Ok, as you might guess from my email address I very much disagree that the aether was proven false, nothing of the sort. Only a static Aether was found to have evidence against it.
Secondly if you still want to know why Electric and Magnetic fields are perpendicular in an EM wave etc... then you are ignoring the fact that I have already essentially proven that magnetic fields are non-existant and only a convenient was to understand how relativistically distorted electric fields manifest. So it is like asking why I am perpendicular to that dark guy lying on the floor where I am standing by a light at night, how come we are always perpendicular when I am standing on the floor. If I have told you that it just looks like a man but it is just my shadow do you really need to keep on being curious when you now understand precisely how it comes to be that way? I can show you every example where magnetic forces arise are due to electric fields/forces that are distorted by movement that creates precisely the same force we expect and get magnetically. Quite a co-incidence. If you choose to ignore the simple logical truth that makes sense then it is likely you are really just practicing mysticism, and IMO there are plenty of real mysteries to work out, no need to create them where none exists. Electrons spin and orbit, Nucleus's spin, and distort their electric fields doing so and should create the forces that we experience with permanent magnets. Wires attract and repel in theory as experienced. On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Mauro Lacy <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05/27/2011 07:50 PM, Charles Hope wrote: > >> I suppose we are all somewhere on the conservative/crank spectrum. I think >> physics is a difficult place for novel thought because the current models >> are so excellent. Yet mysteries do remain. However I didn't know that Cooper >> pairs was one of them. >> >> >> But I see the difficulty in our communication. I take epistemic issue with >> the idea that there can be a mathematical model without true understanding. >> If we have a model, it behooves us to twist our minds into understanding >> that! There is no understanding but the use of a valid model. >> >> > > Exactly. And once you understood it, you stick with it because "it just > works". You almost never question it at the philosophical or epistemological > level. During most of the last century, there was a lot of confusion, > introduced by Relativity theory, about the concept of time, by example. > > The case of the aether is also paradigmatic: when the results of some > experiments were not the expected ones, the aether was disregarded, and > relativity theories appeared. Nobody, or almost nobody, took the time to > reflect at the philosophical level on what had happened, and as a > consequence, a lot of confusion ensued. What had happened was that the > mechanical model of the aether was found to be false by experiment. As a > replacement, purely mathematical models were quickly introduced, which > agreed with the experiments. But those models were now devoid of physical > meaning. Just the general idea of "relativity", and of "all is relative" > popped up, and stuck like a grand revelation. That happened during most of > the last century, and is still happening. > That philosophical thinking is still lacking, and it's coming from > outsiders like me, because "real scientists" are so busy trying to > understand the math first, and to apply for grants and publish later, that > they don't have time to really reflect and think. > > Philosophy was disregarded(a big mistake) in the name of results and > predictive power. The other consequence of the increasing complexity and the > quest for results was super-specialization. You have to be an expert to be > able to talk with authority and understanding about something. And when you > finally study to be an expert in one field, you cannot talk about anything > else! Moreover: you mostly lost the ability to relate and correlate > knowledge from different fields of knowledge. > > That is an unfortunate state of affairs, and we can say that a great part > of the decadence of the western culture we experience today is related to > our urge for control only from the mechanistic perspective. > > Regards, > Mauro > >
