Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Speciality Forums >> Science! Astronomy & Space Exploration, and Others

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
A Request to the Physicists Among Us new
      #5758697 - 03/26/13 05:23 PM

What follows are quotes from the writings of a man named Lawrence E. Jacobsen who lived in a rural Minnesota town. These comments appeared in the local newspaper in 1950 between August 31 and December 21.

I would appreciate observations and comments, general and specific to specific things he wrote.

With gratitude,

Otto


“Space and matter are the two basic principles of cosmic structure.”

“Space is substantial...it is not only a place which matter moves but a contributing factor to those movements....Space dominates all other forces in nature.”

"Time and energy have a place in the action that results from the opposition of space and matter.”

“It never seemed right to accept a self-contained universe.”

“There must be a great underlying principle that dominates and moves matter. Energy cannot be this principle because energy is a form of matter....matter cannot constitute motion nor inherently move....substantial space can be the first principle and the prime mover...”

“...directly opposite...to...space...is...matter. Matter is stressful, every particle of matter attracts every other particle...If matter were unopposed all of the parts would form a homogenous mass and would be in a passive state of rest.”

“Space is more than place, time is only natural and energy is a product rather than a principle of nature.”

“It matters little whether the universe is the size of an orange or its magnitude reckoned in light years...[either would be] relative to the observers within it.”

“Man believes energy is a principle of nature because it is beyond his senses.”

“The speed of light [is the] speed of energy transmitted through a field [and is] relative to the density of the field...a less massive volume [at the origin of the universe] would have resulted...in a total disintegration of matter.”

“Think of space as a thread...by forming a loop...dimension is added to our universe.”

“To build a universe of string...”

“Space has character and is the most solid thing in nature.”

“Without space there can be no atomic or cosmic structure.”

“Space forms the concrete material and structure [in the universe].”

Edited by Otto Piechowski (03/26/13 05:46 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: A Request to the Physicists Among Us new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5758741 - 03/26/13 05:42 PM

One comment: these statements display a very less than perfect understanding of Special and General Relativity and would require a huge amount of effort to correct. If anyone here chooses to make that effort, that's for him to decide.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: A Request to the Physicists Among Us new [Re: Joad]
      #5758806 - 03/26/13 06:24 PM

Thank you Joad.

It was my suspicion as well, as the man had no post-high school formal education, that his knowledge of relativity would be questionable.

Taking into consideration his lack of education and his comments being written in late 1950, do you see things in his comments which might represent something prescient, meaning, an insight greater than an inadequate understanding of the popular literature of the day (year) in which he lived?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: A Request to the Physicists Among Us new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5758869 - 03/26/13 06:56 PM

American democracy is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, the grasp of things like General and Special Relativity is not democratically distributable and precise accuracy is really necessary. I would not regard myself as being qualified to give a precisely accurate description of SR and GR (I once thought I was, but now I know better). And I do not think that Mr. Jacobsen has any more to offer than a testimony to what is good about American democracy: we are all free to not be able to grasp the essential details of high level physics.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ira
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 08/22/10

Loc: Mitzpe Ramon, Israel
Re: A Request to the Physicists Among Us new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5758872 - 03/26/13 06:56 PM

By themselves they are meaningless. The random jabberings of a lunatic.

/Ira


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: A Request to the Physicists Among Us new [Re: Ira]
      #5758925 - 03/26/13 07:25 PM

Is there any thing of merit in his comment, "“There must be a great underlying principle that dominates and moves matter. Energy cannot be this principle because energy is a form of matter....matter cannot constitute motion nor inherently move....substantial space can be the first principle and the prime mover...”

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: A Request to the Physicists Among Us new [Re: Ira]
      #5758927 - 03/26/13 07:28 PM

Ira, I appreciate you jumping in and sharing your thoughts about his thoughts.

Did you really mean it, when you said "lunatic"?

Might it, perhaps, be more accurate to see these comments as those of an intellectual dilettante?

Otto


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: A Request to the Physicists Among Us new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5759091 - 03/26/13 08:27 PM

For those who don't catch the reference: the allusion to a "prime mover" takes up an ancient cosmological/metaphysical principle from Aristotle, which Thomas Aquinas "Catholicized" as a prefiguration of the biblical God. So we're in danger once again of getting religious here.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: A Request to the Physicists Among Us new [Re: Joad]
      #5759203 - 03/26/13 09:18 PM

I immediately caught that as well.

I think he may have thought of himself as a free thinking theosophist of some sort. From what I can tell he did not consider himself agnostic or atheist, but was not aligned with any denomination. His knowledge of scripture was impressive, as was his liberal attitudes toward scripture for the 1950s; perhaps even for today. As an example, "Biblical history reckons time of creation in days, this must be a figurative explanation, because if you built a house you would not reckon construction time by the activity of a grain of sand in one of the bricks."

Getting past the Thomistic "prime mover" thing...Is there anything insightful in any type of scientific or cosmological sense in the previous quotes given, even taking into consideration it was written in 1950?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: A Request to the Physicists Among Us new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5759224 - 03/26/13 09:29 PM

Well, several of them are blatantly wrong.

For example: “Man believes energy is a principle of nature because it is beyond his senses.”
This is wrong on several levels - first, energy is not a "principle". Second, our senses do pick up energy. Sight detects photons, we can sense heat, we hear sound, all forms of energy.

And “The speed of light [is the] speed of energy transmitted through a field [and is] relative to the density of the field...a less massive volume [at the origin of the universe] would have resulted...in a total disintegration of matter.”

This harks back to the ideas of light travelling through the "ether". The Mickelson-Morley experiment demonstrated that this is not the case, and Relativity followed with a theoretical framework that does not require it.

The only one I would agree with is “Without space there can be no atomic or cosmic structure”, but I don't find it particularly insightful or useful...

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: A Request to the Physicists Among Us new [Re: Jarad]
      #5759235 - 03/26/13 09:35 PM

I agree Jarad.

Any thoughts about his statement, "“There must be a great underlying principle that dominates and moves matter. Energy cannot be this principle because energy is a form of matter....matter cannot constitute motion nor inherently move....substantial space can be the first principle and the prime mover...”

Otto


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: A Request to the Physicists Among Us new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5759245 - 03/26/13 09:40 PM

Let me edit out the parts I am most interested in reading your comments,

"“There must be a great underlying principle that.. moves matter. Energy cannot be this principle because energy is a form of matter....matter cannot constitute motion nor inherently move [itself...what moves matter is]...space."

Edited by Otto Piechowski (03/26/13 09:44 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pess
(Title)
*****

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio
Re: A Request to the Physicists Among Us [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5759367 - 03/26/13 11:04 PM

Quote:

I agree Jarad.

Any thoughts about his statement, "“There must be a great underlying principle that dominates and moves matter. Energy cannot be this principle because energy is a form of matter....matter cannot constitute motion nor inherently move....substantial space can be the first principle and the prime mover...”

Otto




He is just attempting to argue that there must be a 'God' underlying everything. 'Prime mover' & 'great underlying principle' are merely euphemisms for god.

As Joad alluded to, these are clumsy attempts to use logic to prove the existence of god.

Pesse (But a rose by any other name...) Mist


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
CounterWeight
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 10/05/08

Loc: Palo alto, CA.
Re: A Request to the Physicists Among Us new [Re: Pess]
      #5759591 - 03/27/13 05:15 AM

oh boy, that is a long and odd collection of statements to correct, or even dialogue about, think I'll pass.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ravenous
professor emeritus


Reged: 11/14/09

Loc: UK
Re: A Request to the Physicists Among Us new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5759626 - 03/27/13 06:30 AM

Quote:

Getting past the Thomistic "prime mover" thing...Is there anything insightful in any type of scientific or cosmological sense in the previous quotes given, even taking into consideration it was written in 1950?



You're thinking of this part, aren't you?

Quote:

“Think of space as a thread...by forming a loop...dimension is added to our universe.”

“To build a universe of string...”



It does look remarkably like an early reference to string theory, but I guess it's more likely he was just trying to get across the idea (which was probably talked about even then) of space being curved in higher dimensions.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
CounterWeight
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 10/05/08

Loc: Palo alto, CA.
Re: A Request to the Physicists Among Us new [Re: Ravenous]
      #5759633 - 03/27/13 06:45 AM

No it isn't unfortunately. A point, stretch it out in any direction and you get a line. This can exist in a plane. Join the two ends of that line and it is still in a plane. Nothing fancy dimensionally, still 'planar'. Now take that 'loop' and put it on or inside a spherical frame of reference, and things get interesting as far as space/time.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: A Request to the Physicists Among Us new [Re: CounterWeight]
      #5759703 - 03/27/13 08:05 AM

His comment about space is the cause of the motion of matter: my suspicion, having engaged in philosophical discourse my whole adult life, is that he is taking a connotative meaning of one of the terms and then drawing that meaning out till it contradicts the denotative meaning of another term; a kind of Nietzschean saying-a-lot-of-things which seem to say something but says nothing at all. And then this gibberish is dropped on an audience which has no background in physics or philosophy and he can get away with the comments. I suspect that this is all there is to what he is saying.

I think Pess is also correct in his assumption of certain theological ideas and then importing them into a discussion of physics.

His comments did cause me to realize I do not have a clear understanding of the relation between, what is called "force" as it relates to motion, and energy. What is the correct understanding of the relationship of energy(yes) and force(s)?

Otto

Edited by Otto Piechowski (03/27/13 08:06 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: A Request to the Physicists Among Us new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5759787 - 03/27/13 08:57 AM

Velocity = Distance/Time (m/s)
Accelleration = Velocity/Time (m/s^2)
Force = Mass * Accelleration (kg*m/s^2)
Energy = Force * Distance (kg*m^2/s^2)

If you apply a force to an object, you give it energy. The amoung of energy you give it depends on the distance over which you apply the force (this is also proportional to the length of time you apply the force). The same amount of energy will propel a smaller mass to a higher velocity.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ravenous
professor emeritus


Reged: 11/14/09

Loc: UK
Re: A Request to the Physicists Among Us new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5759856 - 03/27/13 09:40 AM

Quote:

His comments did cause me to realize I do not have a clear understanding of the relation between, what is called "force" as it relates to motion, and energy. What is the correct understanding of the relationship of energy(yes) and force(s)?



Energy is just a measure of what the force does. Energy is defined as the capacity for doing work. It says nothing about the fundamental physics involved in the process though. The word "Energy" gets bandied about a lot but it's all relative.

Drop 1Kg of something and you'll get some gravitational energy.

If it's 1Kg of coal, burn it and you'll get some chemical energy.

If it's 1Kg of plutonium, let it decay and you'll get (lots of) nuclear energy - either all in one big bang, or in a low-power source lasting many years, depending on how you want to use it.

I'm being a bit pedantic in the above, but I think it's occasionally worth remembering "energy" is really just an accounting concept.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: A Request to the Physicists Among Us new [Re: Jarad]
      #5759951 - 03/27/13 10:31 AM

"If you apply a force to an object, you give it energy. "

I am, at this moment, pushing against the desk in front of me with my hand. It has no effect (the desk is not being moved because it is so heavy). Yet, pushing against the desk adds energy to the desk. Correct?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)


Extra information
2 registered and 2 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  LivingNDixie, FirstSight, JayinUT 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 2224

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics