What Would Newton Do?

First Things ^ | Phil Johnson

[Exnihilo]

bumpo

[medved]

It is as if Einstein, after producing the Theory of Relativity, had served capably as Secretary of the Treasury or Attorney General. In any competition for the most intellectually gifted human being of all time, Newton would deserve to be on everyone's short list.

History has treated Newton better than it is likely to treat Einstein.

Albert Einstein was trying to use relativistic time to account for the fact that light does not obey the ordinary additive laws for velocities. This was based on what he called "thought experiments", such as the mirror-clock experiment, rather than upon anything resembling real evidence or real experiments. Thought experiments, it turns out, are not a terribly good basis for physics. Moreover, the basic approach is unsound. Louis Carrol Epstein ("Relativity Envisioned"), uses the following analogy: a carpenter with a house in which everything worked flawlessly other than one door which bound, would usually plane the door until it worked. He COULD, however, purchase a couple of hundred jacks and jack the foundation of the house until the one door worked, and then try to somehow or other make every other door and window in the house work again... Light is the one door in the analogy; distance, time, mass etc., i.e. everything else in the house of physics are the other doors and windows. Epstein assumes that relativity is the one case you will ever find in which that sort of approach is the correct one, nonetheless, common sense tells us it isn't terribly likely.

It turns out there is another way in which one could account for light not obeying additive laws, and that this other way is the correct one. That is to assume that light simply does not have a velocity; that it is an instantaneous force between two points, and that the thing we call the "velocity of light" is the rate of accumulation of some secondary effect.

The story on this one lives HERE

The basic Ralph Sansbury experiment amounts to a 1990s version of the Michelson/Moreley experiment using lasers and nanosecond gates, which Michelson and Moreley did not have. Wallace Thornhill, an Australian physicist, describes it:

>I mentioned a few weeks ago that an epoch making experiment had been
>performed in the realm of fundamental physics which had great
>importance for Velikovskian style catastrophism (and just about
>everything else for that matter). The experiment, performed by Ralph
>Sansbury, is amazingly simple but has amazing consequences.
>
>Sansbury is a quiet spoken physicist from Connecticut.  He is
>associated with the Classical Physics Institute, or CP Institute, of
>New York which publishes the Journal of Classical Physics. In the
>Notes to Contributors we find the focus of the journal: "Marinov's
>experiment, Bell's theorem, and similar works reveal increasing
>discontent with the dogmas of modern physics. Some physicists
>postulate that blackbody radiation, atomic spectra, nuclear reactions,
>electron diffraction, the speed of light and all other phenomena which
>Quantum Wave Mechanics and Relativity were designed to explain will
>require different explanations. It is the viewpoint of this journal
>that the new explanations probably will be consistent with
>Aristotelian logic and Newtonian or Galilean mechanics." Volume 1,
>Part 1, in January 1982 was devoted to an article titled "Electron
>Structure", by Ralph Sansbury. The title itself should raise
>physicist's eyebrows since electrons are considered to have no
>structure. They are treated as being indivisible, along with quarks.
>
>The fallout from Sansbury's idea, if proven, is prodigious. To begin,
>for the first time we have a truly unifying theory where both
>magnetism and gravity become a derived form of instantaneous
>electrostatic force. The Lorentz contraction-dilation of space time
>and mass is unnecessary. Electromagnetic radiation becomes the
>cumulative effect of instantaneous electrostatic forces at a distance
>and the wave/particle (photon) duality disappears. Discontinuous
>absorption/emission of energy in quanta by atoms becomes a continuous
>process. And there is more.
>
>Sansbury's was a thousand dollar experiment using 10 nanosecond long
>pulses of laser light, one pulse every 400 nsec. At some distance from
>the laser was a photodiode detector. But in the light path, directly
>in front of the detector was a high speed electronic shutter (known as
>a Pockel cell) which could be switched to allow the laser light
>through to the detector, or stop it.
>
>Now, light is considered to travel as a wavefront or photon at the
>speed of light. Viewed this way, it covers a distance of about 1 foot
>per nanosecond. So the laser could be regarded as sending out 10ft
>long bursts of light every 400ft, at the speed of light. The
>experiment simply kept the Pockel cell shutter closed during the 400ft
>of no light and opened to allow the 10ft burst through to the detector.
>
>What happened?
>
>The detector saw nothing!!!
>
>It is as if a gun were fired at a target and for the time of flight of
>the bullet a shield were placed over the target. At the last moment,
>the shield is pulled away - and the bullet has disappeared; the target
>is untouched!
>
>What does it mean?
>
>Only that Maxwell's theory of the propagation of electromagnetic waves
>is wrong! Only that Einstein's Special theory of relativity (which was
>to reconcile Maxwell's theory with simple kinematics) is wrong! Only
>that, as a result, the interpretation of most of modern physics is
>wrong!
>
>As another classical physicist using a theoretical approach to the
>same problem succinctly put it:
>
>"... there emerges the outline of an alternative "relativistic"
>physics, quite distinct from that of Maxwell-Einstein, fully as well
>confirmed by the limited observations available to date, and differing
>from it not only in innumerable testable ways but also in basic
>physical concepts and even in definitional or ethnical (sic) premises
>as to the nature of physics. Thus a death struggle is joined that must
>result in the destruction of one world-system or the other: Either
>light is complicated and matter simple, as I think, or matter is
>complicated and light simple, as Einstein thought. I have shown here
>that some elegant mathematics can be put behind my view. It has long
>been known that inordinate amounts of elegant mathematics can be put
>behind Einstein's. Surely the time fast approaches to stop listening
>to mathematical amplifications of our own internal voices and to go
>into the laboratory and listen to what nature has to say." -
>Modifications of Maxwell's Equations, T E Phipps, The Classical
>Journal of Physics, Vol 2, 1, Jan 1983, p. 21.
>
>Ralph Sansbury has now done precisely that!
>
>In simple terms, Sansbury gives the electron a structure by proposing
>a number of charged particles (he calls subtrons) orbiting within the
>classical radius of an electron. A simple calculation gives the
>surprising result that these subtrons are moving at a speed of 2.5
>million light years per second! That is, they could theoretically
>cover the distance from Earth to the far side of the Andromeda galaxy
>in one second. This gives some meaning to the term 'instantaneous
>action at a distance'. (Note that this is a requirement for any new
>theory of gravity). (Also I have always considered it evidence of
>peculiar naivety or arrogance on the part of scientists, such as
>Sagan, who search for extra-terrestrial intelligence (SETI) by using
>radio signals. What superior intelligence would use such a slow, and
>therefore useless, interstellar signalling system?) Such near infinite
>speed requires that there can be no mass increase with velocity. The
>speed of light is not a speed barrier. All of the experiments which
>seem to support Einstein's notion are interpreted by Sansbury in a
>more common-sense fashion. When an electron or other charged particle
>is accelerated in an electromagnetic field, it is distorted from a
>sphere into an ellipsoid. The more electromagnetic energy applied to
>accelerating the particle, the more energy is absorbed by distortion
>of the particle until, ultimately, at the speed of light, there is an
>expulsion of the subtrons. Under such conditions, the particle only
>APPEARS to be gaining mass.
>
>Notably, in the past few months, scientists in Hamburg using the most
>powerful electron microscope have found on about a dozen occasions out
>of 10 million trials, relativistic electrons recoiled more violently
>off protons than had ever been seen before. This may turn out to be
>direct experimental proof of Sansbury's model of the electron having
>structure.
>
>To return to the experiment involving a "chopped" light beam: One of
>the major requirements of the new theory is instantaneous
>electrostatic forces between subtrons. This forms the basis of a
>radical new view of the basis of electromagnetic radiation which is
>now the subject of stunning experimental confirmation. In Sansbury's
>view, a signal from a light source is received instantly by a distant
>detector and the speed of light delay in detecting the signal is due
>to the time taken for the ACCUMULATED RESPONSE of the subtrons in the
>detector to result in a threshold signal at the electron level. This
>is totally at variance with orthodox interpretations which would have
>the light travelling as a discrete photon or wave packet at the speed
>of light.
>
>In terms of the gun and target analogy, it is as if particles of the
>bullet are being absorbed by the shield from the instant of firing, so
>that when the shield is pulled aside there is no bullet left to hit
>the target.
>
>It is not possible to overstate the importance of this work because it
>lends direct support to a new model of the electron in particular, and
>matter in general, which EXPLAINS magnetism, gravity and quantum
>effects without any resort to the kind of metaphysics which allows our
>top physicists to think they can see "God" in their equations.  The
>new classical physicists can mix it with the best of them when it
>comes to the mathematics but they are more prepared to "go into the
>laboratory and listen to what nature has to say."
>
>This work is of crucial importance for Velikovskian re-arrangements of
>the solar system in recent times because astronomers have been able to
>say that such scenarios defy the laws of physics - which is true,
>insofar as they know the laws of physics. To discover that gravity is
>a form of charge polarization within the particles that make up the
>atom, rather than a warp in space (whatever the hell that means),
>gives us a simple mechanism by which the solar system can be rapidly
>stabilised after a period of chaotic motion.
>
>There is an impression, as I reread the work of Sansbury and other
>classical physicists, that what we are facing is something like "Back
>to the Future". And like the movie of that name, the possibilities
>that we encounter will seem like science fiction come true. But it is
>well-known that science fiction writers are better at predicting the
>future of science than experts!

[EternalHope]

Bump for later.

[ThinkPlease]

He was doing so well until he got to the end, and then he said:

I would not say that Newton was the last of the sorcerers. He went down some strange paths, but he tried to make his inquiries genuinely scientific. Some admirers have called Charles Darwin "the Newton of biology." It would be more appropriate to say that Darwin was the Sigmund Freud of biology, because like Freud he was a man with brilliant ideas and a persuasive manner who deliberately framed his theory so it could evade true empirical testing. His successors have followed his example. It is probably too much to hope that they will be the last of the alchemists.

All that for an ad-hominiem argument? Feh.

I find his three examples of the laxity of evolutionary biology quite specious. I wonder if he isn't the pot callin the kettle black: What?s wrong with the proof? Well, it?s flagrant cherry-picking.

To sum up my views of his three examples:

1. Pot calling the kettle black. There are more evolutionary examples in the fossil record than that...it's funny that he thinks there are so few, when all he has to do is a little web research. The horse lineages and the human lineages are quite interesting, especially, why doesn't he address those?

2. Read this article: Richardson MK. 1998. Haeckel's Embryos, Continued. Science (281): 1289. And: Haeckel's Embryo's

3. I don't know much about this one, so I'll skip it. I'm afraid I don't see how it impacts Darwinian evolution, however.

All in all, another more of the same article. Why don't you slow down the postarrhea a bit, Exhnilio and stay around for the debate? Some of them have been quite interesting? I know that some people have been asking you questions, and I don't know that you have answered them...

[Paradox]

I wonder if anyone has attempted to duplicate these results, since it seems that it could be done quite cheaply.

Paging Dr. Occam!

[Dumb_Ox]

What’s wrong with the proof? Well, it’s flagrant cherry-picking. The fossil record, like the Torah, is a database.

Ooooo, sneaky. I like it!

[Gordian Blade]

I'm sorry if some people have problems getting their minds around the concepts of Maxwell-Einstein and quantum mechanics, but these theories have passed every experimental test with flying colors. Quantum electrodynamics ("QED"), combining electromagnetics with quantum mechanics, is the most successful scientific theory in history, where success is measured by the degree to which theory matches experiment. Having personally performed many of the foundational experiments myself, and using Maxwell-Einstein theory for numerical calculations regularly, I have no doubt that Einstein will retain his lofty reputation.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Neat sub-article. Although the safe money is still on Einstein, I'll root for Sansbury as the underdog. I just hope I live long enough to see some the unproven "facts" I was taught in my quantum mechanics classes become antiquated.

[Dumb_Ox]

The horse lineages and the human lineages are quite interesting, especially, why doesn't he address those?

I believe he already did. In his view, this is no different than the Torah Code's proponents searching the fossil record for hidden instances of the name "Aaron" and reading it within their interpretive schema. (God put the name there, Man put the name there, random chance put the name there). But this "hidden evidence" is only convincing to somebody who already holds to a schema devoted to seeking out the word "Aaron". As I read him, Johnson alleges that paleontologists do the same thing with the phenotype of a critter, looking for homologous structures, each of which are of as doubtful a connection to each other as different instances of the name "Aaron" in the Torah.

(Oh, and aren't there significant problems with both the horse and homonid lineages? As in, the fossil evidence is from such disparate areas of the globe that lineage is highly dubitable. For instance, can we assume Homo erectus of Java and Homo habilis of east Africa are directly related?)

Your Haeckel's Embryos link didn't work. Did it present evidence in favor of embryological recapitulation? I'd like to see it, especially if it takes on the claim that recapitulation has in fact been disproven.

[jennyp]

Why don't you slow down the postarrhea a bit, Exhnilio and stay around for the debate? Some of them have been quite interesting? I know that some people have been asking you questions, and I don't know that you have answered them...

You would be correct. For instance, Exnihilo tried to claim that the evolution of vertebrate blood clotting has been explained. Kenneth Miller, in his Finding Darwin's God, explained how Jerry Doolittle's work built a solid case. Exnihilo posted Behe's response to Miller, but when I posted Miller's response to Behe, Exnihilo fell silent. Instead he quickly retreated into posting yet some more 3 year old ID articles.

I think Exnihilo came here to FR & thought he could impress us by mass-posting a lot of 3 year old articles by JB&D - not realizing we're more sophisticated than that, and we've been arguing against these same guys for lo these many years.

[jennyp]

Oops, that should read "Exnihilo tried to claim that the evolution of vertebrate blood clotting has not been explained."

[Restorer]

1. Pot calling the kettle black. There are more evolutionary examples in the fossil record than that...it's funny that he thinks there are so few, when all he has to do is a little web research. The horse lineages and the human lineages are quite interesting, especially, why doesn't he address those?

I think he did. Rather than addressing these low-level of taxonomy examples, he was specifically talking about higher levels.

Test any specific evolutionary theory in this manner, and you will come out with the conclusion that hard evidence of transformations at the higher levels of the taxonomic hierarchy (e.g., phyla, classes) is conspicuous by its absence.

[ThinkPlease]

I believe he already did. In his view, this is no different than the Torah Code's proponents searching the fossil record for hidden instances of the name "Aaron" and reading it within their interpretive schema. (God put the name there, Man put the name there, random chance put the name there). But this "hidden evidence" is only convincing to somebody who already holds to a schema devoted to seeking out the word "Aaron". As I read him, Johnson alleges that paleontologists do the same thing with the phenotype of a critter, looking for homologous structures, each of which are of as doubtful a connection to each other as different instances of the name "Aaron" in the Torah.

But he doesn't understand, or doesn't want to say what the null hypothesis is in this scientific endeavor. The null hypothesis for the paleontologist is: Look in layer, and I should find a fossil that should have a mix of X features. If that isn't the case, than I can either remake my null hypothesis, or throw out evolution all together. There has never been a fossil that cannot fit in a variation of the evolutionary hypothesis.

(Oh, and aren't there significant problems with both the horse and homonid lineages? As in, the fossil evidence is from such disparate areas of the globe that lineage is highly dubitable. For instance, can we assume Homo erectus of Java and Homo habilis of east Africa are directly related?)

I don't believe that there are any serious problems with either of the two lineages I mentioned. But you are missing my point. He is cherry picking out one lineage and trying to use it to say that all of the other lineages are garbage in 10 lines or less. It doesn't work that way. Neither does he have to show them all to be garbage, but he has to prove his point in more rigorous fashion.

Your Haeckel's Embryos link didn't work. Did it present evidence in favor of embryological recapitulation? I'd like to see it, especially if it takes on the claim that recapitulation has in fact been disproven.

The link was up when I looked, and it appears that the whole site is down now, unfortunately. I did some more looking through my links and came up with some other good links.

Do embryos have gill slits?

Miller and Levine

These links show that while Haeckel overstated his case, the concept still is quite valid. Check it out.

[ThinkPlease]

Test any specific evolutionary theory in this manner, and you will come out with the conclusion that hard evidence of transformations at the higher levels of the taxonomic hierarchy (e.g., phyla, classes) is conspicuous by its absence.

Hmm. I read right over that part. Well, I wonder if he's actually gotten around to doing it yet, then. Anyone know?

[medved]

There are now three things which the standard thesis does not work with or explain. One is the basic Sansbury experiment; another is the recent series of cesium gas experiments which show light moving instantaneously, within the error bounds of the instruments. Thornhill and others feel that the cesium gas creates some sort of a resonant condition which eliminates the lapse time for the secondary effect I mentioned.

A third thing which is incompatible with Einstein's description of gravity is the mounting evidence that gravity has changed within the history of our planet; Einstein's explaination for gravity would not allow for that.

Quite aside from the question of sauropod dinosaurs (it is an easy demonstration that nothing beyond 20,000 lbs or thereabouts could even stand up in our present world), there is the question of the 100'x20'x20' column stones around the temple of Jupiter in Baalbek:

Take a close look at the column stone in the image. That's right, those are two grown men, one sitting on the stone and one standing next to it. The US army corps of engineers and one of its major contractors, Bechtel, have flatly stated that there is no modern technology, much less any ancient technology, which could move one of those stones a single inch. Only a recent attenuation in gravity itself provides any clue.

[Exnihilo]

I do not respond to posts that have the slightest bit of condecension, derision, insults, etc., etc. There are a very small handful of people whom I find worthy of my time in a response. The only one that comes to mind, in fact, is Patrick Henry. We disagree completely but at least he can carry on a mature, civil discussion.

[Exnihilo]

Jenny, don't pretend to speak for everyone who happens to agree with you. I come here to post and discuss, and do so only with those who can do so like mature adults. You are also a liar, as I never made any statements about blood clotting. Your assertion that I "didn't realize blah blah" is totally laughable.

You see jenny dear, this is a big world we live in. Lots of people in it are far smarter than I, and lots of people in it are far dumber than I. Humanity is a spectrum, and I never presume to know any more or less than people I don't know. I merely post articles, make my arguements, and state my case. So, quite frankly, I don't give a damn what you think about me or my views. Have a day!

[StoneColdGOP]

Whoops, wrong thread.

I was thinking Wayne Newton.

[Exnihilo]

but when I posted Miller's response to Behe, Exnihilo fell silent.

Jenny, the only thing you're proving is what a liar you are. I pointed out in another thread that Behe has responded to Miller's critique. I also pointed out that you are not intellectually honest, for if you were, you'd already have known of Behe's response. It isn't for me to respond to the response of a person responding to someone else. I didn't "fall silent". I felt that it should be obvious to anyone half way conscious on the thread that the subject had been covered. Now, on the other hand, you accused someone of taking things out of context here, however you failed to respond. You "fell silent". Jenny, quite frankly, I find you to be a feeble minded bafoon, trying to appear intellectual, and ending up sounding like you have your head where the sun doesn't shine. In the future, I will refrain from responding to you, because quite frankly dear you are not worth my time.