🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 14, 9:24 am, OsherD <mdocto...@ca.rr.com> wrote in sci.physics:
> From Osher Doctorow
>
> The importance of showing that gravity and electromagnetics follow
> analogous laws is not, contrary to the possible first impressions of
> Readers, to make an electromagnetic "repulsive" space flight system,
> but rather arguably to eliminate constraints on what can generate
> repulsion.  Rather than looking for some so far unknown Chaplygin Gas
> or method of curving space(-time) or trying to build some
> electromagnetic "anti-gravity" device (the latter having already
> attracted some charlatans), we arguably can view repulsion in the
> Universe as an omnipresent but so far unlocated potential repulsive
> "gravitational" or "mass" charge somewhat analogous to positive or
> negative charges in electromagnetics.  Everything in the Universe can
> arguably undergo a change in charge of this type.
>
> Almost equally important, both GR and QM appear to be heading for
> collapse as "fundamental theories", and only Sir Isaac Newton and
> Faraday/Ampere/and their colleagues of the Classical physics seem to
> survive.

If theoretical science resurrects some day, the concept of "theory"
will have to be revised and perhaps even abandoned. So istead of
comparing "Einstein's theory" and "Newton's theory" one will just
analyse and juxtapose TWO DEDUCTIVE CHAINS: one generated by
Einstein's 1905 light postulate, c'=c, and another generated by the
equation c'=c+v implied in Newton's particle model of light. If all
deductions are correct (this will be the main concern of
theoreticians), any subjectivism will be avoided and the names of
Einstein and Newton may not even be mentioned. One will just have:

1. Corollaries of the premise c'=c

2. Corollaries of the premise c'=c+v

Of course, any particular deduction may involve additional premises or
definitions but in the end at least one deductive chain will have to
be abandoned. No red herring, e.g. Newton's absolute space or
Einstein's idiotic explanations why the speed of light is both
constant and variable, will be efficient.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

> This is because the Unification of gravity and
> electromagnetism, although it has a GR translation for example in the
> work of Mashhoon (see the last few postings), seems to go back to
> Classical grounds and not to be critically dependent on GR.
>
> A further argument in this direction is Mario Rabinowitz' paper, "Is
> quantum mechanics incompatible with Newton's first law?" arXiv:
> 0705.4454 [physics.gen-ph] 4 Aug 2007, published also in Intl Journal
> of Theoretical Physics 47, 936-948 (2008).  Rabinowitz has 45 papers
> in arXiv, 2001-2008, and many of these and others have been published
> including one in Physical Review B.  To make a long story short, the
> Schrodinger Equation was constructed to reduce to Newton's law(s) in
> the limit (asymptotically), but a number of predictions of QM and
> arguably many do not give the right answer compared with classical
> Newtonian results.
>
> The First Law of Newton, which is a special case of the Second Law,
> should raise a "danger signal" when violated, because it is very
> difficult to separate Force and Causation, and Force is omnipresent in
> the macroscopic world either actually or "potentially" and very often
> both.  As with GR, if the limit or asymptotic picture doesn't reduce
> to classical "non-GR" physics, then the theory is arguably useless.
>
> This is not entirely unexpected.  Pierre De Fermat, who was born about
> 20 years before Newton, has contributed most of the underlying ideas
> of what we call today cryptography and at least half of that
> probability theory discovered by him and Pascal, not to mention number
> theory, optics, Cartesian geometry, equations of calculus, etc.  So
> why should not Sir Isaac Newton and Faraday and Ampere and their
> colleagues contribute most of the fundamentals of the mechanics/
> related and gravitation/electromagnetic physics that we use today?
>
> Osher Doctorow