On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:04:30 +0000 (UTC)) it happened
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in
<d1s7iu$btm$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>:

I am snipping some previous stuff to keep the size down, all on google
anyways.

Sort of, if you take the question of how a Le Sage particle interacts with

matter as a question that doesn't need to be asked.

Then start asking it, I have been wondering about that for years.

Okay, why would a LeSagian particle interact with matter instead of
passing through as if it weren't there?

You will likely not take 'I dunno ' as an answer....

The conventional explanation for
particles like BBs bumping off each other is electrostatic forces, which
introduces the field. But then the mechanical interaction is reduced to
interactions between fields. If one is not satisfied with the field as a
"mechanism", one might suppose a lumeniferous aether that permeates space.
But then one is brought right back to the question of why the aether
interacts with particles.

Yes (I have read all you posting first, so referring to 'comfort zone'), of
cause because the way we grow up and play, we take things for granted,
like space, having 3 dimensions...

There may or may not be some electromagnetic coupling in the case of a Le
Saga particle... IF<<< if was to move FTL then how would that work?
Neutrinos pass through the earth no problem, but exchange some energy it
seems, and they change state.
Analogous to that one can think of 'other' energy transfer mechanisms..

Can we even detect such a particle...
It seems to me if you want to see why inertia and weight (well expression) is
equivalent, these Le Saga particles provide an explanation too.

You argue we need no mechanism

(perhaps only the math), but math alone makes
no car go.
Physics math is often (should always be?) build on the results of experiments.

And those experiments happen in a physical world.
It is easy to say: 'hey, I have got a formula for this effect' and in fact
ANYBODY can make a formula for ANY effect, but its predictive value is what
counts (not only from an engineering point of view).
I mean, relativity has made some correct predictions, some of it questionable,
but is too easy used in a way to prove itself (gravity waves).
If there are no gravity waves the whole idea is garbage, NOT the math, but
cannot be applied that way.

Ultimately, finding a "mechanism" is a fool's errand because you're
eventually left with postulates that have no explanation in themselves.

Nope, FIRST you understand HOW, THEN (capitals!!!) you can make a
mathematical model that allows you to do theoretical design (call it
simulation if you so please).

There are plenty of examples of that.
Some effect is observed, (say electricity), a relation is found to be
true (say Ohms law), and now you can use Ohms law to predict and design
things, without first creating these physically.
We found electrons, it is VERY dangerous to say I have got Ohms law, and
what is in those wires must be water -> and therefore electrical outlets will
get wet.
This is Einstein's way: I have got this math, it fits observations, and
THEREFORE there are gravity waves, no eather, and C is max. speed.
Just makes no sense to me.

The only thing a theory can do is to explain a phenomenon in terms of
things one is more comfortable with or is satisfied to just accept.

Of cause there is our physical world, you can see a ball, throw it,
get a feel for how to throw it, become a champion too.
Bet you the champion cannot do the math :-)
But his brain did real time simulation better then the best computer.
Math as I know it, is only a language.
I have come across this several times, incredible complicated formulas,
sigh, then a simple C program, 'Oh yes', I see what you mean, just yesterday
really.
Math, is just one of those ways to connect our picture of reality perhaps.
It is not the only one, and not the most efficient one.
Many ideas surface from our subconscious, and maybe if we are into math at
that time: 'hey I have this solution!'.

Problem is, that if you say C is max. speed, then that makes it more
difficult.
That is why I wrote:
'There is no mechanism to put the brakes on at C in relativity'.
IF there was an eather, there could be (but Ein did not need one...).
We observe (it seems?) not > C in accelerator.
If this is caused by some 'substance' that substance could move at different
speed too elsewhere (I have heard of the MM experiment).
So, start thinking about a mechanism by all means!
Maybe we should do some experiments in that direction.
We have spend enough on proving there are no gravity waves.

That is a different question entirely than why a LeSagian corpuscle will
bump a particle of matter. And since you phrase it as a "mechanism to put
the brakes on at C in relativity" I think you must be imposing Galilean
relativity on a theory in which there is no such thing. In relativity,
nothing "puts the brakes on c". It is simply an invariant speed.

And I would like to know WHY it is invariant, and is it really?
We have observed galaxies receding from each other at up to 27 x C, and
this is then rationalized away with very very dubious assumptions about
viewing angle.
Maybe right maybe wrong, but you have to have a LOT of guts to base anything
you see on C is invariant.
It is almost like saying all bananas are green, the yellow ones just look
yellow because green is the only possible banana color, so they must be spray-
painted.

You
might as well ask what mechanism, in Galilean relativity, preserves
lengths for a boosted observer. But that's probably a question you didn't
think needs to be asked. Not because the question is any sillier, but
because it's sitting deep in your comfort zone.

Oh I have asked that question too, in fact did a little experiment (with null

result) to test Lorentz's old 1904 LET theory (before Einstein),
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/lorentz/index.html
Could be repeated more accurate though, have not played with it some years.
But was a fun experiment.
I am the opinion that we should do experiments, I think LIGO is great to
disprove Einstein's philosophy about 'gravity waves'.
Maybe LIGO is just a big MM experiment, and we all know what that gives as
result ;-)
I am not a knowledgeable person on physics as we know it (you know it).
But I am an old analyzer, and hard to fool, worked all my life with things
I cannot see (electrons), and those little creatures and I go along well.
I fail to see the 'mechanics' in Enstein's ideas, and we NEED a MECHANISM,
EVEN if it only was to visualize where we now are overflowed with math.

Take string theory, IF you say 'strings are at the basis of everything',
then FOR SURE if you are a good math fiddler you will end up proving
everything is made of strings, but EXCUSE ME that was you point of origin,
so I need not know your math, I trust you know your stuff!

But now build me a drive that takes me in a day to some star, I will pay the
one who does, and I will not give a cent for an other theory.

"Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler."
-- Albert Einstein

This I have read some where here:
There are a million simple beautiful solutions to any problem,
most of them wrong.

In electronics and programming:
Not tested = not working.
The exceptions are less then 1 in a thousand perhaps.
Have fun.