
fuelled in part because NASA has a crackpot department.
(called 'advanced projects' or something like that)

They all pretend to show you just that.
It is easy to demonstrate a tiny momentum non-conservation,
if you are a careless and/or incompetent experimentator.

Search under 'reactionless drive' and terms like that,

Jan

bertietaylor <bertietaylor@novabbs.com.invalid> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
[massive snip of irrelevancies]
> > Indeed. Maxwell constructed his equations in such a way
> > that waves propagating at the speed of light do come out.
> > (because of experimental hints that this needed to be the case)
>
> Other way around.

You really need to read up on the history of the subject.
Summary: First there was electrostatics and magnetostatics.
Then Weber and Kohlrausch did a classic experiment
that showed that the speed of light comes out of comparing the two.

This started a race for a theory of electromagnetism
that would make this happen naturally,
by unifying electricity and magnetism.
Maxwell won, others (like Weber himself) failed to get it right,

Jan

occam wrote:

> I know we are currently expanding into an unknown part of our universe.
> As the horizon of our bubble extends, we know 'the beyond' exists.

Does it? Isn't the 'room' created by the expansion of our universe?

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

On 08/04/24 17:48, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> You misunderstood the history and philosophy of science. Progress in
> science must be cumulative. The new must encompass the old as a
> special case.
>
> So if you want new laws of physics that have momentum conservation
> everywhere, except for rail guns, you must formulate new laws of
> physics that explain how this comes about.

I like Larry Niven's formulation: "Changing one law of physics is like
trying to eat one peanut". I don't know whether that was original with him.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> bertietaylor <bertietaylor@novabbs.com.invalid> wrote:

>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> [massive snip of irrelevancies]
>> > Indeed. Maxwell constructed his equations in such a way
>> > that waves propagating at the speed of light do come out.
>> > (because of experimental hints that this needed to be the case)
>>
>> Other way around.

> You really need to read up on the history of the subject.

Let me give a very brief summary.

Roemer, Huyghens, Fizeau... were involved in finding the speed of the light in various ways.
By that time, they had worked out the values of electrical permittivity and magnetic permeability.
They had also worked out what are now known as Maxwell's laws.
In those laws, the two constants mentioned were present.

Maxwell combined the four laws, to get the travelling wave equation, which in a single dimension, is
a second order partial differential equation where (for the varying electric field) the rate of the rate of change of the electric field with respect to space, is the product of the two constants mentioned and also the rate of the rate of change of the electric field with respect to time. (Here I am trying to make sense of the mathematical formulas involved, that are impenetrable to the masses.)

This second order differential equation has a solution in terms of the electric field being a function of (x-vt) and (x+vt) where v is the velocity of propagation, as happens in a lossless transmission line. The electric field thus propagates in free space in two directions from the source.

Of interest is v, the velocity of propagation, if indeed light is electromagnetic wave propagation in terms of varying electric field creating a varying magnetic field, and the varying magnetic field creating a varying electric field, and so on. The velocity of propagation, purely from the measured values of the two constants, is the inverse of the square root of their products. The numerical value thus obtained matched with the best measurements of light, which proved that light was electromagnetic wave propagation. It had thus electrical characteristics, travelled as a wave, and perhaps could be generated by electrical apparatus. Which was successfully done leading us to the present world of wireless.

> Summary: First there was electrostatics and magnetostatics.

Also electromagnetics from Faraday. Why be shy about mentioning that!

> Then Weber and Kohlrausch did a classic experiment
> that showed that the speed of light comes out of comparing the two.

Unimportant as compared to the works of Faraday, Fizeau and Maxwell.

> This started a race for a theory of electromagnetism
> that would make this happen naturally,
> by unifying electricity and magnetism.
> Maxwell won, others (like Weber himself) failed to get it right,

The real winner for engineering was the one who made the first wireless transmission to prove that with electrical gadgets you could generate radio waves.

He was the Arindam of his time.

bt

> Jan

On 08/04/2024 01:10, bertietaylor wrote:
> All masses are tied together by strange invisible strings. Call them
> lines of force. Or gravitons making up the strings. A tug from motion
> has instant impact irrespective of distance but subject to the inverse
> square law. Such strings or lines of force tie us to the Sun, Moon,
> planets and stars and galaxies.

Let me get this straight. You think gravitational force is instant i.e.
faster than the speed of light?

On 08/04/2024 01:10, bertietaylor wrote:
> All masses are tied together by strange invisible strings. Call them
> lines of force. Or gravitons making up the strings. A tug from motion
> has instant impact irrespective of distance but subject to the inverse
> square law. Such strings or lines of force tie us to the Sun, Moon,
> planets and stars and galaxies.

Let me get this straight. You think gravitational force is instant i.e.
faster than the speed of light? That is what you are saying?

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:48:23 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

me >
>> The U.S. will not award a patent for a perpetual motion machine
>> unless you provide a working model. I think that is an actual rule,
>> but I don't remmeber a statement by an authority.
>
>I don't think it is a rule.
>It is merely a policy that the US patent office
>will not even consider such paper-only applications.
>(they said so long ago at a time when they were flooded
>with wanabee PM inventions)

OBaue -
Q. When is a policy just a policy and not a rule?

suggested ?
A. If a director states it as policy but it is never written down.

That imples that rules have to be written. I guess, a policy
is easier to reverse than a rule.

That does not seem very complete to me. It occurs to me that
environmental laws (for instance) may start with a statement of
general intention (policy?) which is followed by the detailed
provisions. I think courts sometimes try to consider whether the
provisions go beyond the generalities. Or maybe the detailed
provisions are left to the agency to write in regulations (rules)
and courts then consider the aptness.

Writing rules carefully requires more thought (about exceptions?)
than broad statements of policy.

--
Rich Ulrich

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 08/04/24 17:48, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > You misunderstood the history and philosophy of science. Progress in
> > science must be cumulative. The new must encompass the old as a
> > special case.
> >
> > So if you want new laws of physics that have momentum conservation
> > everywhere, except for rail guns, you must formulate new laws of
> > physics that explain how this comes about.
>
> I like Larry Niven's formulation: "Changing one law of physics is like
> trying to eat one peanut". I don't know whether that was original with him.

No idea about Niven's originality.
Layman have usually little idea of how tightly knit all of physics is.
All of classical electromagnetism for example
derives from just one formula. (as you know)
There is no way to meddle with the predicted phenomena somewhere,

Jan

Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:48:23 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> me >
> >> The U.S. will not award a patent for a perpetual motion machine
> >> unless you provide a working model. I think that is an actual rule,
> >> but I don't remmeber a statement by an authority.
> >
> >I don't think it is a rule.
> >It is merely a policy that the US patent office
> >will not even consider such paper-only applications.
> >(they said so long ago at a time when they were flooded
> >with wanabee PM inventions)
>
> OBaue -
> Q. When is a policy just a policy and not a rule?
>
> suggested ?
> A. If a director states it as policy but it is never written down.
>
> That imples that rules have to be written. I guess, a policy
> is easier to reverse than a rule.

Yes, a mater of formality.

> That does not seem very complete to me. It occurs to me that
> environmental laws (for instance) may start with a statement of
> general intention (policy?) which is followed by the detailed
> provisions. I think courts sometimes try to consider whether the
> provisions go beyond the generalities. Or maybe the detailed
> provisions are left to the agency to write in regulations (rules)
> and courts then consider the aptness.
>
> Writing rules carefully requires more thought (about exceptions?)
> than broad statements of policy.

I must confess to not knowing the details of the matter.
I also don't know wether any of this has been tested in a court of law.
What you find about it is hearsay,

Jan

bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > bertietaylor <bertietaylor@novabbs.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > [massive snip of irrelevancies]
> >> > Indeed. Maxwell constructed his equations in such a way
> >> > that waves propagating at the speed of light do come out.
> >> > (because of experimental hints that this needed to be the case)
> >>
> >> Other way around.
>
> > You really need to read up on the history of the subject.
>
> Let me give a very brief summary.
>
> Roemer, Huyghens, Fizeau... were involved in finding the speed of the
> light in various ways.

Correct.

> By that time, they had worked out the values of
> electrical permittivity and magnetic permeability. They had also worked
> out what are now known as Maxwell's laws. In those laws, the two constants
> mentioned were present.

Wrong.

> Maxwell combined the four laws, ...
[snip]

Wrong. If it was merely combining, others would have done it sooner.
Maxwell's genius was to see that there was a missing term.
[snip]

> > Summary: First there was electrostatics and magnetostatics.
>
> Also electromagnetics from Faraday. Why be shy about mentioning that!

Faraday was completely ignorant about the speed of light
being in any way connected with electromagnetic phenomena.

> > Then Weber and Kohlrausch did a classic experiment
> > that showed that the speed of light comes out of comparing the two.
>
> Unimportant as compared to the works of Faraday, Fizeau and Maxwell.

(some of) You Anglo-Saxons are as bad as the French.
Always needing finding a Brit who did all the important things.
However, the crucial experiment of Weber and Kohlrausch
cannot be ignored.
They were the first to connect light and electricity/magnetism,
and they set the stage for Maxwell.
(and others who tried but failed)

> > This started a race for a theory of electromagnetism
> > that would make this happen naturally,
> > by unifying electricity and magnetism.
> > Maxwell won, others (like Weber himself) failed to get it right,
>
> The real winner for engineering was the one who made the first wireless
> transmission to prove that with electrical gadgets you could generate
> radio waves.

Heirich Hertz was the one you want.
Just fundamental physics, no engineering involved.
(and nothing 'radio' yet)

Jan

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024, at 11:26:05, Rich Ulrich posted:
>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:48:23 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>Lodder) wrote:
>
>me >
>>> The U.S. will not award a patent for a perpetual motion machine
>>> unless you provide a working model. I think that is an actual rule,
>>> but I don't remmeber a statement by an authority.

I was a patent attorney (European, not USA), but of course instructed
many US attorneys for my clients. I'm at least ten years out of date
now. The official rules are (were?) those in the Code of Federal
Regulations, and don't include anything about PM machines explicitly.

I may even have mentioned it here in the past, that I kept such a rule
in reserve for any clients whom I suspected of overstepping the PM
barrier, before they wasted any more of my time and their money. It was
a kindness, really, but then I wasn't bound by statutory procedures.
>>
>>I don't think it is a rule.
>>It is merely a policy that the US patent office
>>will not even consider such paper-only applications.

How would they do that? They are obliged to consider every duly formed
application, before they can decide not to consider it. The only ground
for rejecting a PM application that I can think of would be a provision
within the definition of patentable inventions that excluded inventions
contrary to science, but I can't now recall any such provision; and I
doubt that the current cohort of USPTO Examiners has the scientific
credentials to argue it through a lengthy dispute. Unless they keep a
secret store of expert PM Examiners, of course.

Maybe the objection would be that of inadequate description (the
specification has to tell others how to do it).

I believe the British Patent Office had a policy of not arguing the
matter; let them have the patent, as it won't inconvenience anybody else
to be legally prevented from doing what is already impossible.

It's surely a very long time since models were permitted to be filed as
part of a US patent application. How would the application be processed
in the offices of the USPTO?

>>(they said so long ago at a time when they were flooded
>>with wanabee PM inventions)

If that's true, I'd be interested to take a look.
>
>OBaue -
>Q. When is a policy just a policy and not a rule?

"We don't do that sort of thing."

--
Paul W

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 23:13:36 +0100, Paul Wolff
<bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

Thanks for the informed and informative reply.

>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024, at 11:26:05, Rich Ulrich posted:
>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:48:23 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>>Lodder) wrote:
>>
>>me >
>>>> The U.S. will not award a patent for a perpetual motion machine
>>>> unless you provide a working model. I think that is an actual rule,
>>>> but I don't remmeber a statement by an authority.
>
>I was a patent attorney (European, not USA), but of course instructed
>many US attorneys for my clients. I'm at least ten years out of date
>now. The official rules are (were?) those in the Code of Federal
>Regulations, and don't include anything about PM machines explicitly.
>
>I may even have mentioned it here in the past, that I kept such a rule
>in reserve for any clients whom I suspected of overstepping the PM
>barrier, before they wasted any more of my time and their money. It was
>a kindness, really, but then I wasn't bound by statutory procedures.
>>>
>>>I don't think it is a rule.
>>>It is merely a policy that the US patent office
>>>will not even consider such paper-only applications.
>
>How would they do that? They are obliged to consider every duly formed
>application, before they can decide not to consider it. The only ground
>for rejecting a PM application that I can think of would be a provision
>within the definition of patentable inventions that excluded inventions
>contrary to science, but I can't now recall any such provision; and I
>doubt that the current cohort of USPTO Examiners has the scientific
>credentials to argue it through a lengthy dispute. Unless they keep a
>secret store of expert PM Examiners, of course.
>
>Maybe the objection would be that of inadequate description (the
>specification has to tell others how to do it).
>
>I believe the British Patent Office had a policy of not arguing the
>matter; let them have the patent, as it won't inconvenience anybody else
>to be legally prevented from doing what is already impossible.

Interesting perspective. Well, the US approach (assuming we
don't give the patents) prevents the inventor from soliciting
development funds while legitimately claiming to have a patent.

>
>It's surely a very long time since models were permitted to be filed as
>part of a US patent application. How would the application be processed
>in the offices of the USPTO?

Very good point. I did not think of that at all. I've heard they
get a huge number of applications.

>
>>>(they said so long ago at a time when they were flooded
>>>with wanabee PM inventions)
>
>If that's true, I'd be interested to take a look.
>>
>>OBaue -
>>Q. When is a policy just a policy and not a rule?
>
>"We don't do that sort of thing."

--
Rich Ulrich

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 23:13:36 +0100, Paul Wolff
<bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

>I was a patent attorney (European, not USA),

Just out of curiosity, what was the most outlandish device a client
brought to you for patent application? And, was it refused or
accepted?

(You may interpret "outlandish" any way you chose)

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>> > bertietaylor <bertietaylor@novabbs.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> > [massive snip of irrelevancies]
>> >> > Indeed. Maxwell constructed his equations in such a way
>> >> > that waves propagating at the speed of light do come out.
>> >> > (because of experimental hints that this needed to be the case)
>> >>
>> >> Other way around.
>>
>> > You really need to read up on the history of the subject.
>>
>> Let me give a very brief summary.
>>
>> Roemer, Huyghens, Fizeau... were involved in finding the speed of the
>> light in various ways.

> Correct.

>> By that time, they had worked out the values of
>> electrical permittivity and magnetic permeability. They had also worked
>> out what are now known as Maxwell's laws. In those laws, the two constants
>> mentioned were present.

> Wrong.

No, it is what is taught in text books.

>> Maxwell combined the four laws, ...

> Wrong. If it was merely combining, others would have done it sooner.

Any invention could have been done sooner, if others had thought of it before the inventor. Which is why dates are important, along with the publicity for the invention.

He was the first, and so, it is known as Maxwell's laws and Maxwell is given the honour of having found out that the speed of light was what is found from the known constants of electrical permittivity and magnetic permeability.

> Maxwell's genius was to see that there was a missing term.

His genius was to show how the known laws now known as Maxwell's laws can be mathematically extended (by further differentiation of the first order differential equations) and other mathematical manipulation, given in textbooks (I have Lebedev for reference) to form a second order partial differential equation whose solution for the electric field in terms of space and time, is naturally of the sinusoidal type. Or something repetitive. In other words, a travelling wave - at a given space, it varies with time; at a given time, it varies with space. Thus, electric and magnetic fields may form a travelling wave. When the constants involved for the velocity of propagation of this wave (again, as a result of varying electric and magnetic fields) matched those found of the speed of light from speed of light measurements, then one conclusion could be that light itself was a travelling electromagnetic wave.

The invention of wireless, where electrical circuits were used to send information, through space and not wires, opened up various applications in the non-visual range of frequencies, and at least showed that electricity was involved in the propagation process.
> [snip]

>> > Summary: First there was electrostatics and magnetostatics.
>>
>> Also electromagnetics from Faraday. Why be shy about mentioning that!

> Faraday was completely ignorant about the speed of light
> being in any way connected with electromagnetic phenomena.

True, but he did show that the voltage or electric field integrated over space was proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic flux, and that is a crucial input for Maxwell's theoretical extensions leading to the discovery of the electromagnetic travelling wave nature of light. Which of course, is also manifested in such phenomena as refraction, diffraction, interference, polarisation, Doppler effect...and where the speed of light varies with the dielectric of the medium.

- snip -

bt

occam wrote:

> On 08/04/2024 01:10, bertietaylor wrote:
>> All masses are tied together by strange invisible strings. Call them
>> lines of force. Or gravitons making up the strings. A tug from motion
>> has instant impact irrespective of distance but subject to the inverse
>> square law. Such strings or lines of force tie us to the Sun, Moon,
>> planets and stars and galaxies.

> Let me get this straight. You think gravitational force is instant i.e.
> faster than the speed of light?

You are going to say I am a crackpot like Arindam if I say yes? For nothing can be faster than light!

bt

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>> > bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
> [-]
>> >> >> >Tesla about Tesla's thoughts on relativity.
>> >> >> >That was interesting!
>> >>
>> >> > Summary: Tesla was a brilliant scientist/engineer when young,
>> >> > and a crackpot in old age.
>> >>
>> >> An arbitrary statement.
>>
>> > Yes, merely factual.
>>
>> Opinion is not fact.

> As factual as all other well established historical facts.

Just your opinion.

>> > [snip railguns]
>> > Sorry, no crackpot physics discussion in AUE.
>> > Take it elsewhere, where it is on topic.
>>
>> Tell that to Peter Moylan. He started it, and that caught my interest.
>> Who are you to give orders?

> What makes you think I am?
> I am merely telling you what I won't do.

You are saying "take it elsewhere" and that is an order, not a whim.
Now this a matter of english usage!

>> >> > Another is that the sbject has to often been dealt with
>> >> > by, how shall I say it, less than competent people.
>> >>
>> >> > Less mildly, a lot of nonsense has been written about.
>> >> > Summary: Electromagnetic railguns do conserve momentum,
>> >> > just like everything else.
>> >>
>> >> Another arbitrary statement.
>>
>> > Yes, merely laws of physcs.
>>
>> As currently understood, but all scientific laws are provisional. Change
>> is the way for progress and also regress.

> You misunderstood the history and philosophy of science.

Not at all.
Getting rid of old junk is essential in science. That is progress
On the other hand, good stuff can be thrown out. That is regress.

> Progress in science must be cumulative.

Generally speaking, yes. Science is not one person's property, although it can start with being so, for the scientific genius who has found something new.

There is a scientific community of like-minded people who decide what is science and what is scientific.

When that community is honest and intelligent, caring and supportive, there is progress.

When they are lazy and corrupt, cowardly and careerist, bound by institutional thinking (as in the time of Galileo) there is regress for science, with the persecution of the scientist (Again, Galileo is the star!).

Well on the whole science moves forward, progresses. Some notions simply become outdated, others are proved to be wrong, others require modification and development, some avenues of inquiry get blocked.

From time to time, there are outbursts against the academics. Libraries do get burnt down, from Alexandria to Nalanda. Then again, after many centuries, they are reborn. Much ancient wisdom gets lost. Then they have to be rediscovered.

> The new must encompass the old as a special case.

In the historical sense, to show what bungles are to be avoided, yes, certainly.

- snip -

bt

On 09/04/2024 07:42, bertietaylor wrote:
> occam wrote:
>
>> On 08/04/2024 01:10, bertietaylor wrote:
>>> All masses are tied together by strange invisible strings. Call them
>>> lines of force. Or gravitons making up the strings. A tug from motion
>>> has instant impact irrespective of distance but subject to the inverse
>>> square law. Such strings or lines of force tie us to the Sun, Moon,
>>> planets and stars and galaxies.
>
>> Let me get this straight. You think gravitational force is instant i.e.
>> faster than the speed of light?
>
> You are going to say I am a crackpot like Arindam if I say yes? For
> nothing can be faster than light!
>

You need to explain your sentence: "A tug from motion has instant impact
irrespective of distance but subject to the inverse square law."

I just want to know if this is your idea of 'string theory' or something
else?

On 05/04/2024 04:38, bertietaylor wrote:
> Quantum entanglement is the equivalent of mutual coupling, that is, how
> the state of one or all affects the state of each one.  In the quantum
> domain relating to gravitons, there is continuous such coupling
> proceeding at an instantaneous rate, for each graviton, thus accounting
> for the "action of a distance" known from even the ancient Newtonian
> electrodynamics.

Question: If we had such a thing as a 'graviton radar' we would
instantly know of the death of a star say, a 100 light-years away, yet
we would still be able to see it for another 100 years?

occam wrote:

> On 09/04/2024 07:42, bertietaylor wrote:
>> occam wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/04/2024 01:10, bertietaylor wrote:
>>>> All masses are tied together by strange invisible strings. Call them
>>>> lines of force. Or gravitons making up the strings. A tug from motion
>>>> has instant impact irrespective of distance but subject to the inverse
>>>> square law. Such strings or lines of force tie us to the Sun, Moon,
>>>> planets and stars and galaxies.
>>
>>> Let me get this straight. You think gravitational force is instant i.e.
>>> faster than the speed of light?
>>
>> You are going to say I am a crackpot like Arindam if I say yes? For
>> nothing can be faster than light!
>>

> You need to explain your sentence: "A tug from motion has instant impact
> irrespective of distance but subject to the inverse square law."

Consider a ball revolving around the hand with a string. There is the tension in the string which keeps it moving. Since the ball is revolving, the tension is scalarly constant. That tension is the same throughout.

Now consider the Earth and the Sun, or a electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom. There are effectively
strings connecting them, for their circular motion. The forces involved are constant throughout the revolutions, just like the tension in actual strings in the example above.

However the path is not entirely circular. When it deviates, there has to be an extra tug, and the tension or forces that were there, change. Throughout the string, or the invisible line of force or along the constituent gravitons. And this change is instantaneous, throughout the length of the string, or along the line of force. Like if the string breaks, the tension throughout has to become zero. Irrespective of length.

I do not know if anyone has explained all this earlier the way I have now, but yes, this may be my idea of string theory (what that really means to the theoretical physicists I have no clue!).

bt

> I just want to know if this is your idea of 'string theory' or something
> else?

After serious thinking occam wrote :
> On 06/04/2024 11:35, Snidely wrote:
>> occam explained on 4/6/2024 :
>>> On 06/04/2024 02:23, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>> On 05/04/24 23:59, occam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My main scepticism of the 'Big Bang' theory is that it has only
>>>>> occurred
>>>>> once (as far as we know). Whatever the initial conditions, what is it
>>>>> stopping it happening again? Imagine the interference patterns that
>>>>> would result with two (or more) Big Bangs.
>>>>
>>>> How would we know? If it happened again, this newsgroup would no longer
>>>> exist.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Please explain.
>>>
>>> 13.8 billion years ago there was nothing. No mass, no energy, no time -
>>> as we know it.
>>>
>>> Then the universe spontaneously exploded into existence through an
>>> instability ('Big Bang') due to some unknown initial conditions. I
>>> appreciate we _think_ we understand the first milliseconds of the
>>> process. But we do not know what caused the initial spontaneous
>>> explosion.
>>>
>>> My original question  - why have there not been other similar
>>> spontaneous explosions elsewhere in the vastness of space?  By that I
>>> mean parts of the unknown universe we have not yet expanded into?
>>>
>>> (Back to my coffee.)
>>
>> "why have there not been .. [in] the unknown universe?"
>> Why do you speak of something not being in the unknown universe, when
>> you don't know anything about the unknown universe?
>>
>> By the way, multiple bangs  is usually discussed by
>> archaeoastrophysicists as the "many bubbles" concept, although Jerry
>> will likely correct me by providing the usual term.  I think it is often
>> considered one version of myriad "multiverse" conjectures.
>>
>
>
> The 'many bubbles' concept as I understand it is 'one bang, one
> universe'. The two bubbles never interact with each other. In that sense
> is of no interest to anyone, as it cannot be observed or verified and
> is doomed to remain a conjecture.
>
> Previously:
>> you don't know anything about the unknown universe?
>
> I know we are currently expanding into an unknown part of our universe.
> As the horizon of our bubble extends, we know 'the beyond' exists.

No we don't. We see less, because the expansion takes our neighbors
further away until they are outside the boundary of what we can
observe.

> (Not
> so with any parallel universes, which are currently only mathematical
> constructs.)

Well, yes. If we could interact with them, they'd be in our universe.

/dps

--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024, at 23:02:02, Tony Cooper posted:
>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 23:13:36 +0100, Paul Wolff
><bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>I was a patent attorney (European, not USA),
>
>Just out of curiosity, what was the most outlandish device a client
>brought to you for patent application? And, was it refused or
>accepted?
>
>(You may interpret "outlandish" any way you chose)

Sorry to disappoint you, but I choose not to go there. The last thing I
want to engage in is a retrospective of my career - my ambition is not
to be encumbered by any of it any more.

If it would only stop raining this year, I have a huge stack of ancient
papers waiting to go on an equally huge bonfire.
--
Paul W