Sunday, September 6, 2009

Physics: The Problem With Motion, Part II

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V

Abstract

In Part I, I claimed that the physics community’s understanding of motion is fundamentally flawed, on a par with the flat earth hypothesis. In this post, I will give a brief introduction to the two main competing theories of motion and explain why the causality of motion and the discreteness of the universe mean that Newton’s laws are incomplete.

Aristotle’s Dead Baby

Greek philosopher Aristotle was a fervent believer in cause and effect. He maintained that the natural state of matter was absolute rest and that nothing can move unless it is caused to move. In other words, if an object is caused to move by a force, it will stop moving as soon as the cause is removed. Let me come right out and say that I agree 100% with Aristotle in this regard and I will explain why later. I think it is a shame that subsequent thinkers utterly failed to grok the supreme importance of causality and rejected Aristotle’s motion hypothesis mostly on the basis of the man’s propensity for crackpottery.

Aristotle was hard pressed to explain why an arrow kept moving after it was released from an archer’s bow. He offered a cockamamie hypothesis according to which the arrow created a trailing vacuum that pushed it in its direction of travel. He should have kept his mouth shut and admitted that he had no understanding of the actual causal mechanism of movement. I guess that, given the state of knowledge in his day, the man can be forgiven for venturing a made up explanation, especially since nobody at the time could muster a convincing refutation. Needless to say, this and Aristotle’s strange explanations of other natural phenomena did not work in his favor in the eyes of future generations. So out the window, it was, with the bathwater and Aristotle’s baby!

Newton’s Other Principle

Centuries later along came Sir Isaac Newton who declared that a body at rest will remain at rest and a body in motion will remain in motion with constant speed in a straight line, as long as no unbalanced force acts on it. Newton’s ideas were wildly successful and it did not take long for physicists and philosophers to completely abandon Aristotle’s causal theory of motion. The current scientific doctrine is that Newton’s laws of motion destroyed Aristotelian logic and that a body in inertial motion stays in motion for no reason at all, as if by magic. Yep, physicists do believe in magic even if they claim otherwise. Of course, this is all hogwash because Newton was just as fanatical about causality as Aristotle. Some have mistakenly argued that Newton’s laws of motion deny causality but the fact is that he never believed that moving bodies remain in motion for no reason. The proof of this can be found in Optiks, in which Newton clearly indicated that he believed that a principle other than inertia was necessary to keep a body in motion:
The vis inertiae [i.e., inertia] is a passive principle by which bodies persist in their motion or rest, receive motion in proportion to the force impressing it, and resist as much as they are resisted. By this principle alone there never could be any motion in the world. Some other principle was necessary for putting bodies in motion; and now they are in motion, some other principle is necessary for conserving motion.
This is powerful stuff. This is one of the reasons that Sir Isaac is not known as the father of modern physics for just grins and giggles. The man was a thinker. Unfortunately, Newton never described the other principle, the one that conserves the motion of a moving body. His sole explanation, as far as I can tell, was to assert that God was the universal mover. Even Christians should recognize this as a rather weak argument. I suspect that this was Newton’s way of acknowledging that he did not understand everything about motion. It would have been nicer if he had taken a more down to earth approach or just adopted the same stance that he took with regard to the cause of gravity: Hypotheses, non fingo. But it seems strange that he would mention this other principle only in Optiks and not in Principia, and almost as an afterthought, mind you, as if the entire subject was somehow taboo.

I think that, even though Newton understood enough about the subject to realize that some other principle (cause) was required to keep a body in motion, he was handicapped by his failure to fully grasp the causality of motion at the fundamental level. Above all, Newton was betrayed by his tacit belief in continuity, another one of my pet peeves. That’s too bad, as I’m sure he would have loved to know the real answer. I’ll have more to say about that silly notion of continuity later.

[Addendum 9/17/2009]

I now realize that Newton’s language leaves the quoted passage above somewhat open to interpretation. He did not specifically write “some principle other than the vis inertiae is necessary for conserving motion." I think it's possible that Newton had meant the opposite. Still, I think that calling inertia a "passive principle" does not immediately bring "causal principle" to mind. Why? Because something that is passive is reactive as opposed to active. A reaction is an effect rather than a cause. One would think that an active principle is required to conserve (maintain?) motion.

If I'm wrong about Newton (very slight probability), it still feels good to imagine that he might have understood, way back then, that motion, like everything else, was a causal phenomenon. And why not? Aristotle had understood it centuries before that.

Albert Einstein

Early in the last century, Albert Einstein made his mark on physics with the publication of his Special and General Relativity theories. However, good old Albert had nothing really interesting to add to the causality of motion debate other than the claim that nothing can move faster than light in a vacuum. It’s an interesting claim in its own right but one that is woefully incomplete and misleading. In a future post, I will show that there is, in reality, only one speed in nature: the speed of light (surprise!).

From my perspective, Einstein muddied the entire subject by equating reality with what is observed and using that false premise to claim that only relative motion and position exist in nature. This is another one of those things that brings to my mind visions of Zatoichi, the blind Japanese swordmaster (see Part I). I am not going to repeat my critique here but the relativist’s denial of the existence of absolute motion is one that is easily refuted with simple logic that even children can understand. Please read my arguments against the relativity of motion, if you’re interested.

Discrete Universe

A correct understanding of motion is impossible unless one first realizes that nature is discrete. Why is nature discrete? Simply because continuity, the opposite of discreteness, leads to an infinite regress. I realize that there are those of the math persuasion who choose to disagree but I don’t care. From my perspective, the discreteness of nature is beyond argumentation. The concept of continuity (a.k.a. infinite divisibility) is one of the things that I call “chicken shit physics”. As physicist Wolfgang Pauli would put it, it is not even wrong. As with acausal motion, its fallacy is on a par with the flat earth hypothesis.

It is certain that Newton’s laws of motion are inadequate to fully explain motion and that physicists have no clue as to what keeps a moving body in motion. Their minds are irreparably poisoned by the belief in continuity that was impressed upon them at an early age. Continuity is as dumb as it gets. It's a religion of cretins, in my opinion. Even Einstein who built his entire career on continuity, had his doubts about it. In 1954, not long before he died, he wrote to his friend Besso: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (From: "Subtle is the Lord" by Abraham Pais.)

That the concept lasted so long is proof that scientists are just as dogmatic about their beliefs as religious folks, probably even more so since they consider themselves to be the voices of reason. Paul Feyerabend was right when he wrote in Against Method that "the most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence."

Jumps

Discreteness implies that the observed motion of a particle, regardless of how smooth we think it is, actually consists of a series of minute jumps. In Part III, I will explain how Newton’s laws of motion can be extended or modified to incorporate discrete motion at the microscopic level and why the causality of motion means that we are swimming in an enormous ocean of highly energetic particles.

See Also:

The Scientific Revolution and Contemporary Discourse on Faith and Reason
More Nasty Little Truths About Physics

44 comments:

Matthew B. Richards said...

"That the concept lasted so long is proof that scientists are just as dogmatic about their beliefs as religious folks, probably even more so since they consider themselves the voices of reason."

So true! People sure love self parody.

I'm really hooked now since you've talked up an alternative to continuity for the last two articles.

Canticle said...

How refreshing.
And I hope I can now provide you with some unequivocal evidence on a few of your key points.
Check out the Templeton Foundations 2009 essay competition where I've just had an entry accepted 'Perfect Symmetry'. It's a compressed intro to an article you'll find attached to post 4 below it. (I could also do with some public 'rating' votes!).
Post your thoughts.

Peter Jackson

Muys said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Muys said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Muys said...

Continuity exists in her approach. There is an interaction between the discrete and the continue wich results in the approach of the continue. For instance, the acts of the players in an movie are continue but the movie itself is a serie of discrete images. Because of the speed of the discrete projection and our slow perception we approach the original continuity. So continuity in movies is our vague perception of the discretion. Or, the discrete is the approach of the continuity.
When you say, like Louis does, that continuity doesn’t exists, that even our natural acts are always steps or images, that events in nature are always bumps and intervals, you cannot deny that you approach contuinity, so you need to have any idea of continuity. Perhaps Louis and Einstein have no idea, which tells us something about them and not about continuity

Mark O'Neill said...

"From my perspective, Einstein muddied the entire subject by equating reality with what is observed"

Erm, as opposed to what, exactly? That's what reality is. You can live on in your own world if you want, but don't expect to be able to do anything useful with it or to explain reality in any vaguely accurate way. If you can't observe something (by which, I mean infer its existence based on evidence of some kind), then it is not real. That is a perfectly suitable definition of reality.

I was going to read your entire article, but it's a waste of time. I know you seem to take some pride in calling yourself a "crackpot". After all, what that implies is that the way that you are thinking is fundamentally different to everyone else. By taking on the title of a crackpot, you can claim that you are the only sane one, and that would be a perfectly logical conclusion with no contradictions. However, you are not a crackpot. You are a much more common type of person known as an idiot. You ignore the logic of certain arguments, don't even realise when you are making significant assumptions, and put arguments which are easy to break down as being the universal "voice of physics". I won't spend long, but let me give you some pointers:

That inertial bodies continue to move because nothing stops them from moving IS AN ASSUMPTION. It is not magic, but there must be some basic assumptions made if one is to build up a complete model of how the universe works. Check out the axioms of mathematics: mathematicians accept that things like the law of trichotomy must be assumed and not proven, because it is impossible to build up a system based on logic alone.

The irony of your article is that you make assumptions, are extremely dogmatic about them (in the face of evidence provided against them) and then scold physicists for making assumptions based on experimentally provable theory! Why does something have to be pushed to move? Why do you somehow have the power to assert that this is the one true way that the universe can function? This is a HUGE assumption; one with weighty consequences (which are not observed) and it conflicts with the relativistic view (not necessarily Einstein's - Gallileo's relativity) of the world, which is backed by the evidence of, well, everything.

You need to do a lot more thinking about just what the universe CAN be. You have imagined a universe which possibly could be self-consistent and sustainable, but it is by no means the only one possible, and clearly not the one in which we live. What physicists do is take the evidence they can get and
build models for the universe based on that. The reason people don't think as you do is that they have considered it, and, since it is incorrect based on things we can see, rejected it.

I suggest you do the same. However, I know you are dogmatic enough to take these ideas with you to the grave.

Russell said...

Pathetic.

Why would something stop moving if it takes no energy? A rock isn't sentient, so what is keeping them moving through space?

If there is no force in the opposite direction, there is no reason for the velocity to change. Go back to the 1500's if you can't take the time to demonstrate this for yourself.

Nathan Weyer said...

Ok.. so far your argument seems to come down to "I am assuming XYZ because it is obvious, and other people do not assume this because they have been brainwashed!"

Your keystone, discreteness, is based purely off what you want to believe, and every argument that follows fails because of this initial requirement.

Scott said...

wow, this article was so well written i changed my entire belief system. i used to believe in conservation of energy, f = ma, and that the universe isn't on an x-y-z Euclidian grid.

the way you said newton believed that god kept bodies in motion and not conservation of energy is what got me, because i am an atheist and therefore disbelieve anything remotely related to god.

you are right, scientists are MORE devoted to their dogma than ultra conservative religious bible thumping nutjobs. except our dogma is called evidence. a natural phenomenon was observed, a governing principle hypothesized, and this hypothesis tested until it became theory. it is the scientific god damn method, that is my religion. it is slow to change because tangible evidence has to be submitted that significantly supports established theory needing to be amended, but it will change if the above process is followed to produce repeatable results.

95311 said...

I see what the author is saying, and what the commenters are saying, and like what one of the commenters posted, it all comes down to the definition of reality. Everyone has slightly different views of reality, mainly because of our brain chemistry, and how events are interpreted differently from person to person. According to what I have just posted, there is therefore no "real" answer to anything, because even a "right" answer can be interpreted as a "wrong" answer, and vice versa.

The only way that science can develop (or anything for that matter) is to take a concept, present it to the world, and hope that enough people believe it to be true so as to label you as "full of shit". Hell, if humanity were to create a vessel that could travel at light speed, and then bulid a time machine, travel to the 1500's and present their creations and the principles used to create the machines, then most likely these people would be thrown in a mental institution and labled as "crazy". Hell, that might even happen in our time, in an age of "enlighenment".

What am I trying to say here? I will leave it to whoever reads this post to decide who I am defending, or of I am defending anyone at all.

Everything is so damned ambiguous.

Bill said...

I have been reading your essays and I am reading also all the commenters. I am still keeping an open mind and trying to understand your point of view. But such as Nikola Tesla, Leanardo DaVinci, and many other great minds; they were all thinking ahead of their time. I will not make a conclusion hjust yet but I do believe that you may be possibly thinking ahead of our current understanding. Humans are reluctant to change. Both you and I know this, it takes a sever punch in the face to get someone to consider an alternative. Humans are comfortable with what they know and are familiar with, they hate the unknown and so therfore fear it. I am not calling you a crackpot nor brilliant. I reserve my judgment still.

Nathan Weyer said...

@95311

Perhaps from a PR perspective, or an outside science perspective,.. but when it comes down to it, reality really does not care what we do or think. The universe does not adjust to our expectations of it.

As for your example. There is always the phrase 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. If today, we built a ship that could go faster then light and travel in time, took it back to the 1500s.. yes, the people alone would be mocked and called insane. If they demonstrate the ship and show its abilities, then they would not be.

Same with today. If you claim something extraordinary but refuse to back it up, people call you a crackpot. If you can back up your claim with repeatable experiments, people listen. It is how science self corrects and moves forward. Models and theories that work get vetted and accepted. Ones that do not get dropped.

Unless the OP puts together some predictions and experiments to demonstrate why core pieces of physics are incorrect, such ideas will not gain traction since they add nothing to advancement.

scott said...

Where do you get your drugs? I could use some of the stuff you're taking.

Mike said...

Science is not dogmatic. Sometimes individual scientists are dogmatic, but the process of science is not.

When accused of being a fundamentalist evolutionist, Richard Dawkins states that a fundamentalist Christian will believe the story Bible despite the existence of proof that it is wrong, whereas he can clearly define what sort of proof would alter his belief in evolution, "fossil rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian" he says.

If you want to prove science wrong, then prove that momentum is not conserved. Show us some situation, any situation, in which momentum is not conserved, and you will change science. Show us a fossil rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian.

Or you can keep spouting off Aristotle or quoting crackpot things that Newton said (trust me there is no shortage of crackpot Newton quotes). But your quotes and tortured logic will do nothing but lead us to the conclusion that you are a nutter. So perhaps I should be more succinct.

Put up, or shut up.

Louis Savain said...

Mike,

You're a funny man even though you're an anonymous coward. Of course, science is not dogmatic. I love science. The scientific community, on the other hand, is worse than dogmatic. It is filled to the rim with a bunch of condescending, pompous, self-righteous assholes. Dawkins is a perfect example. He is orders of magnitude worse than the fundamentalist Christians that he hates so much and use as a strawman. I crap in his and your general direction.

I have neither the need nor the desire to put up or shut up for your sake or that of the scientific community. You and they can kiss my ass. How about that?

Mark O'Neill said...

No, Louis, he's right. Science is all about proof, and if you can't provide some evidence of the truth of the things you're saying or some proof that the current "dogmatic" scientists are wrong, then you aren't saying anything constructive. He may be rude about it, but Mike is absolutely correct, and that is what's important. Clearly, however, truth isn't what you're after.

Think about it, now, all of the major scientific revolutions have been based on reason and evidence which contradicts the general wisdom. Provide this evidence, and I will hail you as the new Newton or Einstein; the saviour of science.

Louis Savain said...

Mark O'Neill,

The fact that we are moving in an immense lattice of energetic particles can be deduced by applying the simple logic of causality to motion. I don't need to show proof for that. It's self-evident.

That we can tap into the sea of energy for propulsion is my main claim. The proof will come on my terms and when I am ready, not because some asshole with an internet account asks for it.

Clearly, however, truth isn't what you're after.

If you know that, why do you read my blog? Why do you even spend the time to write a comment? There are tons of other blogs out that are not after the truth. Why don't you go after them instead?

The fact is that every effect must have a cause and that motion consists of a series of effects that require a cause. It's a simple extrapolation to conclude that we are immersed in a sea of energy.

If you or Mike or anybody else in the physics community and eleswhere cannot grasp something that is so simple, I can only conclude that you are stupid to the core. It's either that or you're a bunch of gutless ass kissers.

Mark O'Neill said...

All I will say is that you are using a computer. Think of the dependence that its creation has on current physics, of which the things you deny without evidence (I'm not even going to START on why what you said isn't a proof) are the absolute backbone.

I will also cancel my subscription to these comments and never visit your site again, if that is your wish - or if it is not. Good day

Louis Savain said...

Mark O'Neill,

I will also cancel my subscription to these comments and never visit your site again, if that is your wish - or if it is not.

By all means.

Nuki said...

Can you use your theory to predict the motion of anything?Can you show that your model is consistent with observation? That is all that is needed to prove that your theory has merrit. Newtonian mechanics is a simple theory that predicts the behavior of the vast majority of the things we observe, everything from an arrow flying to planetary orbits. We were able to land people on the moon using Newtonian physics. That is an impressive accomplishment for a mathematically simple theory. General relativity went even farther and accurately predicts behavior that that Newtonian models don't get quite right and we rarely observe, like what happens when you travel near the speed of light (relative to something else). Again a hugely impressive accomplishment. Does your theory do better than this?

Nymphys said...

You provide no observable evidence, and resort to insulting anyone who can prove you wrong. You're no better than Gene Ray. The main proof of your theory is ridiculing detractors. Unfortunately, your ability to call people "idiots" and "cretins", or telling them to "kiss your ass" will not only never prove anything you have to say, but only serve to demonstrate your complete lack of intellecutal maturity. In other words, no matter how much you believe you are correct, you're not actually smart enough to realise you're not. You have never, and will never, contribute anything positive to humanity. Try and rejoin what remains of your life - it will have meant nothing.

Louis Savain said...

Nymphys,

LOL. You should sign you real name and affiliation to your comments so as to make them more authentic. They don't mean much otherwise.

The Rat said...


The fact that we are moving in an immense lattice of energetic particles can be deduced by applying the simple logic of causality to motion. I don't need to show proof for that. It's self-evident.


Uh huh, but it can't be shown in any physical way? I always enjoyed listening to the artsy types explain logic and deduction but I'd rather buy my car from someone who actually tested his ideas.

Daniel A. Russ said...

Louis;

I commend your bravery and being willing to stand apart from what you perceive as the fundamentally flawed scientific community - it takes nerve to self-induce isolation, and you've clearly demonstrated that you've got what it takes.

Sadly, you don't appear to understand the community that you're railing against, and I believe the following quote illustrates that quite well:
"The fact that we are moving in an immense lattice of energetic particles can be deduced by applying the simple logic of causality to motion. I don't need to show proof for that. It's self-evident."

You're not deducing anything based on empirical, verifiable evidence - you're instead providing a theory and arguing that merely by way of the theory existing that it must be true. This is not deduction, but rather induction, and this was rejected as a valid theoretical framework millenia ago. This is the very antithesis of modern science!

Scientists aren't demanding evidence because of elitism, or ivory-tower croneyism, or any other slander you might wish that it was. Rather, the idea is that anyone with suitable equipment and background can verify claims. If claims cannot be verified, if proof cannot be demonstrated, if facts cannot be understood and seen by anyone - then they are not facts, not proofs, and are instead idle claims, no more valid than those I, my younger brother, or mother might make.

I came to your blog interested in a fresh perspective, but I'm reasonably sure that all that I've found was a troll.

Louis Savain said...

Sadly, you don't appear to understand the community that you're railing against...

Oh, but I do. Scientists are political animals with a propensity for kissing each other's ass. That's why I don't write for their benefit. If you're a scientist, don't read my blog. It's not for you. Sorry.

You're not deducing anything based on empirical, verifiable evidence...

But I am. It's called motion and causality. Anybody can verify that both exist. If you can't, then you should go read someone else's blog.

Physicists, by contrast, have come up with all sorts of things that cannot be observed: virtual particles, space, spacetime, time dimension, spacetime curvature, singularities, properties that have two states simultaneously, gravitons, entities that can be both wave and point-like particles at the same time, time travel, spacetime warps, wormholes, etc. It's all unmitigated and unobservable crap but I don't see you complaining.

Daniel A. Russ said...

I'm not a scientist; I'm studying to be a rhetorician, a field that is somewhat removed from traditional science and physics in general. However, I understand the scientific method well enough to say the following:

If you're making a claim, it is your responsibility to demonstrate its veracity - not mine. Until you grasp this concept, you will never be taken seriously. I'm not complaining about other physics because, well, I'm not reading and commenting on their blog right now. I assure you, when I do, I point out whatever problems that I find, just as I am doing here. By saying, "But I am. It's called motion and causality. Anybody can verify that both exist," all that you're doing is actually avoiding saying anything concrete that isn't waxing philosophic. Rather, I, and many other commentors, are asking YOU to verify they exist and what they might mean, because YOU are claiming they do (as well as whatever conclusion follows from your claim).

You have, by the way, done a fine job of completely ignoring the central point that I made in my comment and instead used it as a platform to launch into an irrelevant tirade. Please do not think that I am so stupid as to have missed this.

Pointing the finger at the scientists you so clearly despise does absolutely nothing for your argument; you're setting up an obvious strawman so that you don't have to actually have to explain yourself, and I find that practice insults my intelligence. I'm not here to squabble over their theories, but rather I'm here because I was interested in yours - and rather than gain an adherent and enlighten me with what you so clearly believe to be the truth, you've pushed me away with your cheap tricks.

As with all arguments, simply saying, "It's clear! You can see it right there!" does not suffice as an appropriate claim or argument unless everybody can actually see it - and it seems that nobody but you can. Until you can show me in terms and language that I (and everyone else) can relate to and understand without being, well, apocryphal, then you're nothing better than a mystic throwing dust into a fire.

Louis Savain said...

Daniel Russ wrote:

you've pushed me away with your cheap tricks.

I am glad I could be of service. See you.

evonreis said...

"Unfortunately, Newton never described the other principle, the one that conserves the motion of a moving body."

The conservation of momentum ring a bell?

"The current scientific doctrine is that Newton’s laws of motion destroyed Aristotelian logic and that a body in inertial motion stays in motion for no reason at all, as if by magic. "

Champion level question begging.

And.... It only gets worse. The ironic thing is, from what little I know of quantum theory and relativity is that they are far stranger and more rebellious than your half-baked, pedestrian cellular automaton.

Louis Savain said...

The conservation of momentum ring a bell?

You're kidding me. Conservation of momentum does not keep a body in motion. It is just an abstract mathematical description of it. This would be like saying, "motion is what keeps a body in motion". What keeps a body in in motion is something physical. A force or an interaction, for example. Anything else is just puffy little words.

And.... It only gets worse. The ironic thing is, from what little I know of quantum theory and relativity is that they are far stranger and more rebellious than your half-baked, pedestrian cellular automaton.

Rebellious against what? Mainstream physics? That's a laugh. Half-baked, pedestrian cellular automaton? WTF?

Curt2004 said...

Motion is an illusion. All objects not being accelerated (by gravity, rockets, etc.) are at rest in their own frame of reference. This does not change unless some outside force changes the frame of reference.

Louis Savain said...

Curt2004,

Do you realize that a frame of reference is a human invention? Do you realize that FORs are abstract mathematical constructs and that nature could not give a rat's ass about FORs. And yet nature works.

Azathoth said...

"But I am. It's called motion and causality. Anybody can verify that both exist. If you can't, then you should go read someone else's blog."

Please tell me how to verify motion without making reference to space or time dimensions.

Troy said...

Yes Louis Savain, please enlighten us on how you can prove your claims without referring to different scientific theories that you yourself have also claim to be "crackpot."

Do you realize that the conservation of momentum is a mathematical description describing how those exact forces work on said "system."

You blatantly accuse others of not knowing basic information contained in these systems and provided "self-evidence" as fact.

It is self-evident from your blog, that you know nothing about basic understandings of physics and mathematics, yet does that mean that that self-evidence makes said comment fact....

apparently... good job disproving yourself, makes my work of disproving you a hell of a lot easier.

Sincurely,
Ignorant ass hole #17

John said...

""" Of course, science is not dogmatic. I love science. The scientific community, on the other hand, is worse than dogmatic. It is filled to the rim with a bunch of condescending, pompous, self-righteous assholes"""

If you're wondering why you have never actually gotten a reply from a real scientist other than me, it's because your naive stereotyped hate towards them makes all of your posts jokes.

I don't want to go down to your level by bashing you, because it is entirely possible that I am wrong and you are right.

However, if you ever want people like me to take you seriously, I ask that you show some thoughtfulness and respect towards the people who dedicate their lives to solving your problems.

You make the assumption that "It is filled to the rim with a bunch of condescending, pompous, self-righteous assholes" sickens me a little bit.

In any given group of people, there is a condescending, pompous, self-righteous ass-hole. However, that does not mean that everyone else in the group is.

I have met more scientists than I can ever consider counting. Out of all of them, I only ever met two people that fit this description and they both had a Ph.D in Sociology.

philxvfy said...

While I support your right to publish whatever drivel you can possibly waste server space with, that fact remains that I haven't found one verifiable prediction in this blog. Where is the experiment that will prove your rants superior to Einstein? Not here. That is the only test that matters.

Sadly, you are a crackpot.

Louis Savain said...

philxvfywrote:

Sadly, you are a crackpot.

Eat shit, whoever you are. Do you put food on my table, jackass?

Quade said...

" In 1954, not long before he died, he wrote to his friend Besso: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (From: "Subtle is the Lord" by Abraham Pais.)"

Are you sure this wasn't a reference to Einstein's later ambition to discover a Unified Field Theory?

Unknown said...

"The vis inertiae [i.e., inertia] is a passive principle by which bodies persist in their motion or rest, receive motion in proportion to the force impressing it, and resist as much as they are resisted." - Newton

"I think that, even though Newton understood enough about the subject to realize that some other principle (cause) was required to keep a body in motion..." - RSN

You may have missed the whole point of inertia, and motion in general, in Newtonian physics.

Inertia IS the principle that 'keeps' a body in motion or at rest.

When a kinetic force acts upon an object(cause), it causes a change in the object's motion, known as acceleration (effect). After the force has stopped acting on the object, the object maintains it's motion, due to inertia.

Here's the kicker. "Rest" and "Continuous Motion" are the same state.

To put another way, an object that is moving at a constant speed on a constant vector (and thus has no unopposed forces working on it) is effectively at Rest. Thus, the only difference between a rock sitting on the ground and a rock hurtling through space is my motion in relation to them.

Louis Savain said...

Unknown wrote:

You may have missed the whole point of inertia, and motion in general, in Newtonian physics.

I don't think so. If Newton believe that it was inertia that causes motion, I would say he was in error. But I don't think he believed that. In fact, in his private writings, Newton admitted that he could not figure it out and eventually attributed the cause of motion to God.

Inertia IS the principle that 'keeps' a body in motion or at rest.

Not at all. Inertia is but an observation, i.e., an abstract principle. It does not physically exist. The observation is this: "A body in motion remains in motion and a body at rest remains at rest...". Observations are not causes. At least, not in my physics.

Inertia is just a way of saying that a body resists changes in the magnitude and direction of its motion. That is all. Newton never said that inertia is what keeps a body in motion. It's clearly a "passive principle" as Newton called it.

When a kinetic force acts upon an object(cause), it causes a change in the object's motion, known as acceleration (effect). After the force has stopped acting on the object, the object maintains it's motion,

I have no problem with this. Indeed, I have no problems with Newton's ideas on motion. I just think his laws of motion are incomplete.

due to inertia.

Come on. That's just nonsense. See above.

Here's the kicker. "Rest" and "Continuous Motion" are the same state.

If that's what you learned in school, you should ask for your money back because your crackpot teachers lied to you. First, you say motion is caused by inertia and then you come around and say that motion and rest are the same thing. Are you a physicist? WTF?

PS. If you want to have a proper discussion with me, I suggest you identify yourself. Otherwise, don't bother replying because I will trash your comments. I have a thing against intellectual cowardice. One more thing, don't act like that you have a superior understanding of motion that I don't have. Your so-called understanding is BS, in my view.

Sean Picard said...

My email is sean9picard@gmail.com (I have fixed that 'Unknown' tag).

What is so strange is that you quote Newton where he says that inertia is what keeps a body in motion once it is moving and that it is inertia that keeps a body at rest once it is at rest. That is what the words "persist in their motion or rest" means in English.

Inertia is a property of matter, directly proportional to its mass. Experiments in weightless environments have confirmed this.

For some reason, you seem to feel that a continuous effort (an ongoing 'cause') is needed to keep a body in motion. Can you explain what 'causes' an object to continue moving after the initial force is applied, if not the object's inertia?

By the way, the only difference between an object at rest, and an object in continuous motion, is it's velocity. And velocity is relative. :)

I do believe that there is an absolute truth (whatever it is), and it appears that you do as well. At least that's one thing we appear to have in common.

- Sean Picard

Louis Savain said...

Sean Picard wrote:

What is so strange is that you quote Newton where he says that inertia is what keeps a body in motion once it is moving and that it is inertia that keeps a body at rest once it is at rest. That is what the words "persist in their motion or rest" means in English.

Not true. Newton explicitly wrote in Optiks that inertia was a passive principle. This means that it does not cause anything. Again, inertia is just the tendency of matter to resist acceleration, i.e., changes in its motion or rest.

Inertia is a property of matter, directly proportional to its mass. Experiments in weightless environments have confirmed this.

Not true. Inertia is not a property. It is an observation of the behavior of particles. Mass, energy, charge, quantum spin are physical properties of matter. Neither inertia, nor momentum, nor velocity are physical properties of matter.

And velocity is relative. :)

This is relativist propaganda nonsense. It's one of most brain-dead ideas to have come out of the Einstein era. I explain elsewhere why it is stupid.

Sean Picard said...

I checked the link, and found the opinions there to be interesting.

It seems that you're saying that the absolute position of an object is the only positional measurement that matters.

Since such an absolute position can not be measured, it would follow that any theory of motion would be impossible to verify.

Is this true, in your opinion? If not, how can one measure the motion of an object?

Oscar Garcia said...

I don't want to be that guy, but...

http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/the-ten-key-characteristics-of-nut-job-conspiracy-theorists/

FACTSANDFACTS said...

First, let's say that an "absolute" 4 dimensional environment exists. It is composed of 3 spatial dimensions, and one time dimension.

Secondly, let's say that "absolute" motion goes on within this 4D environment, and that all objects share the exact same magnitude of this absolute motion. And, if this magnitude of motion was spatial only, it would always be measured as being c, the speed of light.

Thus, all that can be changed, is the direction of travel within this absolute 4D environment. Also, rotation occurs simultaneously with this change of direction, just like a bus rotates as it changes its spatial direction of travel.

Now if you analyze the outcome of such an "Absolute" setting, you end up independently discovering Special Relativity(SR), and you also independently derive all of the SR mathematical equations.

See it for yourself at ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKAwpEetJ-Q&list=PL3zkZRUI2IyBFAowlUivFbeBh-Mq7HdoQ