Re: Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
Koobee Wublee
> Note that Einstein's derivation is not at all the best approach.
The 1905 derivation of the Lorentz transform by Einstein the nitwit,
the plagiarist, and the liar was indeed totally fucked up, and that
nitwit knew he totally fucked it up. In doing so, the nitwit would
attempt to re-derive the Lorentz transform in his only book on
relativity in 1920 or so. The bullshit continued. The nitwit started
with two equations equating zero with zero and pulled out two
equations of the Lorentz transform in a few short mathemaGical steps.
It was completely bullshit, but self-styled physicists are still awed
and bedazzled by that mathemaGical trick. <shrug>
> Today we consider SR to be a theory of spacetime symmetries, with nothing
> directly to do with light.
You need to leave out “symmetries”. SR is just nonsense. All the
transforms that satisfy the null results of the MMX also lead to a
symmetry around the absolute frame of reference. <shrug>
> Einstein's second postulate is not needed. From the
> first postulate alone,
If the invariance of light is not needed, the null results of the MMX
will lead to the Galilean transform and falsify electromagnetism.
<shrug>
So, either falsify the Galilean transform or electromagnetism, the
self-styled physicists 100 years ago chose to modify the Galilean
transform at first. But seeing the after effect, they also had to
modify electromagnetism to suit their belief. They have been clueless
and a bunch of mindless “curve-fitters”. <shrug>
> [rest of bullshit snipped]
Peter Webb
Do you think that Relativity's predictions with respect to the Twin's
paradox are wrong, and if so what are the correct predictions?
Androcles
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote in message
news:4e2bbc07$0$2446$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
right?
Do you hallucinate that Relativity's prophecies with respect to the Twin's
paradox are right, and if so what are the wrong fortune-tellings according
to
your crystal ball, gypsy Webb?
DIESPAMDIE, you spamming bastard.
Koobee Wublee
> A very different potential second postulate is: There is a finite upper bound on
> the speed of information transfer. This, of course, requires a theory of what
> information is and how it is transferred.
Why the self-styled physicists have such hard-ons on postulates
anyway? After all, they are mere assumptions, and sooner or later,
these assumptions have to be tested for their validities. Bizarre!
<shrug>
For example, the MMX started out also with two assumptions:
** Galilean transform satisfying the principle of relativity
** Electromagnetism not satisfying the principle of relativity
To be fair to Michelson and others, there was just no reason to
suspect the Galilean transform would not hold up under high speeds,
and electromagnetism which had been working so well can ever be
falsified.
The null results means either or both of these two postulates are
wrong. Solutions have been found by Voigt, Larmor, and Lorentz as
modification to the Galilean transform to satisfy these null results.
Electromagnetism can be untouched. <shrug>
Another way to resolve the paradox is to declare electromagnetism
false. After Michell and Newton, there seem to be a great numbers of
followers. <shrug>
In SR’s case, Poincare took Larmor’s transform which does not satisfy
the principle of relativity and fudged into the Lorentz transform that
does. In doing so, the Lorentz transform results in more mathematical
inconsistencies than Larmor’s transform. The Lorentz transform is the
monster, and Poincare is Frankenstein. Electromagnetism also has to
be bastardized to satisfy the principle of relativity. Ouch! Just
too Mickey Mousy! <shrug>
Marvin the Martian
Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation.
Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation.
Androcles
"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:doGdnbOryvDNEbHT...@giganews.com...
| Damn it!!
|
| Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation.
|
| Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation.
|
multiplied.
But the lying ignoramus Einstein CLAIMED
"The special theory of relativity has crystallised out from the
Maxwell-Lorentz theory of electromagnetic phenomena. Thus all facts of
experience which support the electromagnetic theory also support the theory
of relativity."
http://www.bartleby.com/173/16.html
Such a blatant lie is instantly detected by anyone capable of reading
algebra.
Marvin the Martian
> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
> news:doGdnbOryvDNEbHT...@giganews.com... | Damn it!!
> |
> | Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. |
> | Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation. |
> ... without any time vector. Nor did he divide length by
> sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), he multiplied.
Cite.
> But the lying ignoramus Einstein CLAIMED
>
> "The special theory of relativity has crystallised out from the
> Maxwell-Lorentz theory of electromagnetic phenomena. Thus all facts of
> experience which support the electromagnetic theory also support the
> theory of relativity."
Other than the misspelling, what is not true about that statement?
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/16.html
> Such a blatant lie is instantly detected by anyone capable of reading
> algebra.
Not sure I know what you're on about. Not sure you know what you're on
about.
Androcles
| On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:50:12 +0100, Androcles wrote:
|
| > "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
| > news:doGdnbOryvDNEbHT...@giganews.com... | Damn it!!
| > |
| > | Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. |
| > | Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation. |
| > ... without any time vector. Nor did he divide length by
| > sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), he multiplied.
|
| Cite.
Certainly:
http://tinyurl.com/6go8no5
|
| > But the lying ignoramus Einstein CLAIMED
| >
| > "The special theory of relativity has crystallised out from the
| > Maxwell-Lorentz theory of electromagnetic phenomena. Thus all facts of
| > experience which support the electromagnetic theory also support the
| > theory of relativity."
|
| Other than the misspelling, what is not true about that statement?
Fucking hell, I just told you.
Einstein divides length by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Lorentz multiplies length by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
What are you, fucking thick?
|
| > http://www.bartleby.com/173/16.html
| > Such a blatant lie is instantly detected by anyone capable of reading
| > algebra.
|
| Not sure I know what you're on about. Not sure you know what you're on
| about.
|
I'm 100% certain you are fucking stupid and don't know multiplication from
division
even when it is shoved in your face. You are not sure.
Marvin the Martian
> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
> news:HcCdnYCANIzVA7HT...@giganews.com... | On Sun, 24 Jul
> 2011 22:50:12 +0100, Androcles wrote: |
> | > "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message | >
> news:doGdnbOryvDNEbHT...@giganews.com... | Damn it!! | > |
> | > | Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. | | > |
> Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation. | | > ... without any time
> vector. Nor did he divide length by | > sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), he multiplied.
> |
> | Cite.
>
> Certainly:
> http://tinyurl.com/6go8no5
I have a couple of editions of that book.
What page has the problem that confuses you?
> |
> | > But the lying ignoramus Einstein CLAIMED | >
> | > "The special theory of relativity has crystallised out from the | >
> Maxwell-Lorentz theory of electromagnetic phenomena. Thus all facts of |
> > experience which support the electromagnetic theory also support the |
> > theory of relativity."
> |
> | Other than the misspelling, what is not true about that statement?
>
> Fucking hell, I just told you.
> Einstein divides length by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) Lorentz multiplies length by
> sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) What are you, fucking thick?
Cite?
Androcles
| On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 23:54:46 +0100, Androcles wrote:
|
| > "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
| > news:HcCdnYCANIzVA7HT...@giganews.com... | On Sun, 24 Jul
| > 2011 22:50:12 +0100, Androcles wrote: |
| > | > "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message | >
| > news:doGdnbOryvDNEbHT...@giganews.com... | Damn it!! | > |
| > | > | Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. | | > |
| > Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation. | | > ... without any time
| > vector. Nor did he divide length by | > sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), he multiplied.
| > |
| > | Cite.
| >
| > Certainly:
| > http://tinyurl.com/6go8no5
|
| I have a couple of editions of that book.
|
Then read one and throw the other away, imbecile.
Androcles
| On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 00:26:35 +0100, Androcles wrote:
|
| > "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
| > news:HcCdnbmANIyNOrHT...@giganews.com... | On Sun, 24 Jul
| > 2011 23:54:46 +0100, Androcles wrote: |
| > | > "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message | >
| > news:HcCdnYCANIzVA7HT...@giganews.com... | On Sun, 24 Jul |
| > > 2011 22:50:12 +0100, Androcles wrote: | | > | > "Marvin the Martian"
| > <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message | > | >
| > news:doGdnbOryvDNEbHT...@giganews.com... | Damn it!! | > |
| > | > | > | Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. | | > | |
| > > Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation. | | > ... without any time
| > | > vector. Nor did he divide length by | > sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), he
| > multiplied. | > |
| > | > | Cite.
| > | >
| > | > Certainly:
| > | > http://tinyurl.com/6go8no5
| > |
| > | I have a couple of editions of that book. |
| >
| > Then read one and throw the other away, imbecile.
|
I gave you a citation. If you can't read algebra that's your problem,
shithead.
I suppose I'll have to spoon-feed a fucking moron.
Page 7, line 15:
"a shortening in the direction of motion..."
Since sqrt(1- v^2/c^2) is less than 1, the length is shortened by
multiplication.
Now find Einstein's version on your own, you stupid bastard.
You're totally ignorant, immature, egotistical, and a fuckin' cretin.
Math-wise, you're totally ignorant.
Tom Roberts
> Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation.
> Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation.
I disagree. Lorentz obtained the transform equation via an ansatz, without
justification or explanation. He did not even display them in the form we use
today until after 1905. Einstein derived them from his two postulates, and
displayed them in the form used today. I believe Einstein was instrumental in
christening them "Lorentz transformations". The earlier paper by Voigt that
displayed an equivalent transform was not (re-)discovered until the name
"Lorentz transform" was well established.
Tom Roberts
1treePetrifiedForestLane
"throw the other, where I can find it."
this one really believes in the null results
of the Mmx, insofar as they are.
thus quoth:
Sam Wormley
> Damn it!!
>
> Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation.
Wanna bet, Marvin!
The Lorentz transformation was originally the result of attempts by
Lorentz and others to explain how the speed of light was observed to be
independent of the reference frame, and to understand the symmetries of
the laws of electromagnetism. Albert Einstein later re-derived the
transformation from his postulates of special relativity. The Lorentz
transformation supersedes the Galilean transformation of Newtonian
physics, which assumes an absolute space and time (see Galilean
relativity). See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Marvin the Martian
He didn't "re-derive" shit.
He showed how his "postulates" are consistent with the Lorentz
transformation. The Lorentz transformation predates SR - Einstein's paper
on the electrodynamics of moving particles QUOTES it. The whole paper is
nothing but an application of the Lorentz transformation. (Sometimes
called the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation)
Since the Lorentz transformation is the mathematical transform under
which maxwell's equations are invariant, and SR is nothing more than the
Lorentz transformation itself, this his first "postulate" is stupid. The
transform has been verified by experiment and thus isn't a postulate at
all, it is a theory.
The second postulate about the speed of light being constant is also a
direct result of Maxwell's equations. The MM experiment was nothing more
than another experiment that affirmed this.
Marvin the Martian
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. Lorentz derived the
>> Lorentz transformation.
>
> I disagree. Lorentz obtained the transform equation via an ansatz,
> without justification or explanation.
No, the Lorentz transform holds Maxwell's equations invariant.
> He did not even display them in
> the form we use today until after 1905.
Irrelevant if they are in the form of a matrix or not.
> Einstein derived them from his
> two postulates, and displayed them in the form used today.
Bullshit. The Lorentz transformation was DESIGNED to hold Maxwell's
equations invariant under change of velocity. The first "postulate" is
thus circular logic. So is the second, since the velocity of all
electromagnetic radiation is a constant according to MWE.
> I believe
> Einstein was instrumental in christening them "Lorentz transformations".
Actually, they were called the Lorentz Fitzgerald transformation.
Koobee Wublee
> Damn it!!
<shrug>
> Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation.
That is very correct. The Lorentz transform was not derived by
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
> Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation.
No, technically it was Larmor, but conceptually it was Poincare.
<shrug>
jim
> On Jul 23, 8:45 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > Note that Einstein's derivation is not at all the best approach.
>
> The 1905 derivation of the Lorentz transform by Einstein the nitwit,
> the plagiarist, and the liar was indeed totally fucked up, and that
> nitwit knew he totally fucked it up.
Well, the thing you have to remember about period in history is
that
Hilbert was far the more famous mathematician in the world, but
Einstein got a
Nobel Prize for discovery the Photo-Electric effect, DeBroglie got
the Prize for predicting matter waves, and Godel was later the
most famous Philosopher in the world, for his discovery
of Recursion Theory.
Tom Roberts
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 19:38:57 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>> Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. Lorentz derived the
>>> Lorentz transformation.
>> I disagree. Lorentz obtained the transform equation via an ansatz,
>> without justification or explanation.
>
> No, the Lorentz transform holds Maxwell's equations invariant.
Your "no" is just plain wrong -- go read his 1904 paper. He pulled his "change
of variables" out of the air with no explanation or justification, as I said.
Yes, the Lorentz transforms do hold the ME invariant, but that was first shown
by Poincaré, not Lorentz. Indeed, Lorentz made a mistake in his 1904 paper, and
the equations he presented are not invariant (his error relates to the
transformation of charge density, not the transformation of coordinates). That
paper is the basic reason they carry his name (1904 preceding 1905).
(Einstein only discussed the vacuum Maxwell-Hertz equations, and
thus did not have this issue.)
>> He did not even display them in
>> the form we use today until after 1905.
>
> Irrelevant if they are in the form of a matrix or not.
None of the early papers display them as a matrix. That came much later as group
theory was applied. Matrix notation is almost essential to display them in their
full 4-d splendor.
But yes, this is more a side comment, not a major point.
>> Einstein derived them from his
>> two postulates, and displayed them in the form used today.
>
> Bullshit. The Lorentz transformation was DESIGNED to hold Maxwell's
> equations invariant under change of velocity. The first "postulate" is
> thus circular logic. So is the second, since the velocity of all
> electromagnetic radiation is a constant according to MWE.
Strong words from someone who clearly does not understand either the issues or
the history.
Einstein's contribution was showing that Maxwell's equations and the PoR are not
inconsistent. The PoR is NOT AT ALL "circular logic", because Maxwell's theory
has a unique aether frame, and the PoR does not apply -- in Maxwell's theory the
speed of light is c only in the aether frame, and is most definitely NOT the
same in all frames. The inconsistency between Maxwell's theory (which violates
the PoR) and classical mechanics (which includes the PoR) was the central
conundrum of theoretical physics just before 1905. Especially because
experiments showed that electrical, optical, and magnetic phenomena did obey
some sort of relativity, but Maxwell's theory did not. Note that today's
non-quantum theory of electromagnetism is called "Classical Electrodynamics" and
not "Maxwell's theory" -- it merely retains Maxwell's equations as a part of the
theory, in a way completely unanticipated by Maxwell.
IOW: you are applying today's understanding of electrodynamics, not the context
of 1905. The Maxwell's equations of Classical Electrodynamics are most
definitely NOT Maxwell's theory; Classical Electrodynamics was developed
specifically with SR in mind, and a subset of equations from Maxwell's theory
was rescued from oblivion and carry his name.
Einstein, of course, made many other major contributions to
theoretical physics....
You don't seem to understand that before 1905 the coordinate transformations
between Cartesian coordinates of relatively moving frames were strictly the
province of MECHANICS, not electrodynamics. Einstein was breaking new ground
when he melded them together in his 1905 paper. For instance, that's why his
entire first part does not discuss electrodynamics at all, just coordinate and
velocity relationships, i.e. MECHANICS.
Tom Roberts
K_h
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:44:53 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> On 7/24/11 4:19 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>> Damn it!!
>>>
>>> Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation.
>>
>> Wanna bet, Marvin!
>>
>> The Lorentz transformation was originally the result of attempts by
>> Lorentz and others to explain how the speed of light was observed to be
>> independent of the reference frame, and to understand the symmetries of
>> the laws of electromagnetism. Albert Einstein later re-derived the
>> transformation from his postulates of special relativity. The Lorentz
>> transformation supersedes the Galilean transformation of Newtonian
>> physics, which assumes an absolute space and time (see Galilean
>> relativity). See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> He didn't "re-derive" shit.
Einstein derived the equations (called the Lorentz transformations) from the two
postulates of special relativity. Historically, though, he was not the first to
write down those transformations.
>
> He showed how his "postulates" are consistent with the Lorentz
> transformation. The Lorentz transformation predates SR - Einstein's paper
Einstein showed that the Lorentz transformations are a consequence of the two
postulates. All physical laws are the same in all reference frames and that
includes Maxwell's laws.
> Since the Lorentz transformation is the mathematical transform under
> which maxwell's equations are invariant, and SR is nothing more than the
> Lorentz transformation itself, this his first "postulate" is stupid. The
There is nothing stupid about it and relativity is more than just one set of
transformations. Relativistic invariance applies to gobs of other things beyond
Maxwell's equations ... e.g. the uncertainty principle, matter waves, the color
force, gravity waves, and so on.
> transform has been verified by experiment and thus isn't a postulate at
> all, it is a theory.
Correct, the theory of relativity has been experimentally proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. The term "postulate" is just a linguistic remnant; a way of
speaking now and no longer a reference to a speculative idea.
>
> The second postulate about the speed of light being constant is also a
> direct result of Maxwell's equations.
It is a trivial result of relativity but not a direct result of Maxwell's
equations. If Maxwell's equations are used with the Galilean transformations
then, in many reference frames, the speed of light is not the same in all
directions.
*
Androcles
"K_h" <KHo...@SX729.com> wrote in message
news:b7GdnUA1hPC7lbDT...@giganews.com...
| Einstein derived the equations (called the Lorentz transformations) from
the two
| postulates of special relativity.
No he didn't, you are bullshitting. Einstein "derived"
xi = (x-vt) DIVIDED by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), which is NOT a Lorentz
transformation.
Koobee Wublee
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
> > Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation.
> > Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation.
>
> I disagree. Lorentz obtained the transform equation via an ansatz, without
> justification or explanation.
On the contrary, Einstein the nitwit was the one who derived the
Lorentz transform based total gibberish. Einstein the plagiarist was
the one who knew about the Lorentz transform beforehand. Einstein the
liar lied about all that in his 1905 papers as well as his 1920 book
on relativity. <shrug>
> He did not even display them in the form we use
> today until after 1905.
It does not matter how you write down the particular presentation of
the Lorentz transform. As long as it is mathematical the same as the
modern accepted form all is fine. That is unless you are algebra
illiterate. <shrug>
> Einstein derived them from his two postulates, and
> displayed them in the form used today.
These two assumptions were reverse-engineered from the Lorentz
transform. <shrug>
> I believe Einstein was instrumental in
> christening them "Lorentz transformations".
Your belief is totally wrong. The reason why Poincare called it the
Lorentz transform was because Lorentz was the first person to
realization there are actually an infinite such transforms that will
satisfy the null results of the MMX as well as the classical Maxwell’s
equations. <shrug>
> The earlier paper by Voigt that
> displayed an equivalent transform was not (re-)discovered until the name
> "Lorentz transform" was well established.
Your understanding is not even close. Here are the Voigt, Larmor’s,
and Lorentz’s transforms.
**** The Voigt Transform
** dt0 = dt + v0 dx / c^2
** dx0 = dx + v0 dt
** dy0 = dy sqrt(1 – v0^2 / c^2)
** dz0 = dz sqrt(1 – v0^2 / c^2)
**** Larmor’s Transform
** dt0 = (dt + v0 dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v0^2 / c^2)
** dx0 = (dx + v0 dt) / sqrt(1 – v0^2 / c^2)
** dy0 = dy
** dz0 = dz
**** Lorentz’s Transforms
** dt0 = (dt + v0 dx / c^2) / (1 – v0^2 / c^2)^n
** dx0 = (dx + v0 dt) / (1 – v0^2 / c^2)^n
** dy0 = dy (1 – v0^2 / c^2)^(n – 1/2)
** dz0 = dz (1 – v0^2 / c^2)^(n – 1/2)
Where
** dt0, dx0, dy0, dz0 = Parameters of the absolute frame of reference
** sqrt(v0^2) = Absolute speed of the oberver
** n = Any real number
Given another observer using primed coordinate system, of course,
Larmor’s transform can be written as follows.
** dt0 = (dt’ + v0’ dx’ / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v0’^2 / c^2)
** dx0 = (dx’ + v0’ dt’) / sqrt(1 – v0’^2 / c^2)
** dy0 = dy’
** dz0 = dz’
If the vectors [v0] and [v0’] are in parallel, Larmor’s transform for
both the primed and the unprimed observer nullifies the absolute frame
of reference which is the Lorentz transform:
** dt’ = (dt + v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dx’ = (dx + v dt) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dy’ = dy
** dz’ = dz
Where
** [v] = Velocity of dt as observed by dt’
** [v0] * [v0’] = sqrt(v0^2) sqrt(v0’^2)
And that was how Poincare wrote down the Lorentz transform above.
Notice if the vectors [v0] and [v0’] are not in parallel, the Lorentz
transform should not be valid. <shrug>
harald
[..]
> the MMX started out also with two assumptions:
>
> ** Galilean transform satisfying the principle of relativity
> ** Electromagnetism not satisfying the principle of relativity
>
> To be fair to Michelson and others, there was just no reason to
> suspect the Galilean transform would not hold up under high speeds,
> and electromagnetism which had been working so well can ever be
> falsified.
>
> The null results means either or both of these two postulates are
> wrong.
So far correct. However:
> the Lorentz transform results in more mathematical
> inconsistencies than Larmor’s transform. The Lorentz transform is the
> monster, and Poincare is Frankenstein. Electromagnetism also has to
> be bastardized to satisfy the principle of relativity. Ouch! Just
> too Mickey Mousy! <shrug>
Too much wrong even to start commenting. :-))
Marvin the Martian
No. The two "postulates" are a direct result of Maxwell's equations
(which are NOT laws, btw) and the Lorentz transformation. Einstein was
confused.
>> Since the Lorentz transformation is the mathematical transform under
>> which maxwell's equations are invariant, and SR is nothing more than
>> the Lorentz transformation itself, this his first "postulate" is
>> stupid. The
>
> There is nothing stupid about it and relativity is more than just one
> set of transformations. Relativistic invariance applies to gobs of
> other things beyond Maxwell's equations ... e.g. the uncertainty
> principle, matter waves, the color force, gravity waves, and so on.
The math IS the theory. All the rest is non-science and subjective.
You're impressed that a transformation that was designed to keep
Maxwell's equations invariant... keeps Maxwell's equations invariant.
That, I find amusing.
There is nothing at all about SR that has any relevance at all the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle or quantum mechanics. Where the hell did
THAT come from? Einstein didn't even believe or understand QM, he had an
irrational belief and a stupid preconceived bias AGAINST Quantum
mechanics (and a few other things, like Lemaitre's Big Bang Theory).
>> transform has been verified by experiment and thus isn't a postulate at
>> all, it is a theory.
>
> Correct, the theory of relativity has been experimentally proven beyond
> a reasonable doubt. The term "postulate" is just a linguistic remnant;
> a way of speaking now and no longer a reference to a speculative idea.
Actually, length contraction has never been shown experimentally. Don't
overstate the case. The consistency of the speed of light and time
dilation has been shown experimentally.
I guess you don't know what a postulate is. It has nothing to do with a
speculative idea.
>> The second postulate about the speed of light being constant is also a
>> direct result of Maxwell's equations.
>
> It is a trivial result of relativity but not a direct result of
> Maxwell's equations.
The hell it isn't. Once you solve Maxwell's equations for the wave
equation, the speed of the wave, c, falls right out.
> If Maxwell's equations are used with the Galilean
> transformations then, in many reference frames, the speed of light is
> not the same in all directions.
Maxwell's equations are not invariant under a Galilean transformation,
which leads to the conclusion that the physics of electromagnetism would
have to be dependent upon the frame of the observer, which is an absurd
result.
Once you solve for the correct transformation, you see that the speed of
light is a constant wrt all observers.
Einstein's contributed three things:
* He used circular logic to claim that the laws of physics under the
proper invariant transformation are invariant.
* That the speed of light is constant, which he took to be a postulate
instead of looking at Maxwell's equations, which show that the speed of
the electromagnetic wave is a constant.
* He wrote a paper that said "Hey!! What Lorentz and Fitzgerald Said!"
Of his three contributions to SR, the first two are silly and the last
one useful, as even Lorentz didn't understand the significance of the
Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation. Einstein showed the significance of
the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation - THAT was his contribution.
Tom Adams
The wiki on the history of the Lorentz tranformation indicates that
Einstein was the first to publish a paper with the Lorentz
transformation in its final from. Poincare had a draft of a paper
with the final form mid 1905.
Poincare named an number of similar equations "Lorentz Tranformation"
starting around 1901, but Einstein was the first to publish the final
form.
Poincare was close to a theory that made it impossible to detect the
aether wind, but he still thought light needed a medium. The unique
thing Einstein did in 1905 was to be the first to completely reject
the existence of aether.
Marvin the Martian
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 19:38:57 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>>> Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. Lorentz derived
>>>> the Lorentz transformation.
>>> I disagree. Lorentz obtained the transform equation via an ansatz,
>>> without justification or explanation.
>>
>> No, the Lorentz transform holds Maxwell's equations invariant.
>
> Your "no" is just plain wrong
Go ahead and show they don't hold Maxwell's equations invariant then.
-- go read his 1904 paper. He pulled his
> "change of variables" out of the air with no explanation or
> justification, as I said.
SO?
> Yes, the Lorentz transforms do hold the ME invariant,
Oh, so admit I'm right. Amusing.
> but that was first
> shown by Poincaré, not Lorentz.
Not the issue.
True enough, Lorentz was trying to explain the MMX with time dilation and
Fitzgerald's contribution was length contraction, but Maxwell's equations
are invariant under a Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation.
> Indeed, Lorentz made a mistake in his
> 1904 paper, and the equations he presented are not invariant (his error
> relates to the transformation of charge density, not the transformation
> of coordinates). That paper is the basic reason they carry his name
> (1904 preceding 1905).
Even if, so what? The fact remains, it is true that the Lorentz
transformation holds Maxwell's equations invariant.
> (Einstein only discussed the vacuum Maxwell-Hertz equations, and
> thus did not have this issue.)
That was Einstein's usual excuse for plagiarism. "oh! I didn't know it
was done before!" In the real world, utter failure to do a literature
search is no excuse for plagiarism.
>>> He did not even display them in
>>> the form we use today until after 1905.
>>
>> Irrelevant if they are in the form of a matrix or not.
>
> None of the early papers display them as a matrix. That came much later
> as group theory was applied. Matrix notation is almost essential to
> display them in their full 4-d splendor.
>
> But yes, this is more a side comment, not a major point.
Then what are you gibbering about?
>>> Einstein derived them from his
>>> two postulates, and displayed them in the form used today.
>>
>> Bullshit. The Lorentz transformation was DESIGNED to hold Maxwell's
>> equations invariant under change of velocity. The first "postulate" is
>> thus circular logic. So is the second, since the velocity of all
>> electromagnetic radiation is a constant according to MWE.
>
> Strong words from someone who clearly does not understand either the
> issues or the history.
>
> Einstein's contribution was showing that Maxwell's equations and the PoR
> are not inconsistent.
As I said, that was a trivial and stupid exercise, as Einstein's
postulates are a direct result of Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz
transformation. Postulates are not needed if they can be derived.
> The PoR is NOT AT ALL "circular logic", because
> Maxwell's theory has a unique aether frame,
No it doesn't. That's bullshit.
> and the PoR does not apply
> -- in Maxwell's theory the speed of light is c only in the aether frame,
Given Maxwell's equations and the transformation that holds them to be
invariant, where the hell are you getting that an aether frame is
required or indicated? That's simply NOT SO. It isn't there.
No aether frame is in the equations NOW, and an aether frame wasn't there
in 1904 when they had the same exact math.
> and is most definitely NOT the same in all frames. The inconsistency
> between Maxwell's theory (which violates the PoR)
Holy shit that was a dumb thing to say. Maxwell's equations do NOT say
that the speed of light is not constant or that the laws of physics are
different for different observers.
The whole moving magnetic field thing was one of the issues that bothered
physicist back then.
Geeze louise, you don't know basic physics!
> and classical
> mechanics (which includes the PoR)
What?! Classical mechanics are not consistent with Einstein's silly
postulates!!
This is absurd. You're clearly talking out of your ass.
Marvin the Martian
> On Jul 24, 12:55 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 8:45 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>
>> > Note that Einstein's derivation is not at all the best approach.
>>
>> The 1905 derivation of the Lorentz transform by Einstein the nitwit,
>> the plagiarist, and the liar was indeed totally fucked up, and that
>> nitwit knew he totally fucked it up.
>
> Well, the thing you have to remember about period in history is
> that
> Hilbert was far the more famous mathematician in the world, but
> Einstein got a
> Nobel Prize for discovery the Photo-Electric effect, DeBroglie got
> the Prize for predicting matter waves, and Godel was later the most
> famous Philosopher in the world, for his discovery of Recursion
> Theory.
Since there is not a Nobel prize in Mathematics, it is not interesting
that Hilbert never won the Nobel prize in ... mathematics.
Why is this relevant, anyway?
Tom Adams
Poincare christened it the Lorentz transformation before 1950. It was
not in it final form then. Poincare christened the "relativity
principle" before 1905, so he, in effect, christened the theory of
realtivity. But Einstein published the final form of the Lorentz
Transformation first, and he dispensed with aether. Poincare was
close to showing that aether could be a undetectible convention in
print by mid 1905 but a bit too late, and he never rejected it because
he thought light needed a medium.
Androcles
You are fucking INSANE!
You haven't got a fucking clue what an equation is, let alone Maxwell's,
you ignorant bullshitting bastard. Fuck off back to your Martian
sanatorium.
Tom Adams
The wiki says the Voigt tranform is not equivalent, that it has a
different value for time dialation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woldemar_Voigt
Poincare christened the Lorentz Transform (when it was not quite in
its final form)
Tom Adams
"Apparently Poincaré was unaware of Larmor's contributions, because he
only mentioned Lorentz and therefore used for the first time the name
"Lorentz transformation"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations
Tom Adams
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maxwell never answered the question "constant with respect to what?".
So, he did not realize that constant was meaningless or at least had a
free variable buried in it. Einstein, in effect, figured this out
early in his teens.
Marvin the Martian
> Maxwell never answered the question "constant with respect to what?".
> So, he did not realize that constant was meaningless or at least had a
> free variable buried in it. Einstein, in effect, figured this out early
> in his teens.
Why would Maxwell even need to answer? Maxwell knew that Maxwell's
equations were not invariant under a Galilean transformation, so the
question is meaningless. He also knew that they were a well proven
theory.
I'm sure that he was puzzled by it, but a good scientist knows what he
doesn't know and doesn't pretend to know everything.
Marvin the Martian
> On Jul 24, 5:19 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> Damn it!!
>>
>> Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation.
>>
>> Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation.
>
> The wiki on the history of the Lorentz tranformation indicates that
> Einstein was the first to publish a paper with the Lorentz
> transformation in its final from. Poincare had a draft of a paper with
> the final form mid 1905.
Define "form", as if this mattered.
Androcles
Tom Adams
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 05:15:02 -0700, Tom Adams wrote:
> > On Jul 24, 5:19 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> >> Damn it!!
>
> >> Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation.
>
> >> Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation.
>
> > The wiki on the history of the Lorentz tranformation indicates that
> > Einstein was the first to publish a paper with the Lorentz
> > transformation in its final from. Poincare had a draft of a paper with
> > the final form mid 1905.
>
> Define "form", as if this mattered.
Lorentz did not have the math completely correct.
Poincare got the math right. His publication of the transform
predated Einstein by a few months (I incorrectly stated otherwise.)
Poincare was also aware that it made the aether concept superfluous,
but he continued to think that light needed a medium.
>
>
>
> > Poincare named an number of similar equations "Lorentz Tranformation"
> > starting around 1901, but Einstein was the first to publish the final
> > form.
>
> > Poincare was close to a theory that made it impossible to detect the
> > aether wind, but he still thought light needed a medium. The unique
> > thing Einstein did in 1905 was to be the first to completely reject the
> > existence of aether.- Hide quoted text -
Marvin the Martian
> On Jul 25, 9:36 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 05:15:02 -0700, Tom Adams wrote:
>> > On Jul 24, 5:19 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> >> Damn it!!
>>
>> >> Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation.
>>
>> >> Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation.
>>
>> > The wiki on the history of the Lorentz tranformation indicates that
>> > Einstein was the first to publish a paper with the Lorentz
>> > transformation in its final from. Poincare had a draft of a paper
>> > with the final form mid 1905.
>>
>> Define "form", as if this mattered.
>
> Lorentz did not have the math completely correct.
>
> Poincare got the math right. His publication of the transform predated
> Einstein by a few months (I incorrectly stated otherwise.) Poincare was
> also aware that it made the aether concept superfluous, but he continued
> to think that light needed a medium.
Thank you. I don't disagree with that.
harald
> On Jul 24, 8:38 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[..]
>
> The wiki says the Voigt tranform is not equivalent,
> that it has a different value for time dialation: [..]
Indeed it's not equivalent. The confusion is partly due to Lorentz,
who wrongly acknowledged Voigt for having found the transformations
earlier. In fact, Voigt's transformations even have a different
application.
> Poincare christened the Lorentz Transform (when it was
> not quite in its final form)
The difference with the usual version of textbooks is minor; the main
difference is that S and S' are exchanged.
He put c=1 so that epsilon=v/c also equals v and v/c^2, which reduces
the number of symbols; this has become quite popular. And note that l
can immediately be dropped, as it is equal to 1.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Dynamics_of_the_Electron_%28June%29
Harald
Tom Adams
>
> - Show quoted text -
I was wrong about one thing. Lorentz got the math right by 1904.
Lamor got it right in 1900.
It's all here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations
But you have to do some algebra to see that Lamor's 1900 equation is
the same as Einstein's 1905 equation.
So, the math was there in 1900. Einstein just rejected the theory
that gave rise to this math and substituted another theory.
All scientist finally gave up on ever detecting the aether in the
1930s.
harald
In part yes - but maybe not all the relevant math, nor all the main
concepts related to the PoR. For example, did Larmor discuss such
things as effects on mass (inertia) and forces?
From lack of mention of such things in commentaries, I have the
impression that he only regarded electromagnetism, without looking at
the broader picture.
Harald
K_h
Wrong. Einstein was not confused. Einstein realized that physical laws are the
same in all frames of reference. For that to be true of Maxwell's laws, Einstein
realized that the correct transformations for space and time cannot be the ones
of classical physics.
>>> Since the Lorentz transformation is the mathematical transform under
>>> which maxwell's equations are invariant, and SR is nothing more than
>>> the Lorentz transformation itself, this his first "postulate" is
>>> stupid. The
>>
>> There is nothing stupid about it and relativity is more than just one
>> set of transformations. Relativistic invariance applies to gobs of
>> other things beyond Maxwell's equations ... e.g. the uncertainty
>> principle, matter waves, the color force, gravity waves, and so on.
>
> The math IS the theory. All the rest is non-science and subjective.
Not at all. The math is a quantitative consequence of the theory.
>
> You're impressed that a transformation that was designed to keep
> Maxwell's equations invariant... keeps Maxwell's equations invariant.
> That, I find amusing.
It is not just Maxwell's laws but all physical laws. Why do you think that I am
"impressed" by anything? I never posted anything about being "impressed".
>
> There is nothing at all about SR that has any relevance at all the
> Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle or quantum mechanics. Where the hell did
No, the uncertainty principle is the same in all frames of reference, in
accordance with the first postulate.
> THAT come from? Einstein didn't even believe or understand QM, he had an
> irrational belief and a stupid preconceived bias AGAINST Quantum
> mechanics (and a few other things, like Lemaitre's Big Bang Theory).
>
Einstein did understand quantum theory but his only objection was philosophical.
He felt that nature should be deterministic at its core and it was that part of
quantum theory that he did not like.
>>> transform has been verified by experiment and thus isn't a postulate at
>>> all, it is a theory.
>>
>> Correct, the theory of relativity has been experimentally proven beyond
>> a reasonable doubt. The term "postulate" is just a linguistic remnant;
>> a way of speaking now and no longer a reference to a speculative idea.
>
> Actually, length contraction has never been shown experimentally. Don't
> overstate the case. The consistency of the speed of light and time
> dilation has been shown experimentally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction#Experimental_verifications
>>> The second postulate about the speed of light being constant is also a
>>> direct result of Maxwell's equations.
>>
>> It is a trivial result of relativity but not a direct result of
>> Maxwell's equations.
>
> The hell it isn't.
It is not a direct result of solving Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations
predict speed c for electromagnetic radiation for the frame of reference in which
those equations are valid. It takes the relativity principle to say that those
equations, of Maxwell, are valid in all frames of reference.
> Once you solve Maxwell's equations for the wave
> equation, the speed of the wave, c, falls right out.
Yes, but only in the coordinate system where the equations are solved.
>
>> If Maxwell's equations are used with the Galilean
>> transformations then, in many reference frames, the speed of light is
>> not the same in all directions.
>
> Maxwell's equations are not invariant under a Galilean transformation,
> which leads to the conclusion that the physics of electromagnetism would
> have to be dependent upon the frame of the observer, which is an absurd
> result.
In the absence of relativity, it is not an absurd result. In pre-relativity
physics it was just such observer-dependent electromagnetic effects that were
being sought after.
>
> Once you solve for the correct transformation, you see that the speed of
> light is a constant wrt all observers.
Exactly! Relativity gives the correct principles and the correct transformations
follow from those principles.
>
> Einstein's contributed three things:
>
> * He used circular logic to claim that the laws of physics under the
> proper invariant transformation are invariant.
No circular reasoning was involved. The sameness of physical laws in all frames
of reference is more of a "meta law" than specific laws like Maxwell's laws of
electromagnetism.
>
> * That the speed of light is constant, which he took to be a postulate
> instead of looking at Maxwell's equations, which show that the speed of
> the electromagnetic wave is a constant.
Maxwell's laws, by themselves, do not show that the speed of light is constant
and the same in all reference frames. That is, Maxwell's laws do not say "The
Galilean transformations are wrong".
>
> * He wrote a paper that said "Hey!! What Lorentz and Fitzgerald Said!"
No. Lorentz and Fitzgerald had a couple of ad-hoc hypotheses that were
unexplained.
>
> Of his three contributions to SR, the first two are silly and the last
> one useful, as even Lorentz didn't understand the significance of the
> Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation. Einstein showed the significance of
> the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation - THAT was his contribution.
The first two are not silly; they are the very heart of the theory.
*
Koobee Wublee
> On 7/24/2011 1:49 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Why the self-styled physicists have such hard-ons on postulates
> > anyway? After all, they are mere assumptions, and sooner or later,
> > these assumptions have to be tested for their validities. Bizarre!
> > <shrug>
>
> That's what you do when you compare the *implications* of those
> postulates with experimental observations. That IS the test of those
> postulates. This is how science works.
No, this is not how science works. For example, let’s go back to the
search of the flying pigs. In identifying flying pigs, PD started to
make the following two postulates:
** Flying pigs do fly.
** Flying pigs are mammals.
Well, the next day PD encountered a bat. The experiments in this
encounter tell PD that a bat indeed passes the following postulates.
So, flying pigs must exist.
** Bats do fly.
** Bats are mammals.
This is not science. This is called stupidity in the mind of PD.
This is not how science works. This is just absurdity. If self-
styled physicists practice this voodoo shit as science, it is no
wonder they now worship the nonsense of SR and GR with such zeal.
<shrug>
> [rest of irrelevant babbling nonsense snipped]
Androcles
"K_h" <KHo...@SX729.com> wrote in message
Wrong. Einstein was very confused and so are you.
Koobee Wublee
> On 7/25/2011 4:01 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > No, this is not how science works. For example, let s go back to the
> > search of the flying pigs. In identifying flying pigs, PD started to
> > make the following two postulates:
>
> > ** Flying pigs do fly.
> > ** Flying pigs are mammals.
>
> > Well, the next day PD encountered a bat. The experiments in this
> > encounter tell PD that a bat indeed passes the following postulates.
> > So, flying pigs must exist.
>
> > ** Bats do fly.
> > ** Bats are mammals.
>
> And the connection between flying pigs and bats is what, exactly?
Your own ignorance. <shrug>
> Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Yes. <shrug>
> No, I didn't think so.
It is only a moron’s opinion. The same moron who claimed to be a
physics professor and who does not even understand Snell’s law.
<shrug>
jim
> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in messagenews:6NudnW016qQhx7DT...@giganews.com...
Well, the people who understand random variates had
previously discovered the theory of evolution, so
that's what's mostly they object. The quantum randomness
moslty occurs in labratories, So that's mostly why
people started working on modern rockets, modern computers,
and artifiical satellites. And the people working with
biology discovered DNA, Gene Splicing, Stem Cells,
and Cloning anyway. And people with energy started
working on Solar Energy, Superconductivy, and
controlled fusion.
>
> >>> transform has been verified by experiment and thus isn't a postulate at
> >>> all, it is a theory.
>
> >> Correct, the theory of relativity has been experimentally proven beyond
> >> a reasonable doubt. The term "postulate" is just a linguistic remnant;
> >> a way of speaking now and no longer a reference to a speculative idea.
>
> > Actually, length contraction has never been shown experimentally. Don't
> > overstate the case. The consistency of the speed of light and time
> > dilation has been shown experimentally.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction#Experimental_verifica...
> *- Hide quoted text -
Tom Roberts
> Maxwell never answered the question "constant with respect to what?".
He never had to -- his theory was based on a unique aether frame, and the answer
is obvious: relative to the aether frame. Implicitly, of course, Galilean
relativity was assumed to apply (by both Maxwell and the physics community of
the day). It was only later that the incompatibility between them was
discovered, both theoretically and experimentally.
Do not be deceived into thinking that today's "Maxwell's equations" are his
theory of 1865. These equations [#] were originally presented by him, but in a
rather different context than their use today, and the meanings of the symbols
have changed: specifically the coordinates and field components have morphed
from being relative to the aether frame to being relative to any inertial frame.
This seemingly minor difference has HUGE conceptual implications, and
essentially negates Maxwell's edifice.
[Maxwell also had numerous additional equations and fields
in his theory, including a field related to motion relative
to the aether.]
With the advent of Special Relativity and various experimental results, a
re-conceptualization of electrodynamics was required; we now call this theory
Classical Electrodynamics (based in part on the eponymous textbook by
J.D.Jackson). This theory includes more than just the Maxwell's equations [#].
[#] There were 12 of them in his original formulation; there are
four in the usual undergraduate presentation using 3-vectors;
they reduce to two in the language of differential forms.
Tom Roberts
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:QvydnY5NqPa...@giganews.com...
| Tom Adams wrote:
| > Maxwell never answered the question "constant with respect to what?".
|
| He never had to -- his theory was based on a unique aether frame, and the
answer
| is obvious: relative to the aether frame.
So Einstein's speed of light is relative to the nothing frame.
You are fucking mad, aren't you?
Tom Roberts
> I was wrong about one thing. Lorentz got the math right by 1904.
Only partly. He got the coordinate transform correct, but not the transform of
Maxwell's equations, specifically of charge density. Poincaré corrected his
mistake in 1905.
> But you have to do some algebra to see that Lamor's 1900 equation is
> the same as Einstein's 1905 equation.
> So, the math was there in 1900. Einstein just rejected the theory
> that gave rise to this math and substituted another theory.
He did not "reject" it, he probably did not know of it. And it was not yet a
full-blown theory, it was just several mathematicians exploring the equations of
electrodynamics. But in any case, Einstein's approach is equivalent, which is a
rather strange relationship for you to apply the term "rejected". Say, rather,
that Einstein published a better approach to this issue, which displayed certain
symmetries of the world in general, and electrodynamics in particular; the
physics community has agreed with this assessment.
Note: when I say "theory", I mean the usual modern meaning: a set of equations
with a description of the meanings of the symbols therein, plus a description of
how to relate at least some of them to measurements in the real world.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 00:39:40 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 19:38:57 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>>>> Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. Lorentz derived
>>>>> the Lorentz transformation.
>>>> I disagree. Lorentz obtained the transform equation via an ansatz,
>>>> without justification or explanation.
>>> No, the Lorentz transform holds Maxwell's equations invariant.
>> Your "no" is just plain wrong
>
> Go ahead and show they don't hold Maxwell's equations invariant then.
Please READ what is quoted above. Read it more carefully. Your "no" was
responding to "Lorentz obtained the transform equation via an ansatz, without
justification or explanation.", which is manifestly true. My stating that your
"no" was wrong was in response to that, and carried no implication that "they
don't hold Maxwell's equations invariant".
> -- go read his 1904 paper. He pulled his
>> "change of variables" out of the air with no explanation or
>> justification, as I said.
>
> SO?
So Lorentz did not derive the Lorentz transformations, in the usual sense of the
word, contrary to your claim (to which I was responding, even though you seem
unable to follow threads very well).
>> Einstein's contribution was showing that Maxwell's equations and the PoR
>> are not inconsistent.
>
> As I said, that was a trivial and stupid exercise, as Einstein's
> postulates are a direct result of Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz
> transformation.
This is just plain not true, in the context of 1905. What we today call
"Maxwell's equations" are not at all Maxwell's theory (1865). In the context of
Maxwell's theory, Einstein's 1905 paper is quite remarkable, and is inconsistent
with Maxwell's derivation.
You have the history backward -- it was Einstein's 1905 paper (among
others) that showed what you claim to be in the Maxwell's equations
already. You could not have made that claim before those papers.
IOW: it is not appropriate to use TODAY'S understanding of electrodynamics to
claim that Einstein's paper was "trivial and stupid", because his paper was
INSTRUMENTAL in forming that modern understanding.
> Postulates are not needed if they can be derived.
That's an excessively narrow-minded viewpoint. It is often enlightening to
derive a given theory from a different set of postulates, as that can help
display limitations or generalities in the theory that are not obvious from the
original/initial derivation.
For instance, you are clearly quite ignorant of Maxwell's
original derivation of his theory, which included what have
become known as "Maxwell's equations". In particular, his
derivation is inconsistent with the PoR, and is rejected
by the physics community today. Since the advent of SR,
electrodynamics has been completely re-conceptualized,
incorporating SR and _SOME_ of Maxwell's ideas, plus ideas
from several others (most especially Lorentz), yielding a
theory known as Classical Electrodynamics. The Maxwell's
equations are part of this theory, but with different
meanings for the symbols therein.
For instance, from Einstein's derivation (and also from the standpoint of
Lorentz and Poincaré), SR should strictly apply only to electrodynamics. We know
now that it is MUCH more general, and also applies to the strong, weak, and
gravitational interactions (locally). A different set of postulates can easily
show that it is more general than any of them thought, and is independent of
light or electrodynamics. Such as:
1. Einstein's statement of the PoR.
2. There is a finite upper bound on the speed of information transfer.
Indeed, a given theory's set of equations can be derived from any sufficient set
of its theorems. The choice of which are theorems and which are postulates
(axioms) is arbitrary, and subject to one's sense of propriety and elegance.
And finally, as I said before, Einstein's postulates can NOT be derived from
Maxwell's theory. Nor from his equations alone without implicitly accepting what
Einstein (and others) showed back in 1900-1906.
>> The PoR is NOT AT ALL "circular logic", because
>> Maxwell's theory has a unique aether frame,
>
> No it doesn't. That's bullshit.
You are wrong. Go _READ_ Maxwell's treatise of 1865.
Swearing at others because of your own personal ignorance is not helpful.
>> and the PoR does not apply
>> -- in Maxwell's theory the speed of light is c only in the aether frame,
>
> Given Maxwell's equations and the transformation that holds them to be
> invariant, where the hell are you getting that an aether frame is
> required or indicated?
I am not "getting" this anywhere, but MAXWELL "got it" in his 1865 treatise. His
theory included an aether and a field related to motion relative to the aether
frame -- things which have not survived the test of time. But you are clearly
ignorant of this, and attempt to blame me.
I repeat: Swearing at others because of your own personal ignorance is not helpful.
> That's simply NOT SO. It isn't there.
Yes, it is. You need to learn to distinguish Maxwell's theory (1865) from modern
re-formulations of electrodynamics. Our modern formulation includes "Maxwell's
equations" to honor the man, but it does not include most aspects of his
original theory (in particular, its aether frame, the molecular/vortex
discussions thereof, nor the field related to motion relative to the aether
frame). While a subset of his equations is present in our modern formulation,
the meanings of the symbols in those equations are DIFFERENT from what Maxwell used.
> No aether frame is in the equations NOW, and an aether frame wasn't there
> in 1904 when they had the same exact math.
It is not "the math" that matters here, it is the MEANINGS OF THE SYMBOLS THAT
APPEAR IN THE EQUATIONS.
I remind you that a physical theory consists of:
* a set of equations
* a description of the meanings of the symbols therein
* a description of how to relate at least some of the symbols to
measurements in the real world.
In Maxwell's theory, the coordinates and field components are relative to the
aether frame. In the ostensibly similar equations of Classical Electrodynamics
the symbols have morphed into being relative to any inertial frame.
There is more subtlety and beauty here than you can see, because you are blind
to important distinctions in the historical development of electrodynamics.
Don't blame me for your personal limitations.
>> and is most definitely NOT the same in all frames. The inconsistency
>> between Maxwell's theory (which violates the PoR)
>
> Holy shit that was a dumb thing to say.
I repeat: Swearing at others because of your own personal ignorance is not helpful.
> Geeze louise, you don't know basic physics!
The problem is not mine.
I repeat: There is more subtlety and beauty here than you can see, because you
are blind to important distinctions in the historical development of
electrodynamics. Don't blame me for your personal limitations.
>> and classical
>> mechanics (which includes the PoR)
>
> What?! Classical mechanics are not consistent with Einstein's silly
> postulates!!
You have to read what I wrote, not how you sliced it up. Go back and do so.
But yes, classical mechanics is indeed not consistent with Einstein's postulates
(not that they are "silly", of course). You seem particularly unable to grasp
the essential aspects of various physical theories, and too willing to project
your own failures onto others.
Hint 1: classical mechanics is consistent with Galilean relativity.
Hint 2: SR is not.
Hint 3: Today we use relativistic mechanics, not classical mechanics,
except when the latter is a suitable approximation to the former
(which it is in very many cases, including our everyday lives, but
not at particle accelerators).
Exercise for advanced readers: discuss what this inconsistency
means to Einstein's use of "coordinates in which the equations
of Newtonian mechanics hold good". Note that Perrett and Jeffery's
translation touches on this in a footnote that is not part of
the original text.
> This is absurd. You're clearly talking out of your ass.
I repeat: Swearing at others because of your own personal ignorance is not helpful.
History often seems absurd to those who weren't there and/or don't understand
the issues.
Tom Roberts
Tom Adams
> Tom Adams wrote:
> > I was wrong about one thing. Lorentz got the math right by 1904.
>
> Only partly. He got the coordinate transform correct, but not the transform of
> Maxwell's equations, specifically of charge density. Poincaré corrected his
> mistake in 1905.
>
> > But you have to do some algebra to see that Lamor's 1900 equation is
> > the same as Einstein's 1905 equation.
> > So, the math was there in 1900. Einstein just rejected the theory
> > that gave rise to this math and substituted another theory.
>
> He did not "reject" it, he probably did not know of it.
He probably did not know it in 1905. But he offered a different
basis. I am sure he rejected it when he learned about it. The search
for evidence of aether continued for 30 years or so.
Also, he gave good reasons for rejecting an absolute reference frame
in the 1905 paper, the coil vs magnet issue. (I assume its a good
reason, I don't fully understand the issue he raised.)
Mainly he took a consistent view of the basis for relativity from
1905. He was the first to take this view. That is one of the reasons
he tends to get (almost) all the credit.
>And it was not yet a
> full-blown theory, it was just several mathematicians exploring the equations of
> electrodynamics.
Poincare anticipated the consequences of a full blown theory. And,
Einstein's "assume the speed of light is c in all reference frames"
was arguably less of a full blown theory. Poincare thought that for
decades, since Lorentz's theory predicted the relativity of c and gave
light waves a medium to boot.
>But in any case, Einstein's approach is equivalent, which is a
> rather strange relationship for you to apply the term "rejected".
The math is equivalent, not the conceptual basis.
>Say, rather,
> that Einstein published a better approach to this issue, which displayed certain
> symmetries of the world in general, and electrodynamics in particular; the
> physics community has agreed with this assessment.
Hardly at first. And they had about 50 years to hand him a Nobel for
either special or E=mc**2, and over 30 years to hand him a Nobel for
GR. The physics community declined. It's kind of amazing that he
lived so long and never got a Nobel for describing the general
architecture of the universe.
I am not attacking the theory itself. But it was not that popular
with the physics establishment.
I think we tend to go back and create a community of only Einstein
believers and call that "the physics community" in retrospect. There
probably were not a lot of understanders, much less believers.
harald
> On Jul 25, 8:45 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Tom Adams wrote:
> > > I was wrong about one thing. Lorentz got the math right by 1904.
>
> > Only partly. He got the coordinate transform correct, but not the transform of
> > Maxwell's equations, specifically of charge density. Poincaré corrected his
> > mistake in 1905.
>
> > > But you have to do some algebra to see that Lamor's 1900 equation is
> > > the same as Einstein's 1905 equation.
> > > So, the math was there in 1900. Einstein just rejected the theory
> > > that gave rise to this math and substituted another theory.
>
> > He did not "reject" it, he probably did not know of it.
>
> He probably did not know it in 1905. But he offered a different
> basis. I am sure he rejected it when he learned about it. The search
> for evidence of aether continued for 30 years or so.
>
> Also, he gave good reasons for rejecting an absolute reference frame
> in the 1905 paper, the coil vs magnet issue. (I assume its a good
> reason, I don't fully understand the issue he raised.)
Not really, for he discussed "the observable phenomenon". Those
suggest that the PoR should be valid for EM as it is for mechanics,
just as it was in Newton's theory - which happened to be based on the
postulate of an absolute reference frame. It appears that Einstein was
not aware of that fact at that time.
> Mainly he took a consistent view of the basis for relativity from
> 1905. He was the first to take this view. That is one of the
> reasons he tends to get (almost) all the credit.
>
> >And it was not yet a
> > full-blown theory, it was just several mathematicians exploring
> > the equations of electrodynamics.
>
> Poincare anticipated the consequences of a full blown theory. And,
> Einstein's "assume the speed of light is c in all reference frames"
> was arguably less of a full blown theory.
I'm afraid that you missed my comment on that: Einstein's purpose was
to *simplify* the necessary input elements for finding the correct
transformations as much as possible.
> Poincare thought that for
> decades, since Lorentz's theory predicted the relativity of c and gave
> light waves a medium to boot.
>
> >But in any case, Einstein's approach is equivalent, which is a
> > rather strange relationship for you to apply the term "rejected".
>
> The math is equivalent, not the conceptual basis.
>
[..]
His conceptual basis was mathematics based on the phenomena itself. As
his predecessors matched a physical model to those same constraints,
there was little room to disagree about the necessary conclusion. :-)
Harald
Tom Adams
"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,”
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest."
By rejecting aether, he rejected all theories that follow from it,
including the one's he does not know about like Lorentz's theory.
He did not find a logical contradiction in the aether hypothesis.
Instead, he gave it the status of the theory that there is a invisible
unicorn in the room. But that is rejection.
Marvin the Martian
The idea that physical laws are the same in all frames of reference goes
back to Galileo and Newton. Newton's laws are invariant under a Galilean
transformation.
Einstein didn't invent it. If Einstein had bothered, and he should have
checked to see that the Lorentz transformation is the transform under
which Maxwell's equations are invariant. (it is an exercise in upper
division undergrad E&M).
Since Maxwell's equations are invariant, both of his 'postulates' can be
concluded from the transform and Maxwell's equations and they're not
postulates at all.
Too bad if you can't see that.
< snip irrelevant stuff >
>> You're impressed that a transformation that was designed to keep
>> Maxwell's equations invariant... keeps Maxwell's equations invariant.
>> That, I find amusing.
>
> It is not just Maxwell's laws but all physical laws. Why do you think
> that I am "impressed" by anything? I never posted anything about being
> "impressed".
You're impressed by it because you keep making the same reference to the
greatness of Einstein's postulates even though both postulates are a
direct result of Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz transform. Someone
who argues against reason is "impressed".
< snip irrelevancies >
>> THAT come from? Einstein didn't even believe or understand QM, he had
>> an irrational belief and a stupid preconceived bias AGAINST Quantum
>> mechanics (and a few other things, like Lemaitre's Big Bang Theory).
>>
>>
> Einstein did understand quantum theory but his only objection was
> philosophical. He felt that nature should be deterministic at its core
> and it was that part of quantum theory that he did not like.
Besides having a bias against Quantum mechanics and his preconceived
notion of a deterministic universe - which IS a preconceived bias and not
'philosophical', that's just a silly excuse for having a bias -
creationist can claim a 'philosphical' objection to evolution and be just
as (in)valid and just as justified as Einstein's objections to QM.
Einstein also irrationally believed that QM was an 'incomplete theory'
and tried to form a complete theory using "hidden variable'. The attempt
was an exercise in non-science. He clearly didn't have a very good grasp
of the what was scientific and what wasn't when he went down the path of
Voo-Doo-fizicks.
>>>> transform has been verified by experiment and thus isn't a postulate
>>>> at all, it is a theory.
>>>
>>> Correct, the theory of relativity has been experimentally proven
>>> beyond a reasonable doubt. The term "postulate" is just a linguistic
>>> remnant; a way of speaking now and no longer a reference to a
>>> speculative idea.
>>
>> Actually, length contraction has never been shown experimentally. Don't
>> overstate the case. The consistency of the speed of light and time
>> dilation has been shown experimentally.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Length_contraction#Experimental_verifications
Your wikipedia article supports my statement that length contraction has
never been demonstrated experimentally.
They reference the Trouton-Rankine experiment, which was an attempt to do
so, but the results were negative.
>>>> The second postulate about the speed of light being constant is also
>>>> a direct result of Maxwell's equations.
>>>
>>> It is a trivial result of relativity but not a direct result of
>>> Maxwell's equations.
>>
>> The hell it isn't.
>
> It is not a direct result of solving Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's
> equations predict speed c for electromagnetic radiation for the frame of
> reference in which those equations are valid. It takes the relativity
> principle to say that those equations, of Maxwell, are valid in all
> frames of reference.
I'm sorry you're ignorant of physics and don't know were velocity appears
in the wave equation. :-D
>> Once you solve Maxwell's equations for the wave equation, the speed of
>> the wave, c, falls right out.
>
> Yes, but only in the coordinate system where the equations are solved.
No, under all coordinate systems. Why are you on about transforming a set
of equations with a Galilean transformation when you know damned well
they are not invariant under that transform?! It's the WRONG transform.
< snip baseless claims >
I'm sorry but I've already made the case, and all you're doing is saying
'not so' and explaining it in still simpler terms for you is boring me.
Try and understand what I said first and then reply something sensible,
please.
Marvin the Martian
> Tom Adams wrote:
>> Maxwell never answered the question "constant with respect to what?".
>
> He never had to -- his theory was based on a unique aether frame,
Really? Where does this aether frame appear in Maxwell's equations?
And if they do appear, why do we still use Maxwell's equations since
we're so smart now and know that there is no aether?
harald
It's positivism. And insofar as that suggested a rejection, he
regarded that as a mistake years later. Looking back at the state of
affairs around 1905, he said in 1920 in a discourse* on that topic:
"The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this
state of things appeared to be the following. The ether does not exist
at all. The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium, and are
not bound down to any bearer, but they are independent realities which
are not reducible to anything else, exactly like the atoms of
ponderable matter. This conception suggests itself the more readily
as, according to Lorentz's theory, electromagnetic radiation, like
ponderable matter, brings impulse and energy with it, and as,
according to the special theory of relativity, both matter and
radiation are but special forms of distributed energy, ponderable mass
losing its isolation and appearing as a special form of energy.
More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory
of relativity does not compel us to deny ether.
[..]
in such space [without an ether] there [..] would be no propagation of
light"
* http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ether_and_the_Theory_of_Relativity
Harald
Androcles
| On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:23:30 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
|
| > Tom Adams wrote:
| >> Maxwell never answered the question "constant with respect to what?".
| >
| > He never had to -- his theory was based on a unique aether frame,
|
| Really?
Yes, really, you fucking moron.
Tom Roberts
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:23:30 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Tom Adams wrote:
>>> Maxwell never answered the question "constant with respect to what?".
>> He never had to -- his theory was based on a unique aether frame,
>
> Really? Where does this aether frame appear in Maxwell's equations?
Really. The equations known today as "Maxwell's equations" are ostensibly
similar to a SUBSET of the equations of his 1865 theory, but the meanings of the
symbols that appear in them are DIFFERENT. Those equations ARE NOT MAXWELL'S
THEORY. As I have said so often in this thread, electrodynamics has been
re-conceptualized since 1905, and the modern synthesis, called Classical
Electrodynamics, includes SR, Maxwell's equations, and additional ideas and
material (composition of velocities, constitutive equations, etc.).
You are unable to distinguish between the modern meaning of "Maxwell's
equations" and his original theory. in particular, Einstein's 1905 paper was
instrumental in showing that such a re-conceptualization was necessary. Until
you learn the difference you will remain mystified about these details.
> And if they do appear, why do we still use Maxwell's equations since
> we're so smart now and know that there is no aether?
Maxwell "lucked out" in that a subset of his equations have survived to this
day, in a COMPLETELY different context, while most of his theory did not. Of
course this all happened long after his death.
Tom Roberts
NoEinstein
2011> wrote:
> "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:4e2bbc07$0$2446$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> | Exactly which experimental predictions of Relativity do you think are
> wrong?
> |
> | Do you think that Relativity's predictions with respect to the Twin's
> | paradox are wrong, and if so what are the correct predictions?
> |
> |
> Exactly which experimental prophecies of Relativity do you hallucinate are
> right?
>
> Do you hallucinate that Relativity's prophecies with respect to the Twin's
> paradox are right, and if so what are the wrong fortune-tellings according
> to
> your crystal ball, gypsy Webb?
> DIESPAMDIE, you spamming bastard.
Bravo, Androcles! — NE —
NoEinstein
> Damn it!!
>
> Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation.
>
And both Lorentz and Einstein were patently wrong! Yours truly has
disproved SR up down and sideways! There is no maximum velocity of
light; there is no space-time variance near massive objects; twins
don't age differently no matter how far one of them travels; and the
mechanism of gravity is flowing ether, replenished by the 'hobo' ether
transported back into space by the photon trains being exchanged
between attracting bodies—not space-time variance. Any questions,
dunce? — NoEinstein —
micro...@hotmail.com
Distance doesn't transform in the whole universe.
If the train contracted from what end would it start?
The distance contraction is supposed to be local for the train and
global for what is around the frame. The whole universe is around the
local frame global.
But the contracting atom clearly doesn't make sense.
Relativity must be an appearence alone as you cannot shape the
universe by your own motion.
K_h
Einstein did this in his 1905 paper.
>
> Since Maxwell's equations are invariant, both of his 'postulates' can be
> concluded from the transform and Maxwell's equations and they're not
> postulates at all.
No. The relativity principle cannot be deduced from Maxwell's equations
themselves. The principle of relativity is a law of physics itself.
>
> Too bad if you can't see that.
>
> < snip irrelevant stuff >
>
>>> You're impressed that a transformation that was designed to keep
>>> Maxwell's equations invariant... keeps Maxwell's equations invariant.
>>> That, I find amusing.
>>
>> It is not just Maxwell's laws but all physical laws. Why do you think
>> that I am "impressed" by anything? I never posted anything about being
>> "impressed".
>
> You're impressed by it because you keep making the same reference to the
> greatness of Einstein's postulates even though both postulates are a
> direct result of Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz transform. Someone
> who argues against reason is "impressed".
I never posted anything about `greatness'. Where are you getting this? The
postulates themselves are not a result of Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz
transformations. It is easy to put non-covariant transformations into the
Lorentz transformations and have the transforms fail covariance. The Lorentz
transformations are a consequence of the two postulates and the Maxwell equations
satisfy both postulates.
>
>
> was an exercise in non-science. He clearly didn't have a very good grasp
> of the what was scientific and what wasn't when he went down the path of
> Voo-Doo-fizicks.
Stop insulting Einstein.
>
>>>>> transform has been verified by experiment and thus isn't a postulate
>>>>> at all, it is a theory.
>>>>
>>>> Correct, the theory of relativity has been experimentally proven
>>>> beyond a reasonable doubt. The term "postulate" is just a linguistic
>>>> remnant; a way of speaking now and no longer a reference to a
>>>> speculative idea.
>>>
>>> Actually, length contraction has never been shown experimentally. Don't
>>> overstate the case. The consistency of the speed of light and time
>>> dilation has been shown experimentally.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Length_contraction#Experimental_verifications
>
> Your wikipedia article supports my statement that length contraction has
> never been demonstrated experimentally.
>
> They reference the Trouton-Rankine experiment, which was an attempt to do
> so, but the results were negative.
Check it out again. The way protons smash together, and how the debris moves,
suggests the proton is essentially a flat disk at collision -- i.e. length
contraction. There was an article in Scientific American about this a number of
years ago.
>
>
>
>>>>> The second postulate about the speed of light being constant is also
>>>>> a direct result of Maxwell's equations.
>>>>
>>>> It is a trivial result of relativity but not a direct result of
>>>> Maxwell's equations.
>>>
>>> The hell it isn't.
>>
>> It is not a direct result of solving Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's
>> equations predict speed c for electromagnetic radiation for the frame of
>> reference in which those equations are valid. It takes the relativity
>> principle to say that those equations, of Maxwell, are valid in all
>> frames of reference.
>
> I'm sorry you're ignorant of physics and don't know were velocity appears
> in the wave equation. :-D
Why do you think this?
>
>>> Once you solve Maxwell's equations for the wave equation, the speed of
>>> the wave, c, falls right out.
>>
>> Yes, but only in the coordinate system where the equations are solved.
>
> No, under all coordinate systems.
Only because that is a consequence of the principle of relativity.
> of equations with a Galilean transformation when you know damned well
> they are not invariant under that transform?! It's the WRONG transform.
Exactly the point. Relativity replaced the Galilean transformations with the
correct transformations.
*
Marvin the Martian
> On 7/26/11 7/26/11 - 9:50 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:23:30 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> Tom Adams wrote:
>>>> Maxwell never answered the question "constant with respect to what?".
>>> He never had to -- his theory was based on a unique aether frame,
>>
>> Really? Where does this aether frame appear in Maxwell's equations?
>
> Really. The equations known today as "Maxwell's equations" are
> ostensibly similar to a SUBSET of the equations of his 1865 theory, but
> the meanings of the symbols that appear in them are DIFFERENT. Those
> equations ARE NOT MAXWELL'S THEORY. As I have said so often in this
> thread, electrodynamics has been re-conceptualized since 1905, and the
> modern synthesis, called Classical Electrodynamics, includes SR,
> Maxwell's equations, and additional ideas and material (composition of
> velocities, constitutive equations, etc.).
I've heard that argument before in low credibility junk-physics books,
but upon investigation of Maxwell's original work, I didn't find it to be
true. Perhaps it is because one idiot decided to "clean up" Maxwell's
papers and then published the revised paper as Maxwell's work, so I'm
willing to give it the benefit of a doubt. On the other hand, the janitor
who tampered with the paper didn't say what he cleaned up, and it may not
have been the math at all.
Perhaps you have a source?
> You are unable to distinguish between the modern meaning of "Maxwell's
> equations" and his original theory.
So far, I've not seen any difference other than notation. The math
appeared to be identical.
> in particular, Einstein's 1905 paper
> was instrumental in showing that such a re-conceptualization was
> necessary. Until you learn the difference you will remain mystified
> about these details.
>
>
>> And if they do appear, why do we still use Maxwell's equations since
>> we're so smart now and know that there is no aether?
>
> Maxwell "lucked out" in that a subset of his equations have survived to
> this day, in a COMPLETELY different context, while most of his theory
> did not. Of course this all happened long after his death.
Most of the crank physics books make this claim, but don't produce what
they say is Maxwell's original work. Which is why I call them crank
physics books. :-D None of them list what they claim is the original work
of Maxwell with what is defined as Maxwell's equations today.
You can be snobby about it, but I see you doing the same damned thing
so...
Marvin the Martian
You can't even do F = dp/dt. You should finish making a complete ass of
yourself and rename yourself "NoNewton".
Marvin the Martian
> On Jul 26, 3:46 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 24, 5:19 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Damn it!!
>>
>> > Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation.
>>
>> > Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation.
>>
>> And both Lorentz and Einstein were patently wrong! Yours truly has
>> disproved SR up down and sideways! There is no maximum velocity of
>> light; there is no space-time variance near massive objects; twins
>> don't age differently no matter how far one of them travels; and the
>> mechanism of gravity is flowing ether, replenished by the 'hobo' ether
>> transported back into space by the photon trains being exchanged
>> between attracting bodies—not space-time variance. Any questions,
>> dunce? — NoEinstein —
>
> Distance doesn't transform in the whole universe.
That's not true.
> If the train
> contracted from what end would it start? The distance contraction is
> supposed to be local for the train and global for what is around the
> frame. The whole universe is around the local frame global.
>
> But the contracting atom clearly doesn't make sense.
Sure it does. Look at how the field changes!
1treePetrifiedForestLane
to read all of **, at the moment-being. anyway,
I'm pretty sure that Mzxwell used quaternions,
which would indeed be in "all
of their 3+1-dimensional glory," although
it is silly to think of time as a dimension,
as opposed to the main feature of phase-spaces.
thus quoth:
experiments showed that electrical, optical, and magnetic phenomena
did obey
some sort of relativity, but Maxwell's theory did not. Note that
today's
non-quantum theory of electromagnetism is called "Classical
Electrodynamics" and
jim
> On Jul 25, 8:45 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Tom Adams wrote:
> > > I was wrong about one thing. Lorentz got the math right by 1904.
>
> > Only partly. He got the coordinate transform correct, but not the transform of
> > Maxwell's equations, specifically of charge density. Poincaré corrected his
> > mistake in 1905.
>
> > > But you have to do some algebra to see that Lamor's 1900 equation is
> > > the same as Einstein's 1905 equation.
> > > So, the math was there in 1900. Einstein just rejected the theory
> > > that gave rise to this math and substituted another theory.
>
> > He did not "reject" it, he probably did not know of it.
>
> He probably did not know it in 1905. But he offered a different
> basis. I am sure he rejected it when he learned about it. The search
> for evidence of aether continued for 30 years or so.
>
> Also, he gave good reasons for rejecting an absolute reference frame
> in the 1905 paper, the coil vs magnet issue. (I assume its a good
> reason, I don't fully understand the issue he raised.)
Well, the reasons are good, but overemphasized, concerning
local causality.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
of the atoms & electrons (i.e. plasma;
see Alfven) in "free space," which is also
consdiered to be approx. the properties of air,
in terms of permitivity & permeability?
anywy, electrodynamics was born
with Ampere's longitudinal force,
as taken-up by Weber et al et sequentia;
see http://21stcenturysciencetech.com
harald
wrote:
> why is "electromagnetism" not a feature
> of the atoms & electrons (i.e. plasma;
> see Alfven) in "free space," which is also
> consdiered to be approx. the properties of air,
> in terms of permitivity & permeability?
Electromagnetism also exists in "free space" that does not contain
atoms & electrons.
> anywy, electrodynamics was born
> with Ampere's longitudinal force,
> as taken-up by Weber et al et sequentia;
> seehttp://21stcenturysciencetech.com
That's another topic...
Harald
1treePetrifiedForestLane
(it seems that) Pascal understood he had found
in the barometer.
> That's another topic...
NoEinstein
wrote:
Dear microm2: When I say train, I'm talking about one photon after
another being emitted. I've disproved SR, so it's a sure bet I would
never discuss a "relativistic" train! Einstein, the moron, supposed
he could edify the other morons by explaining such trivia. But the
world doesn't need any more discussions on that. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in messagenews:GeidnZgZCPsIUrPT...@giganews.com...
Dear K_h: Your talk like an expert, but are out of touch with
reason. First, SR violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy-Mass
by getting out more energy than the force causing the velocity
increase has put in. Since I have invalidated the M-M experiment for
having no control, or unchanging light course, there is no rationale
for Lorentz's rubber ruler that supposedly corresponds to his "beta"
part of Einstein's SR: [1 - v^2 / c^2]^1/2. Know this fellow:
Science is NEVER a mathematical derivation! Science is looking at and
understanding the data, then expressing what is happening as a concept
in words, first. Much later, that verbal theorem can be written as an
equation—no derivation of anything is ever required! Both Maxwell and
Lorentz were idiots! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Harald: The only requirement is that there be ether in space to have
electromagnetism. The IOTAs are polar and can join end-to-end in
lines of EM flux that can circle the Universe! But such lines can be
broken by intense photon/charged-particle emission near massive
objects. The important thing to know is that EM force is not a wave
in the ether, nor is gravity a wave. — NoEinstein —
1treePetrifiedForestLane
which contains no *electronics* per se, although
that doesn't sound like a do-able viz uncertainty.
no different than Pascal's assumption
about his experiment (that there was no mercury (or
water) in the column (in the maximum stage
of a suction-pump)).
> That's another topic...
NoEinstein
wrote:
1tree: Your topic is wandering. What point of science are you trying
to make? And how does that relate to the title of this post? — NE —
1treePetrifiedForestLane
let-alone a theory of any thing.
the only requirement for electromagnetism is electrons and
atoms in "free space," but you would never even try
to comprehend such evidence as permitivity & permeability
"of free space," or just air.
> The only requirement is that there be ether in space to have
> electromagnetism. The IOTAs are polar and can join end-to-end in
> lines of EM flux that can circle the Universe! But such lines can be
> broken by intense photon/charged-particle emission near massive
> objects. The important thing to know is that EM force is not a wave
> in the ether, nor is gravity a wave. --Neinsteinmania
NoEinstein
1tree: Your topic is wandering. What point of science are you trying
1treePetrifiedForestLane
the acceleration could be constant,
typically meaning diminishing use of fuel
for the whole flight (say,
roundtrip, with equal acceleration & deceleration
on both "legs."
you do not really respond to any questions,
such as "M the M's" -- not that I'm not technically a part
of the Einstrin cult.
thus quoth:
1treePetrifiedForestLane
you really have not comprehended what you've read,
either in the original sources, or
with us in this alleged forum --
where you proclaim your wonderfulness.
NoEinstein
wrote:
1tree: Please explain what you mean by "M the M's". Morley was a
"chemist" of all things. He was Michelson's hey boy in constructing
an improperly designed experiment. Michelson was a TECHNICIAN who
wasn't smart enough to figure out what was going on in any of his nil-
result experiments. You "quoth" me right. Do that more often and
your mental status will go up! — NoEinstein —
Androcles
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:548f6471-2259-491e...@j15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
1tree: Please explain what you mean by "M the M's". Morley was a
"chemist" of all things. He was Michelson's hey boy in constructing
an improperly designed experiment. Michelson was a TECHNICIAN who
wasn't smart enough to figure out what was going on in any of his nil-
result experiments.
You fucking rude, pig-ignorant worthless bastard!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
Edward Green
> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in messagenews:6NudnW016qQhx7DT...@giganews.com...
> > On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 23:07:33 -0700, K_h wrote:
> >> If Maxwell's equations are used with the Galilean
> >> transformations then, in many reference frames, the speed of light is
> >> not the same in all directions.
>
> > Maxwell's equations are not invariant under a Galilean transformation,
> > which leads to the conclusion that the physics of electromagnetism would
> > have to be dependent upon the frame of the observer, which is an absurd
> > result.
No it's not. You are confusing something like the "law" that there is
only one universe which is the same for all observers (true I guess in
everything but some abstract formulations of quantum mechanics), with
the invariance of the form of physical law under change of reference
frame. We've had the latter so drilled into us that I can see why you
might label the possibility that this is false as "absurd", but it
isn't. It just happens not to be true -- when change of reference
frame is understood to mean "local Lorentz transformations among a set
of frames at least one of which is inertial".
> In the absence of relativity, it is not an absurd result. In pre-relativity
> physics it was just such observer-dependent electromagnetic effects that were
> being sought after.
Yes.
<...>
I'd comment further but I have a cranky connection and it's just too
damn much work! ;-)
micro...@hotmail.com
wrote:
The fuel energy becomes the mass of a ship by its kinetic energy.
Androcles
<micro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:141f05df-e2a6-49c0...@y19g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
==============================================
That's Newtonian Mechanics.
SR violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy-Mass
by getting out more energy than the force causing the velocity
increase has put in, you fucking imbecile.
Edward Green
<...>
A few further comments:
> > * That the speed of light is constant, which he took to be a postulate
> > instead of looking at Maxwell's equations, which show that the speed of
> > the electromagnetic wave is a constant.
>
> Maxwell's laws, by themselves, do not show that the speed of light is constant
> and the same in all reference frames. That is, Maxwell's laws do not say "The
> Galilean transformations are wrong".
They say it, but only in a very subtle way. They say "if you have the
wit to discover the Lorentz transformation equations, then you will
discover that I am invariant wrt these". Having discovered this hidden
message, we will have discovered that the speed of light is invariant
wrt these reference frames also. It's there, it's just not manifest.
> > * He wrote a paper that said "Hey!! What Lorentz and Fitzgerald Said!"
>
> No. Lorentz and Fitzgerald had a couple of ad-hoc hypotheses that were
> unexplained.
I'm not sure Einstein "explained" their hypotheses. The fundamental
explanation for Fitzgerald contraction remains that of Lorentz, that
the fields holding together a moving body are distorted. What I'm not
sure that Lorentz realized was the awful reciprocity of the relation.
That is the magic of it.
mpc755
'The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Aether (1892) by Hendrik Lorentz'
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Aether
"To explain the aberration of light it was assumed by Fresnel, that the
aether does not share the annual motion of earth, which of course
requires that our planet is completely permeable for that medium. Later,
Stokes sought an explanation on the assumption that the aether is
dragged by the earth and thus to each point at the earth's surface the
speed of the aether is the same as that of the earth. On these theories,
I have extensively worked some years ago[1]. It appeared to me that
other modes of explanation may more or less lie in the middle between
those mentioned above"
The state of the aether of relativity at every place determined by its
connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring
places is the state of displacement of the aether.
Edward Green
Edward Green
<...>
> Besides having a bias against Quantum mechanics and his preconceived
> notion of a deterministic universe - which IS a preconceived bias and not
> 'philosophical', that's just a silly excuse for having a bias -
> creationist can claim a 'philosphical' objection to evolution and be just
> as (in)valid and just as justified as Einstein's objections to QM.
>
> Einstein also irrationally believed that QM was an 'incomplete theory'
> and tried to form a complete theory using "hidden variable'. The attempt
> was an exercise in non-science. He clearly didn't have a very good grasp
> of the what was scientific and what wasn't when he went down the path of
> Voo-Doo-fizicks.
When you make these kinds of personalized attacks on Einstein, you
sound like just another anti-personality-cultist and I lose interest
in what you have to say. Too bad. You sounded fairly interesting in
other ways.
Edward Green
> On Jul 26, 2:27 pm, Tom Adams <tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Just look at Einstein's own words right off the bat:
>
> > "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
> > discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,”
> > suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
> > possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest."
>
> > By rejecting aether, he rejected all theories that follow from it,
> > including the one's he does not know about like Lorentz's theory.
>
> > He did not find a logical contradiction in the aether hypothesis.
> > Instead, he gave it the status of the theory that there is a
> > invisible unicorn in the room. But that is rejection.
Invisible unicorns and invisible pink elephants are state and
hackneyed witicisms. You can do better. They impress me right up there
with personal attacks on Einstein, even though they come from the
other side of the fence.
Tom Roberts
> On Jul 25, 5:20 pm, "K_h" <KHol...@SX729.com> wrote:
>>> have to be dependent upon the frame of the observer, which is an absurd
>>> result.
>
> No it's not.
Yes, it is. Here "frame" means "coordinates", which are a human mechanism for
description of physical phenomena. Such phenomena cannot possibly depend on the
coordinates some human choses to use to describe them. This necessarily also
applies to the "laws" that humans come up with to summarize classes of physical
phenomena.
IOW: physical phenomena cannot depend on an ARBITRARY human choice.
Note that nature uses no coordinates, and cannot possibly be
"cognizant" of them.
Of course to properly handle this, one must not assume inertial coordinates when
writing the equations of physical laws. The usual presentation of Maxwell's
equations does not meet the requirement of coordinate independence, but their
formulation in terms of differential forms does.
Formulating QFT in a coordinate-independent manner is a challenge,
but it's not insurmountable....
> We've had [invariance] so drilled into us that I can see why you
> might label the possibility that this is false as "absurd", but it
> isn't. It just happens not to be true -- when change of reference
> frame is understood to mean "local Lorentz transformations among a set
> of frames at least one of which is inertial".
The issue of inertial frames is different. Yes, it is a remarkable observation
about the world we inhabit that our physical laws are not only independent of
coordinates, but are also independent of inertial frame. This independence is
summarized in the Principle of Relativity, which admits only 3 transform groups
among inertial coordinates, and only one of those groups, the Poincaré group
(aka the inhomogeneous Lorentz group), is consistent with observations and
experiments. The requirement for local Lorentz invariance has turned into an
important reduction of the set of all possible laws, which in turn has permitted
us to discover laws of extremely wide generality and applicability. It is
doubtful that we could have found GR or the standard model without the
requirement of local Lorentz invariance.
Note there are quite a few physicists, myself included, who
are skeptical of the unconditional validity of the PoR, and
who suspect it will be found to break down near the Planck
scale, once experiments are performed there (if ever they are).
Tom Roberts
Marvin the Martian
Then you're an idiot. Sorry. That's not bad, the world has a LOT of
idiots. What I said is exactly true. If you don't like the truth, fuck
off eat shit and die. I don't give a crap that some scheisskopf "loses
interest" in this or that.
I have NO PROBLEM AT ALL WITH Special Relativity. My problem is with the
Einstein Cult. Einstein didn't do that much - he said "hey yeah, Lortenz
transformation is correct!", and he used someone else's math in his paper
on Brownian motion, and then claimed he did a crappy job in his
literature search and that it wasn't plagiarism as his excuse for copying
someone else's work. Then he took Planck's quantum hypothesis and applied
it to the photoelectric effect in what was pretty much a plug and chug.
Good stuff, his photoelectric paper, but it was NOT just out of the blue.
Sure, I give Einstein some credit, but one has to remember his fantastic
screw ups too: He called Lemaitre's big bang theory "Catholic science"
which showed not only his stupidity in physics, but his religious bigotry
(he was, after all, a Zionist racist who thought Jews were the Master
Race...). And his attacks on quantum mechanics were laughable. His rush
to publication of GR after Hilbert told him how to solve it was utterly
contemptible. Then there are his laughable papers in his first attempt at
GR that violated causality and conservation of energy.
Byron Forbes
Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.August says...
WOW!
Now that is an interesting experiment.
Magnetic field related? Gravitational field related?
??????
Anyone know if there's an "official" explanation for this yet?
Peter Webb
"Byron Forbes" <ho...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.28a3ae98b...@news.tpg.com.au...
For the fringes to move by 11 wavelengths, the two lengths must change by 11
x 500 nM = 5 micrometers.
With an apparatus 1 metre across constructed from angle iron, the lengths of
each arm would easily vary by this much due to gravity making the bearings
fit together better, or through elongation due to gravity stretching one arm
more than the other.
What he got is pretty much exactly what you would expect.
If anybody could be bothered, pretty easy to verify. Build the same device
but out of different materials. If this device also shows 11 wavelengths
change, then its probably not an artefact of the test equipment. It won't;
these results are easily explained, and not at all surprising.
Androcles
The result of MMX remains unchanged, Grusenik's mirrors were not
rigidly fixed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-NC8rvGvU
Anyone can repeat MMX except "NoEinstein", who is a RUDE LYING
MORON not fit to wipe Michelson's arse. And that's official.
MMX is easily explained by the first line of Michelson's own paper.
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
Crackpots that don't like emission theory will just have to lump it.
Androcles
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote in message
news:4e39074c$0$13392$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
| If anybody could be bothered, pretty easy to verify. Build the same device
| but out of different materials. If this device also shows 11 wavelengths
| change, then its probably not an artefact of the test equipment. It won't;
| these results are easily explained, and not at all surprising.
|
Your head is up your arse as usual, Webb.
NoEinstein
wrote:
1tree: Please explain what you mean by "M the M's". Morley was a
"chemist" of all things. He was Michelson's hey boy in constructing
an improperly designed experiment. Michelson was a TECHNICIAN who
wasn't smart enough to figure out what was going on in any of his nil-
1treePetrifiedForestLane
to the max, if you want a carefree explication of **** happens, and
it also applies to all Eaaarth space efforts to date,
although maybe not bothering to use "c,"
most of the time, for back-of-the-envelope scribbles.
Shmuel Metz
at 09:12 PM, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> said:
>Swearing at others because of your own personal ignorance is not
>helpful.
It's not just his ignorance, it's his insane ideology. Read his
characterization of Einstein carefully.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
1treePetrifiedForestLane
about "photons" and absolute vacuum. your theory,
however, completely ignores the properties of matter,
that is atoms & electrons, in favor
of your little idea of iotas -- what ever
it is really supposed to be!
1treePetrifiedForestLane
can you evaluate the first two digits of pi, or pith?