sci.physics.electromag

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
news:frg6u2$sog$1@node1.news.atman.pl...
>
> "Benj"
> >
> > Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
> > be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
> > Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
> > theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
> > physics."
> >
> And what do you think about such like this:
> http://bourabai.narod.ru/inertia-e.htm
> S*
>
>
>
Firstly, I would like to mention that my brain is little more than a very
slightly glorified walnut.
However, "for example, the photon, having inertia (momentum and moment of
momentum(inertia?)) has no gravitational mass" has always struck me as
ludicrous. A little "I can't understand this so I must be damaged" has
helped me cope somewhat. Seeing that I am not alone in my damaged state is
comforting.
Secondly, if space is a time/continuum, that is not at same "continuous"
further damage must be assumed on my part. Foam is "not" continuous! Though
I don't doubt the reality or usefulness of quantum mechanics.
And Ben will no doubt leap at "declaring a postulate of instantaneous remote
action, violation of a principle of a causality, general for all sciences."
and rightly so I believe. Though that "belief" is contained and self
substantiated in little more than a walnut (in my case) I admit.
The following is particularly interesting.
"This mistake originates from Newton's transactions, who has introduced the
postulate of absolute empty Space, has eliminated aether, having made
inertial forces fictitious, arising as "divine" attribute of mass."
Two, or more, completely independent bodies somehow "share" an intimate
knowledge of each others inertial properties? How? What is it that
explains, or transmits, one to the other? Devine beings? Without some sort
of "continuity"(borrowed) how could this be so?
A rock can "understand" so to speak, that 3 rocks has 3 times the "weight",
"gravity", and "momentum" of itself only if rocks all "know"(so to speak)
(in the sense that they share not only a medium, but also the substance of
same medium))and therefore share the same basic componentry. How do they
know this if they are all not "tied together" within a common fluid medium
of which they themselves are actually composed? Magic?
"Actually inertia, as it was shown by Nikolay Umov [11,12], is an effect of
a causality, continuity of process of transmission of momentum and energy in
a material medium without dependence from a concrete nature of a material."
makes absolute sense to me. Walnut thinking no doubt.
The notion that completely independent masses, even quantum effects,
(without regard for string theory which in itself appears (to me) to be a
severe, and overly complicated, method of guitar tuning) have a "knowledge"
of other independent masses without a shared medium seems lost in
space/continuum, which is supposedly "magically" continuous.
The beauty of "magic" is that it just "is". But is that really science? Or
is just thinking about it rightly labeled "philosophy"? Therefore moving it
conveniently into another room where a different audience awaits
intellectual entertainment?
Well, that's half way through the link, and now it's into the math, which
requires skills that walnuts struggle with, or just don't have. The rest
I'll leave to those skilled in the field, hold my breath, and put on my flak
jacket.
You know, a blind person's description of a fridge is somewhat different to
the sighted. Often there is detail that cannot be discerned via tapping a
stick. Knowing that it "is" a fridge and that is where lunch can be found
may be adequate, but if he were to argue with a sighted person over it's
color a sighted one would have to bite ones tongue, for the sake of the
blind. I am clearly unsighted.
As English is the only language I "almost" understand, I may have
misunderstood much of what I read here. Clarifications are most welcome.
Please also consider my small and shriveled walnut before leaping to reply
:)
This link is a breath of fresh air, right or wrong. Thank you Szczepan.
Regards,
Vince