> 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. :-)
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.
>>>>> 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.
>> No. The two "postulates" are a direct result of Maxwell's equations >> (which are NOT laws, btw) and the Lorentz transformation. Einstein was >> confused.
> Wrong. Einstein was not confused. Einstein realized that physical laws > are the same in all frames of reference.
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.
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.
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.
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"
"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message news:GeidnZUZCPu9SbPTnZ2dnUVZ5oidnZ2d@giganews.com... | 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?
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.).
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.
2011> wrote: > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4e2bbc07$0$2446$afc38c87@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.
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 —
> 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. 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.
>>>>>> 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.
>>> No. The two "postulates" are a direct result of Maxwell's equations >>> (which are NOT laws, btw) and the Lorentz transformation. Einstein was >>> confused.
>> Wrong. Einstein was not confused. Einstein realized that physical laws >> are the same in all frames of reference.
> 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).
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.
>>> 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.
>>>>> 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.
> 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.
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:20:50 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote: > 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...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:46:02 -0700, NoEinstein 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 —
You can't even do F = dp/dt. You should finish making a complete ass of yourself and rename yourself "NoNewton".
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:01:09 -0700, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote: > 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.
wow, you're good, but I don't have time 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
> 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.
> 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.
> > 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.
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?
anywy, electrodynamics was born with Ampere's longitudinal force, as taken-up by Weber et al et sequentia; see http://21stcenturysciencetech.com
On Jul 27, 4:43 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com> 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
> 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. > 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.
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 —
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>> No. The two "postulates" are a direct result of Maxwell's equations > >>> (which are NOT laws, btw) and the Lorentz transformation. Einstein was > >>> confused.
> >> Wrong. Einstein was not confused. Einstein realized that physical laws > >> are the same in all frames of reference.
> > 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).
> 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.
> > 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.
> *
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 —
> On Jul 27, 4:43 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com> > 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
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 —
you posit a truly isolated volume 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)).
> you posit a truly isolated volume > 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...
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 —
it's not even grammatical, 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
