Re: Big Bang -- Maths

Tony Hollick (
Thu, 20 Nov 97 18:19 GMT0


My friend jrt@cix wrote to me, after reading my comments to Carl
Feynman, sayiong that he thought my dismissal of overly mathematical
treatments of physics was a bit cavalier, and might make it more
difficult for people to understand what I aim to get across.

It may assist understanding to think about RM like this:

[A] Take Classical Mechanics: (Start with T.W.B. Kibble's fine text):
[B] Add relational electric and magnetic and gravitational forces:
[C] Add a velocity of force propagation ('c'), which delays far-action:
[D] Add a full ballistic ('particle' or 'photon') theory of EM radiation.

The _basic_ maths is straightforward, although some of the force
interactions are fiendishly complex to calculate. That's why we use
(say) statistically-based approximation methods like Quantum

There _is_ a long-standing rivalry between the 'world-picture'
approach to physics (i.e. my preference); and the instrumentalist
reified' mathematical approach.

However, my basic thesis is identical to Heisenberg's statement:

"Classical Mechanics is everywhere exatly 'right' wherever its
concepts can be applied." -- Werner Heisenberg.

I propose that that means _everywhere_. Classical Mechanics is the
most consistent, conceptually clearest, strongest, most coherent,
most extendable and most adaptable Scientific Research Programme the
world has ever seen. Why use anything else, is all. "Simplify!

I think it's actually _true_.

It is certainly exactly accurate to the present limits of
measurement, AFAICS. What more can anyone ask for?

----------- * * * * * -----------


On 'Frame Dragging.' Insofar as gravitational force is propagated
radially as an intrinsic property of mass, and with a finite
velocity, we would expect something like 'frame dragging' to occur.
Different ways of interpreting the same data, is all.

------------------- * * * * * ---------------


Electrons held in orbit by a balance of electric force against
inertia are in a condition which is analogous to 'free fall.' They're
not accelerating in a way which causes emission of photons. The
radial distance between the positive and negative charges is
_constant_, except for the periodic frequency fluctuation as they
wiggle round in circular sinewave paths at self-equilibrating integer
frequencies (See Beckmann).

If they absorb or emit a photon, they increase or decrease in mass,
and the orbit adjusts. If they change theior angular velocity, they
take up different orbits. The model works perfectly. Bohr's basic
[1913] model works by ad hoc postulates, whereby I offer physical
mechanisms and hence physical explanations. That makes RM a superior
theory! More content! What's the problem supposed to be?

All this 'electrons spiralling into the nucleus' stuff -- this is a
hangover from aether-drag theory. There's no point in quoting
Maxwell at us -- Maxwell's theory has a (non-existent) aether to
transmit forces, whereas RM has relational -- Faradayan -- aetherless
forces. See Berkson's 'Fields of Force' on this crucial point (he
was a postgrad student of Popper's at LSE, BTW).

/ /\ \

Tony Hollick, LightSmith (LA-Agora Conference) (Agora Home Page, Rainbow Bridge Foundation) (NorthWest Coalition Against Malicious Harrassment)