On March 3rd, 2024, I gave a talk entitled “The Replacement of Continental Science in the Nineteenth Century.” It was presented to the Rising Tide Foundation.
I absolutely loved this presentation and the discussion afterwards. This is the precise problem that science faces right now and the reasons behind it. Great work John!
Is there a chance that ether has properties of neutrinos, in that they pass through matter without being disturb or disturbing matter. (usually detected deeply under the earth' surface.
I appreciate all the work you do. My own bulb is a bit dim in all this. But my gut tells me you are headed in the right direction. I know all the folks you mention because I have read the history of mathematics and the philosophy of mathematics. As far as the real heavy lifting sadly I can't.
I appreciate the fact that you were pointing out the symmetry of the equations. Later how the English put the European project on a siding so to speak with the advent of the British entering the area of maths and physics.
> "aether particles" are neutrinos
I note that this subject was not discussed or even that neutrinos make good start for models of the ether particles.
I very much am amazed regarding Weber and sadly never heard of him. That doesn't mean he was not mentioned in the two thick difficult books I read. Just means some how I missed him.
I look forward to more presentations like one you just presented. I follow your substack and appreciate the time you put in very much. Thank you.
Thanks for this John. I believe Laurence Hecht once said there were coercive measures taken to establish Maxwell’s electrodynamics and to stamp out opposition. Do you know what sources he might have derived that view from?
Hi Tim, thanks for the links. I did note in Footnote 1 (p.34) of "The Significance of the 1845 Gauss-Weber Correspondence":
"The mathematical development of Ampère’s hypothesis, of a force acting along the straight line connecting two elements, and certain uncritical references to Newton found in the opening pages of his 1826 Memoir, have emboldened some interpreters, Maxwell included, to falsely presume Ampère to be a Newtonian."
I really don't know how Laurence Hecht deduced that Ampère was not a Newtonian, when he explicitly claimed to be one. Here is Ampère writing to Paul Erman in 1823 [AKT Assis and JPMC Chaib, Ampere's Electrodynamics, Montreal: Apeiron, 2015, p.255]:
"Newtonian physics explains all celestial phenomena by an attraction directed along the straight line connecting the two interacting particles and the motion is a complicated result of this attraction. As regards the new [electromagnetic and electrodynamic] phenomena I make what Newton has done for celestial motions,[namely,] I explain them by attractive and repulsive forces."
John, thanks for this. It helped me get perspective on this issue. I have Assis and Chaib’s book on Ampere and I fully agree with you in highly recommending it. The book has lots of information that would otherwise be difficult if not impossible to find, and it is well-written to be understandable by novices like me.
Your points are well taken. I would like to clarify though that I was not contending that Faraday agreed with Ampere on everything. I just meant that I don’t see Faraday (or Newton for that matter) as part of the problem in physics as per your theme in this series. To me Faraday seems like an honest guy who admitted he didn’t understand the math and just tried to conceptualize the results of his experiments to the best of his ability. I think Maxwell went beyond Faraday in identifying Faraday’s “lines of force” with the operation of the fixed ether, but you might prove me wrong on that point. Also, I don’t know that Faraday’s view was necessarily consistent with the “local action” theory as we understand it today. As described in my prior post, he seems to have accepted “action at a distance” results but tried to grasp its mechanism by hypothesizing a sort of “macro local action” in which what subatomic particles see as an object would be much larger than what we see and feel due to the electromagnetic effects and gravity surrounding matter.
I absolutely loved this presentation and the discussion afterwards. This is the precise problem that science faces right now and the reasons behind it. Great work John!
Hi John,
Is there a chance that ether has properties of neutrinos, in that they pass through matter without being disturb or disturbing matter. (usually detected deeply under the earth' surface.
Wal Thornhill, among others, proposed that the "aether particles" are neutrinos. The idea merits further study.
I appreciate all the work you do. My own bulb is a bit dim in all this. But my gut tells me you are headed in the right direction. I know all the folks you mention because I have read the history of mathematics and the philosophy of mathematics. As far as the real heavy lifting sadly I can't.
I appreciate the fact that you were pointing out the symmetry of the equations. Later how the English put the European project on a siding so to speak with the advent of the British entering the area of maths and physics.
> "aether particles" are neutrinos
I note that this subject was not discussed or even that neutrinos make good start for models of the ether particles.
I very much am amazed regarding Weber and sadly never heard of him. That doesn't mean he was not mentioned in the two thick difficult books I read. Just means some how I missed him.
I look forward to more presentations like one you just presented. I follow your substack and appreciate the time you put in very much. Thank you.
Mine is the first view on YouTube?
Folks are missing out!
Thanks for this John. I believe Laurence Hecht once said there were coercive measures taken to establish Maxwell’s electrodynamics and to stamp out opposition. Do you know what sources he might have derived that view from?
Hi Tim, I am not sure what coercive measures Laurence Hecht was referring to. Do you have a link?
Here are a couple I dug up:
http://21sci-tech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html
21sci-tech.com › Articles_2009 › Relativistic_Moon.pdf
Hi Tim, thanks for the links. I did note in Footnote 1 (p.34) of "The Significance of the 1845 Gauss-Weber Correspondence":
"The mathematical development of Ampère’s hypothesis, of a force acting along the straight line connecting two elements, and certain uncritical references to Newton found in the opening pages of his 1826 Memoir, have emboldened some interpreters, Maxwell included, to falsely presume Ampère to be a Newtonian."
I really don't know how Laurence Hecht deduced that Ampère was not a Newtonian, when he explicitly claimed to be one. Here is Ampère writing to Paul Erman in 1823 [AKT Assis and JPMC Chaib, Ampere's Electrodynamics, Montreal: Apeiron, 2015, p.255]:
"Newtonian physics explains all celestial phenomena by an attraction directed along the straight line connecting the two interacting particles and the motion is a complicated result of this attraction. As regards the new [electromagnetic and electrodynamic] phenomena I make what Newton has done for celestial motions,[namely,] I explain them by attractive and repulsive forces."
John, thanks for this. It helped me get perspective on this issue. I have Assis and Chaib’s book on Ampere and I fully agree with you in highly recommending it. The book has lots of information that would otherwise be difficult if not impossible to find, and it is well-written to be understandable by novices like me.
Your points are well taken. I would like to clarify though that I was not contending that Faraday agreed with Ampere on everything. I just meant that I don’t see Faraday (or Newton for that matter) as part of the problem in physics as per your theme in this series. To me Faraday seems like an honest guy who admitted he didn’t understand the math and just tried to conceptualize the results of his experiments to the best of his ability. I think Maxwell went beyond Faraday in identifying Faraday’s “lines of force” with the operation of the fixed ether, but you might prove me wrong on that point. Also, I don’t know that Faraday’s view was necessarily consistent with the “local action” theory as we understand it today. As described in my prior post, he seems to have accepted “action at a distance” results but tried to grasp its mechanism by hypothesizing a sort of “macro local action” in which what subatomic particles see as an object would be much larger than what we see and feel due to the electromagnetic effects and gravity surrounding matter.