Are you familiar with Kilmer?
The real genius?
No, not Val Kilmer.
I mean C.H. Kilmer.
Historian, genealogist, metaphysician, and cosmologist (polymath?) C.H. Kilmer. He lived in Mecklenburg New York (flourished c. 1897-c. 1915), wrote a genealogy of the Kilmer family, was a reverend, and wrote a brilliant letter to the editor of The New York Times. I don't know anything about him other than that.
I'm stealing my book title from him (although I came up with it before I was aware he existed): The Myth of Gravitation.
"Magnetism is possessed by the whole mass of the earth and universe of heavenly bodies, and is an essence of known demonstration and laws. By adopting it we have the advantage over the gravity theory by the use of the polar relation to magnetism. A magnetic north pole presented to a magnetic south pole, or a south pole to a north pole, attracts, while a north pole to another north pole or a south pole to another repels. This gives to us a better reason than gravitation can for the elliptical orbit of the planets instead of the circular. It also gives us some light on the mystery of the tides, the philosophy of which the profoundest study has not solved [See Darwin, Velikovsky, and McCarthy quotes at sidebar]. Certain facts are apparent; but for the explanation of the true theory such men as Laplace and Newton, and others more recent, have labored in vain." -- C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915
"Since Newton announced his universal law of gravitation, scientists have accepted and educators taught it, and rarely has it been questioned. Occasionally one has the temerity to say that gravitation is a myth, an invented word to cover scientific ignorance." -- C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
29 comments:
What was Henry Cavendish measuring during his famous experiment back in the 1790's? Magnetism?
http://www.answers.com/topic/cavendish-experiment
Are you saying that if you replaced the 348 pound lead balls with 348 pound balls of some nonmetallic substance (e.g., wood) the experiment wouldn't work?
Hi Tom,
Welcome.
In response to: "What was Henry Cavendish measuring during his famous experiment back in the 1790's? Magnetism?"
The correct answer is he was trying to "weigh" the Earth and determine it's density.
My question to Cavendish (and to you) is how does one define mass and how does one determine it?
In response to: "Are you saying that if you replaced the 348 pound lead balls with 348 pound balls of some nonmetallic substance (e.g., wood) the experiment wouldn't work?"
No. The equality of fall rates is an observation that was well known by Lucretius, and therefore one must also assume Epikouros, Demokritos, and Leukippos before him.
The equality of fall rates is a property of so-called "gravity."
If we define so-called "gravity" as "that which causes objects to fall" then certainly it is real.
However, there is a conceptual and scientific distinction between "gravity" and "gravitation."
As I said if "gravity" is simply the observation that some objects fall to the ground then there is no denying it, whereas gravitation is something entirely different.
Newton's so-called Theory or Law of Universal Gravitation says that masses are attracted to one another inversely proportional to their distance which is utterly absurd.
Lol....I've done that before.
Cool, I didn't know you're writing a book!! Hope it works out!!
Wait, how are people supposed to know you're credible? You're not a professional physicist are you?
Well, good luck OilIsMastery.
BTW- Weigh the Earth? How can you weigh the Earth?
Lewis,
"Wait, how are people supposed to know you're credible?"
An excellent question by which I take you to mean, 'what are your credentials and what will cause people to take you seriously and read your book?'
I believe that the work will speak for itself and if it has merit my credentials will be totally irrelevant.
However, my intention is to pursue academics further in order to have the appearance of being credible since academic credentials are all about appearances and little about actual wisdom.
"You're not a professional physicist are you?"
No. Do you honestly think a professional physicist would say some of the things I say? Hehe.
"Well, good luck OilIsMastery."
Thx.
"BTW- Weigh the Earth? How can you weigh the Earth?"
An excellent question. I say it is impossible to weigh the Earth and no one has ever done so, though many have tried in vain.
"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." -- Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1908
"The correct answer is he was trying to "weigh" the Earth and determine it's density."
Perhaps I need to rephrase that question. When Canvendish noticed a slight deflection in his torsion balance was he detecting a magnetic effect?
"My question to Cavendish (and to you) is how does one define mass and how does one determine it?
Well, that opens a big can of worms. There are two basic ways:
1.) Inertial - exert a known force on an object and then measure its acceleration. Divide force by acceleration and there's your mass (Newton's 2nd Law).
2.) Gravitational - measure the deflection in a spring scale in a standard gravitational field (typically the earth's surface). Mass is calibrated with weight in such a standard field.
Of course you reject method 2. I'm not sure what you have to say about method 1.
"If we define so-called "gravity" as "that which causes objects to fall" then certainly it is real."
That's refreshing to hear. Your reputation is that you deny gravity's existence.
"Newton's so-called Theory or Law of Universal Gravitation says that masses are attracted to one another inversely proportional to their distance which is utterly absurd."
If you double the distance between the lead balls in the Cavendish experiment then the deflection of the torsion balance should be reduced by one fourth. Are you saying this hasn't been measured?
This URL contains a modern version of the famous Cavendish experiment involving lasers. The gravitational constant G was measured to be 6.3E-11 newton-m^2/kg^2.
http://www.wooster.edu/physics/jrIS/Files/Chinchilla_web_article.pdf
Tom,
In response to: "When Canvendish noticed a slight deflection in his torsion balance was he detecting a magnetic effect?"
You might be able to determine this by performing the Cavendish experiment in a Faraday cage.
"exert a known force on an object"
What force would that be? One of the 4 so-called "known" forces? The electromagnetic force perhaps?
"then measure its acceleration"
How is acceleration measured? How do you measure an objects speed? How do you know if an object is in motion or at rest? Are there such things as absolute motion and absolute rest? Can absolute motion and rest be determined and if so with respect to what absolute Cartesian or Minkowskian coordinate system? Is there such a thing as absolute space? If space is a material object, then where is it? It too must be in space, and so on, ad infinitum.
"If you double the distance between the lead balls in the Cavendish experiment then the deflection of the torsion balance should be reduced by one fourth. Are you saying this hasn't been measured?"
If it was measured, to my knowledge it was not done in a Faraday cage.
"This URL contains a modern version of the famous Cavendish experiment involving lasers. The gravitational constant G was measured to be 6.3E-11 newton-m^2/kg^2."
Here, here, and here you will find varying values of G all of which conflict with one another and none of which were performed in a Faraday cage.
Tom,
It seems I misunderstood one of your earlier questions.
In response to: "Are you saying that if you replaced the 348 pound lead balls with 348 pound balls of some nonmetallic substance (e.g., wood) the experiment wouldn't work?"
No. Wood has electrons too.
Can I tiptoe into the conversation?
My focus regarding gravity revolves around the idea that the force of gravity is 'intrinsic' to matter, itself.
It would seem that particle physics should be able to shed the most light on the nature of gravity.
But because General Relativity has preempted that investigation by stating gravity is a function of the relationships of matter, space, and time, particle physics has instead turned toward finding smaller and smaller particles.
That's fine.
But if a Unified theory of the "Four Fundamental Forces' is to be discovered, leaving gravity in the hands of General Relativity is counter-productive.
Particle physics as expressed by Quantum Mechanics is incompatible with General Relativity.
Perhaps, particle physics would see it's greatest advance if it was able to explain gravity in terms of the 'intrinsic' properties of matter.
Anaconda,
"leaving gravity in the hands of General Relativity is counter-productive."
To say the least...=)
"Particle physics as expressed by Quantum Mechanics is incompatible with General Relativity."
Quantum gravity is an absolute myth.
"An atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity." -- Bertrand Russell, physicist/philosopher, 1924
@ OilIsMastery:
To be honest I don't understand the concept of Quantum Gravity.
To the extent that Quantum Mechanics uses probability theory as an approximation of location, say of an electron, as if the electron has a specific location in the orbit, I can see that, but some of the other aspects of Quantum Mechanics I have problems with.
The Bertrand Russel quote is intriquing because it possibly suggests that the orbits of planets should be treated no different than the orbits of electrons around the nucleus.
Or is Russell simply making a statement of observation?
A general comment: All physical experiments we do, at the surface of the earth, are done within the earth's electric field that has a quite background value of about 100 Volts per vertical meter.
Also these experiments are done in the earth's geomagnetic field, so this makes 2 EM fields we need to be aware of.
If either of the two fields are constant during an experiment, then the experimental data have one sense of utility.
If either of the fields change during the experiment, then the experiment might produce, what we call erroneous, data.
If you are not aware of these EM fields, then your, to you, scientific explanations, are incomplete.
Quantum: "To be honest I don't understand the concept of Quantum Gravity."
Good, that means it's BS.
Totally off thread, would you be interested in writing an essay on Charles Lyell and how his religious beliefs affected his science?
I am editor of the Aus.Inst. Of geoscientists Newsletter, and always on the look out for provocations.
I've appreciated your previous effort on this topic here, hence the request.
Earth's magnetic field is very weak and can't be invoked as a source of anything with sufficient mass staying in orbit (although, small ionized material is affected by a combination of both the magnetic field and gravitation). Also, magnetic fields don't explain the existance of gravitational lagrange points or even why the gravitational field at sea level is mostly uniform at all points of equal elevation from mean sea level.
Another point of contention here is that Earth's magnetic field can't possibly explain why objects fall downward toward the center of the Earth. The magnetic field runs north and south with varying levels of incline with lattitude, you'd really be falling sideways instead of downard if gravitation were all merely the magnetic field.
I think the much missed point of quantum gravitation is that all atmospheric particles are essentially in gravitational orbit around the Earth, except that they tend to collide with each other as the mean free path limits their speed to that of sound at a given pressure and temperature. I see no problem with quantum gravity, at least the way I think it is.
@ Louis Hissink:
I appreciate your comments, and it struck me that I should look at the Wikipedia entry for Quantum Gravity (as limited as Wikipedia can be).
After reviewing the entry, I'm not any more closer to understanding Quantum Gravity than before.
Although, the discussion in the Wikipedia entry prompts some comments:
First, it would seem that it is highly theoretical. The entry, itself, admits as much, meaning there isn't any direct or reliable indirect evidence supporting the concept.
It boils down to the idea, that since Quantum Mechanics is to be believed (as I stated above, some aspects are sounder than others), and since General Relativity is to be believed (very dubious) there must be, must be, a way to reconcile the two theories.
The entry acknowledges that Quantum Mechanics is held to be incompatible with General Relativity, but goes on to state (paraphrase), "not as incompatible as some would lead you to believe."
This is a dangerous assumption to make.
Why?
Because once the imperative to reconcile two theories is announced, creative mathmeticians eventually seem to be able to find a way to make theories compatible, whether they are in reality compatible or not.
What is my reasoning for the above blasphemous assertion?
Mathematics, like almost all human reasoning starts off with assumptions. And, time after time, it has been demonstrated that mathematical equations (formula) can be constructed to fulfill those assumptions.
In other words, mathematical equations are no better than the assumptions that a mathematician takes into the exercise of finding a mathematical solution.
Again, in other words, if the mathematicians believe there is a solution, then some "creative" mathematician will eventually be able to "craft" an equation (formula) that seems to solve the problem.
Confirmational bias will raise it's ugly head.
Because even though as Galileo stated, "mathematics is the language of Nature," it is also a construct of Man, therefore, subject to all the faults of man's reasoning.
There is nothing sanctified about mathematical reasoning. Particlularly, when it is based on some all-encompassing general theory that may or may not reflect reality.
It must be stated, again, to emphasize the point: Mathematical reasoning is no more reliable than any other kind of human reasoning process.
Therefore, to the extent that both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity theory are held as all-encompassing theories, error, or creative adaptation, take your pick, will allow for assumptions to dictate outcomes.
It all goes back to the admonition that mathematics must be the servant of observation & measurement, not the master.
Observation of physical relationships can be accurately and reliably quantified into mathematical relationships, but when mathematical relationships are used to justifiy assumptions of physical relationships that haven't been observed & measured error is often the result, if not always the result. Why? Because the mathematics used in the above senarios are often based on faulty assumptions.
Such is the peril of reconciling two opposing theories that are problematical in terms of reflecting reality in their own individual right.
Louis, I'd be interested in the Lyell project, I'll contact you by e-mail.
Mathematics is logic, not a form of reasoning. Mathematics takes an initial assumption and finds a result from the assumptions.
Whenever a scientific theory fails to make accurate predictions, the fault lies entirely within the initial assumptions being made, which in science is based on the experimental and observational evidence. Ergo, math is never wrong but it is the assumptions that are, or the person doing the math that messed up that is wrong. It is in scientific peer review that these errors and biases are to be removed though.
"Magnetism is possessed by the whole mass of the earth and universe of heavenly bodies, and is an essence of known demonstration and laws. By adopting it we have the advantage over the gravity theory by the use of the polar relation to magnetism. A magnetic north pole presented to a magnetic south pole, or a south pole to a north pole, attracts, while a north pole to another north pole or a south pole to another repels. This gives to us a better reason than gravitation can for the elliptical orbit of the planets instead of the circular. It also gives us some light on the mystery of the tides, the philosophy of which the profoundest study has not solved [See Darwin, Velikovsky, and McCarthy quotes at sidebar]. Certain facts are apparent; but for the explanation of the true theory such men as Laplace and Newton, and others more recent, have labored in vain." -- C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915
If that were true, then orbits about the equator would necessarily be more circular, and orbits about the poles more eccentric, but that's not true though as it doesn't fit with observation.
Quantum,
"Ergo, math is never wrong but it is the assumptions that are."
Hmm. Math is half demonstration (logic) and half assumption. If math is half assumptions then math can be wrong.
Do two parallel lines intersect?
Are the interior angles of a triangle equal to two right angles?
@ Quantum_Flux:
QF states: "Mathematics is logic, not a form of reasoning. Mathematics takes an initial assumption and finds a result from the assumptions."
Wrong, logic = reasoning.
Definitions from the dictionary:
Logic: A science that deals with principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration: The science of the principles of reasoning.
Reason (reasoning is the verb of reason): A statement offered in explanation or justification [in the root section, ratio: computation, calculate].
Okay, not identical, but very close and frankly, I suggest your statement, "math is never wrong" is why you are so reluctant to contradict scientists.
But that reasoning leads you to watching the emperor without clothes pass by and remark, "boy, don't his purple duds look grand!"
Those two rules are absolutely true under the assumption of flat plane geometry....the rules change, however, for hyperbolic or spherical geometry. If somebody assumes a spacetime that is a flat plane then parallel lines should never intersect, but a spacetime that is a spherical shell would have parallel lines that intersect.
"...rules are absolutely true under the assumption..."
Anything is absolutely true under certain assumptions.
"If somebody assumes a spacetime that is a flat plane then parallel lines should never intersect, but a spacetime that is a spherical shell would have parallel lines that intersect."
Unfortunately for mathematics and spacetime, assumption is not science. If space exists (it doesn't) it must be measured.
Space is the darkness in Meinong's jungle.
Spacetime is the fabric that holds Meinong's jungle together.
But I'm not sure how to get there to measure it.
When I measure the interior angles of a triangle I get two right angles therefore by Lobachevsky Theorem 20, General Relativity is absurd.
ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι
Q.E.D.
Yes, on a flat plane of course, how about on a sphere or a hyperbolic surface?
A sphere or surface can only exist in Euclidean "space." If a sphere or hyperbolic surface were to exist in Noneuclidean space then it is no longer a sphere or a hyperbolic surface.
Furthermore, architects and engineers have measured the interior angles of physical triangles and determined them to have interior angles equal to two right angles. Therefore by Lobachevsky Theorem 20, Riemannian geomtery is absurd.
"Noneuclidean houses built out of equiangular bricks would be drafty." -- Eva T.H. Brann, philosopher, 1993
See here.
@OIM "You might be able to determine this by performing the Cavendish experiment in a Faraday cage."
And my prediction is that the results will be the same with or without the Faraday cage. What is your prediction and do you care to wager any money on it?
Tom,
I predict that the result will not be the same and that even if it were the same it would not rule out the fact that all interia is electromagnetic in origin.
Would I bet money on it? Sure, why not?
@OIM "I predict that the result will not be the same and that even if it were the same it would not rule out the fact that all interia is electromagnetic in origin."
O.K. So are you saying the result of such an experiment has no bearing on the correctness of your theory?
Is your theory falsifiable? If so what experimental results would falsify it?
Concerning the Cavendish experiment in a Faraday cage I'd love to see that. I've never actually seen the Cavendish experiment in real life. I would imagine that it's a fairly typical lab setup in physics departments at universities but I don't know for sure. If they already have it running then it should be relatively easy to put the thing in a Faraday cage. Of course you'd have to specify what you mean such as the mesh size or solid metal all the way around it.
"O.K. So are you saying the result of such an experiment has no bearing on the correctness of your theory?"
No. I'm saying it might not be possible to construct a true Faraday cage just as it is not possible to create a true vacuum.
It might not be possible to make a true Faraday cage in the presence of the Earth's geomagnetic field and positive electron holes (p-holes).
"Is your theory falsifiable? If so what experimental results would falsify it?"
Is it possible to falsify the theory of electromagnetism and electrons? I don't know. I suppose it's possible although I'm hard pressed to say how.
I've actually experienced electric currents, experienced magnets and their effects, and seen an electron.
Is it possible to falsify the truth? I suppose the Sophists and Skeptics have made a good go of it.
According to Parmenides, we should always make the weaker argument the stronger argument. According to Descartes, it is possible that we are being deceived by an evil genius. And according to Poundstone, it is possible we are a brain in a vat like The Matrix.
Post a Comment