Physical Laws and Relativity principle
nhamdan2
E-mail: nham...@lycos.com
Since the appearance of Einstein's relativity (SRT) [1], an important
question was raised: Is the matter (energy) and its laws the influential
power or frame containing matter (energy)? In other words, is the SRT a
property characterizing matter (energy) or is it imposed on matter (energy)
and its dynamics?
Einstein actually adopted the hypothesis that the frame containing matter is
the influential power, and the space-time continuum was formulated and was
expressed by LT. This space-time continuum become physical quantities obeying
the relativity principle in that time responds to the relativity movement by
dilation and space responds to the relativity movement by contraction.
Einstein, by LT and its kinematical effects, could build a theory in a
brilliant, perfect mathematical language. This theory has become a great,
enviable an achievement. However, there are still a few physicians who are
skeptical about SRT and they think that this theory has something important
which does not go well with logic and general feeling. This theory has
liberated us from the ether myth to throw us into the darkness of the space-
time continuum.
Matter is no longer free but this continuum restricts its movement. The
matter properties are now determined by the continuum properties. The SRT has
been presented as the unique solution, yet tens of alternative theories are
put forward to replace what is called the SRT. However, the majority of
physicians believe that the alternative theories have nothing new to offer
because these theories lack the glamour and fame that the SRT has for two
main reasons:
1- There is only a subtle difference between the influential power of matter
(energy) and the influential power of the frame that containing it.
2- The SRT has been known since its onset as a unifying theory. It unified
space and time, matter and energy, and it became the basis of other unifying
theories. Therefore, the alternative theories have to concentrate on the
shortcomings of the SRT in that this theory took the short out of the space-
time properties and adopted this as the sole solution.
The alternative theories should be unifying and should show the shortcomings
of the SRT as a non-unifying theory. The SRT has removed the barrier between
matter and energy, but it created a new barrier which can not be transcended
according to this theory. This barrier separates what is known as non-
relativistic from relativistic physics domain. The physical laws appropriate
for non-relativistic physics can not transcend this barrier and hence they
form classical physics. The physical laws appropriate for relativistic
physics can cover the non-relativistic physics domain through the known
approximation; and the LT will become Galilean transformation. The more
suitable method to start with the laws of classical physics [2,3,4 and 5] and
make them conducive to all particle velocities, i.e. to expand the
appropriateness of these laws to deal with relativistic domain. This can not
be achieved unless we go back to the invariance of physical laws among
inertial frames regardless of the coordinate transformations [2,3,4 and 5].
In this way, we could form the SRT starting from mechanical base [5] instead
of restricting the formation of SRT to electromagnetic base alone. This way
remove the kinematical contradictions in SRT due to RDE and give the motive
to build de Broglie theory on dynamical basis[6and7].
References
1. Einstein, A. 1905. On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies Ann. Phys. 17,
891
2. Hamdan, N. 2003. Abandoning the Ideas of Length Contraction and time
dilation. GED. 14:83-88.
3 Hamdan, N. 2004. Abandoning The Idea of Relativistic Length Contraction in
Relativistic Electrodynamics. GED. 15:71-75.
4. Hamdan, N. 2006. On the invariance of Maxwell's field equations under
Lorentz transformations. GED. 17:115-117.
5. Hamdan, N. 2005. Newton’s Second Law is a Relativistic law without
Einstein’s relativity. GED. 16:71-74.
6. Hamdan, N. 2006. On the Interpretation of the Doppler Effect in the
Special Relativity (SRT). GED. 17:29-34.
7. Hamdan, N. 2005. A Dynamic Approach to De Broglie's Theory.
Apeiron 12: 274-290.
dda1
"Dr". Hamdan
For your information, publishing in fringe journals such as Apeiron and
Galilean Electrodynamics, well known for their antirelativistic kookery
(both editors are members of the Natural Science Foundation) is NOT
considered science. Both journals publish mainly shit. Your "papers"
fall in the "shit" category.
So, go ahead. stick all your "papers" up your ass. They might be good
enough as toilet paper.
Bilge
>E-mail: nham...@lycos.com
>
>Since the appearance of Einstein's relativity (SRT) [1], an important
>question was raised: Is the matter (energy) and its laws the influential
>power or frame containing matter (energy)? In other words, is the SRT a
>property characterizing matter (energy) or is it imposed on matter (energy)
>and its dynamics?
>Einstein actually adopted the hypothesis that the frame containing matter is
>the influential power, and the space-time continuum was formulated and was
>expressed by LT.
>This space-time continuum become physical quantities obeying
>the relativity principle in that time responds to the relativity movement by
>dilation and space responds to the relativity movement by contraction.
it for while.
dda1
He doesn't care about truth and science, he's peddling his shitty
papers. He does this periodically.
Sorcerer
"nhamdan2" <u23549@uwe> wrote in message news:6274ac5d015da@uwe...
| Dr. Nizar Hamdan
| E-mail: nham...@lycos.com
|
| Since the appearance of Einstein's relativity (SRT) [1], an important
| question was raised: Is the matter (energy) and its laws the influential
| power or frame containing matter (energy)?
No.
| In other words, is the SRT a
| property characterizing matter (energy) or is it imposed on matter
(energy)
| and its dynamics?
| Einstein actually adopted the hypothesis that the frame containing matter
is
| the influential power, and the space-time continuum was formulated and was
| expressed by LT. This space-time continuum become physical quantities
obeying
| the relativity principle in that time responds to the relativity movement
by
| dilation and space responds to the relativity movement by contraction.
| Einstein, by LT and its kinematical effects, could build a theory in a
| brilliant, perfect mathematical language.
Brilliant, perfect mathematical language:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img7.gif
Light goes from A to A in time (t'A-tA)... hence c = 0/0.
| This theory has become a great,
| enviable an achievement.
Oh yes, I'm really envious of any moron that divides by zero and says:
"an observer approaching a source of light with the velocity c,
this source of light must appear of infinite intensity." - IFC Einstein
"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go
more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock
situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions." - IFC
Einstein
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity."- IFC Einstein
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img155.gif
- IFC Einstein
You call that "achievement"?
I call it stupidity.
| However, there are still a few physicians
???
Physicians are medical personnel, "Dr". Perhaps you mean physicists,
but your degree is questionable when you make such blunders.
Androcles
nhamdan2
>> nhamdan2:
>> >Dr. Nizar Hamdan
>> You are very confused. Before trying to explain relativity, go study
>> it for while.
>
>He doesn't care about truth and science, he's peddling his shitty
>papers. He does this periodically.
nhamdan2:
There is no (physical)time dilation or (physical) length contraction, see
1. Hamdan, N. 2003. Abandoning the Ideas of Length Contraction and time
dilation. GED. 14:83-88.
2 Hamdan, N. 2004. Abandoning The Idea of Relativistic Length Contraction in
nhamdan2
> >the influential power, and the space-time continuum was formulated and was
> >expressed by LT.
>
> Well no, that is not the hypothesis einstein adopted.
>
> >This space-time continuum become physical quantities obeying
> >the relativity principle in that time responds to the relativity movement by
> >dilation and space responds to the relativity movement by contraction.
> You are very confused. Before trying to explain relativity, go study
>it for while.
nhamdan2:
There is no (physical)time dilation or (physical) length contraction, see
1. Hamdan, N. 2003. Abandoning the Ideas of Length Contraction and time
dilation. GED. 14:83-88.
2 Hamdan, N. 2004. Abandoning The Idea of Relativistic Length Contraction in
nhamdan2
nhamdan2:
There is no (physical)time dilation or (physical) length contraction, see
1. Hamdan, N. 2003. Abandoning the Ideas of Length Contraction and time
dilation. GED. 14:83-88.
2 Hamdan, N. 2004. Abandoning The Idea of Relativistic Length Contraction in
Phineas T Puddleduck
Nice - citing yourself. Shame is, you're still wrong.
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
dda1
nhamdan2 wrote:
<snipped>
U didn't get it , idiot, this website doesn't cater for crackpot self
promoters. Let me make it clear(er) for you: buzz off.
dda1
nhamdan2 wrote:
>
> 1. Hamdan, N. 2003. Abandoning the Ideas of Length Contraction and time
> dilation. GED. 14:83-88.
> 2 Hamdan, N. 2004. Abandoning The Idea of Relativistic Length Contraction in
> Relativistic Electrodynamics. GED. 15:71-75.
Ok, you repeated the quotes from your shitty papers. Red card, fuck off!
Bill Hobba
"nhamdan2" <u23549@uwe> wrote in message news:6275eac6747ca@uwe...
> Bilge wrote:
>> nhamdan2:
>> >Dr. Nizar Hamdan
>> >E-mail: nham...@lycos.com
>>[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>> >the influential power, and the space-time continuum was formulated and
>> >was
>> >expressed by LT.
>>
>> Well no, that is not the hypothesis einstein adopted.
>>
>> >This space-time continuum become physical quantities obeying
>> >the relativity principle in that time responds to the relativity
>> >movement by
>> >dilation and space responds to the relativity movement by contraction.
>> You are very confused. Before trying to explain relativity, go study
>>it for while.
>
> nhamdan2:
>
> There is no (physical)time dilation or (physical) length contraction, see
The existence of magnetic fields in a current carrying wire proves length
contrition and experiments with atomic clocks prove time dilation.
>
> 1. Hamdan, N. 2003. Abandoning the Ideas of Length Contraction and time
> dilation. GED. 14:83-88.
> 2 Hamdan, N. 2004. Abandoning The Idea of Relativistic Length Contraction
> in
> Relativistic Electrodynamics. GED. 15:71-75.
Mind actually explaining in detail why and how they account for the above
experimental facts?
Bill
nhamdan2 via NatScience.com
nhamdan2:
Dr. Nizar Hamdan
E-mail: nham...@lycos.com
Dear Idiot
The critics of special relativity from 1908-2005 show many fundamental flaws
of the theory which lead to the judgment about the theory to be sheer
nonsense.
--
Message posted via http://www.natscience.com
nhamdan2 via NatScience.com
nhamdan2 via NatScience.com
>>> nhamdan2:
>>> >Dr. Nizar Hamdan
>>
>> There is no (physical)time dilation or (physical) length contraction, see
>
>The existence of magnetic fields in a current carrying wire proves length
>contrition and experiments with atomic clocks prove time dilation.
>
>> 1. Hamdan, N. 2003. Abandoning the Ideas of Length Contraction and time
>> dilation. GED. 14:83-88.
>> 2 Hamdan, N. 2004. Abandoning The Idea of Relativistic Length Contraction
>> in
>> Relativistic Electrodynamics. GED. 15:71-75.
>
>Mind actually explaining in detail why and how they account for the above
>experimental facts?
>
>Bill
Dear Bill
This paper" Hamdan, N. 2004. Abandoning The Idea of Relativistic Length
Contraction in Relativistic Electrodynamics.- Galilean Electrodynamics- 15:71-
75."
presents new evidence that including the three–vector Lorentz force law
within the framework of special relativity enables one to derive the
fundamental relativistic equations pertaining to a charged particle, and, as
a result, the relativistic charge density can be derived without using the
Lorentz Transformation. Hence, in this formalism the kinematic length-
contraction effect is useless, and cannot serve as the basis for any
subsequent dynamical variable in relativistic electrodynamics.
--
Message posted via NatScience.com
http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/relativity/200606/1
Phineas T Puddleduck
<u23549@uwe> wrote:
But yet the only papers you quote are your own.....
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
dda1
nhamdan2 via NatScience.com wrote:
<snipped>
Then stop self promoting your idiotic papers published in fringe
magazines. No one gives a shit about your "papers", Hamdan. Because
they are worthless.
dda1
Nizar Hamdan wrote:
<snipped>
You want publicity, shit eater? We'll give you publicity, Nizar Hamdan
You keep self promoting your idiotic papers published in fringe
Bill Hobba
"nhamdan2 via NatScience.com" <u23549@uwe> wrote in message
news:62817d584e95c@uwe...
> Bill Hobba wrote:
>>>> nhamdan2:
>>>> >Dr. Nizar Hamdan
>>[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>>>
>>> There is no (physical)time dilation or (physical) length contraction,
>>> see
>>
>>The existence of magnetic fields in a current carrying wire proves length
>>contrition and experiments with atomic clocks prove time dilation.
>>
>>> 1. Hamdan, N. 2003. Abandoning the Ideas of Length Contraction and time
>>> dilation. GED. 14:83-88.
>>> 2 Hamdan, N. 2004. Abandoning The Idea of Relativistic Length
>>> Contraction
>>> in
>>> Relativistic Electrodynamics. GED. 15:71-75.
>>
>>Mind actually explaining in detail why and how they account for the above
>>experimental facts?
>>
>>Bill
>
> Dear Bill
> This paper" Hamdan, N. 2004. Abandoning The Idea of Relativistic Length
> Contraction in Relativistic Electrodynamics.- Galilean Electrodynamics-
> 15:71-
> 75."
> within the framework of special relativity enables one to derive the
> fundamental relativistic equations pertaining to a charged particle, and,
> as
> a result, the relativistic charge density can be derived without using the
> Lorentz Transformation.
Your logic is obviously wrong since length contraction follows immediately
by inexorable logic from the existence of magnetic fields in a current
carrying wire. SR requires only the POR - applying the resultant equations
to a current carrying wire immediately proves length contraction from the
well known experimental fact that magnetic fields exist. Your refutation of
its logic is eagerly awaited - no evasions - the actual step in the logic
that is incorrect.
Start with the derivation of the Lornetz equations from the POR
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076,
and ancient, but I still think excellent post by Tom Roberts
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=54jfst%24glp%40ssbunews.ih.lucent.com
and chapter 10 of
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/
under the heading of Relativity without c.
Then the existence of magnetic fields in a current carrying wire:
http://www.av8n.com/physics/magnet-relativity.htm
No pointing to papers that claim to prove your point - detail where the
links I have given are incorrect.
Bill
nhamdan2 via NatScience.com
See also this Link from Dr. Mandel Sachs
http://www.compukol.com/mendel/discus/messages/board-topics.html
Dr. Nizar Hamdan
--
nhamdan2 via NatScience.com
See also this Link from Dr. Mandel Sachs
http://www.compukol.com/mendel/discus/messages/board-topics.html
dda1 wrote:
>> nhamdan2:
>> >Dr. Nizar Hamdan
>[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>> You are very confused. Before trying to explain relativity, go study
>> it for while.
>
>He doesn't care about truth and science, he's peddling his shitty
>papers. He does this periodically.
--
Message posted via NatScience.com
http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/relativity/200607/1
nhamdan2 via NatScience.com
See also this Link from Dr. Mandel Sachs
http://www.compukol.com/mendel/discus/messages/board-topics.html
--
Message posted via NatScience.com
http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/relativity/200607/1
nhamdan2 via NatScience.com
See also this Link from Dr. Mandel Sachs
http://www.compukol.com/mendel/discus/messages/board-topics.html
--
nhamdan2 via NatScience.com
See also this Link from Dr. Mandel Sachs
http://www.compukol.com/mendel/discus/messages/board-topics.html
--
nhamdan2 via NatScience.com
See also this Link from Dr. Mandel Sachs
http://www.compukol.com/mendel/discus/messages/board-topics.html
Dr. Nizar Hamdan
--
nhamdan2 via NatScience.com
See also this Link from Dr. Mandel Sachs
http://www.compukol.com/mendel/discus/messages/board-topics.html
Dr. Hamdan, N.
--
dda1
<snipped>
It has been explain to you, crank, why your "papers" are worthless
pieces of shit.
So go advertise elswhere. Wait, you have already advertised all over
the internet including the crackpot sites.
dda1
nhamdan2 via NatScience.com
I totally amazed of your intelligence level. I got no respect for
people like you who cannot understand what they read.
Dr. Nizar Hamdan
dda1 wrote:
><embarassing, long drawn, self advertising snipped>
>
>"Dr". Hamdan
>
>For your information, publishing in fringe journals such as Apeiron and
>Galilean Electrodynamics, well known for their antirelativistic kookery
>(both editors are members of the Natural Science Foundation) is NOT
>considered science. Both journals publish mainly shit. Your "papers"
>fall in the "shit" category.
>
>So, go ahead. stick all your "papers" up your ass. They might be good
>enough as toilet paper.
--
nhamdan2 via NatScience.com
I totally amazed of your intelligence level. I got no respect for
people like you who cannot understand what they read.
Dr. Nizar Hamdan
dda1 wrote:
>> nhamdan2:
>> >Dr. Nizar Hamdan
>[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>> You are very confused. Before trying to explain relativity, go study
>> it for while.
>
>He doesn't care about truth and science, he's peddling his shitty
>papers. He does this periodically.
--
nhamdan2 via NatScience.com
I totally amazed of your intelligence level. I got no respect for
people like you who cannot understand what they read.
Dr. Nizar Hamdan
--
nhamdan2 via NatScience.com
I totally amazed of your intelligence level. I got no respect for
people like you who cannot understand what they read.
Dr. Nizar Hamdan
--
Message posted via NatScience.com
http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/relativity/200607/1
nhamdan2 via NatScience.com
I totally amazed of your intelligence level. I got no respect for
people like you who cannot understand what they read.
Dr. Nizar Hamdan
dda1 wrote:
><embarassing, long drawn, self advertising snipped>
>
>"Dr". Hamdan
>
>For your information, publishing in fringe journals such as Apeiron and
>Galilean Electrodynamics, well known for their antirelativistic kookery
>(both editors are members of the Natural Science Foundation) is NOT
>considered science. Both journals publish mainly shit. Your "papers"
>fall in the "shit" category.
>
>So, go ahead. stick all your "papers" up your ass. They might be good
>enough as toilet paper.
--
nhamdan2 via NatScience.com
I totally amazed of your intelligence level. I got no respect for
people like you who cannot understand what they read.
Dr. Nizar Hamdan
nhamdan2 wrote:
>>> nhamdan2:
>>> >Dr. Nizar Hamdan
>[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>He doesn't care about truth and science, he's peddling his shitty
>>papers. He does this periodically.
>
>nhamdan2:
>
>There is no (physical)time dilation or (physical) length contraction, see
>
>1. Hamdan, N. 2003. Abandoning the Ideas of Length Contraction and time
>dilation. GED. 14:83-88.
>2 Hamdan, N. 2004. Abandoning The Idea of Relativistic Length Contraction in
>Relativistic Electrodynamics. GED. 15:71-75.
--
nhamdan2 via NatScience.com
I totally amazed of your intelligence level. I got no respect for
people like you who cannot understand what they read.
Dr. Nizar Hamdan
--
nhamdan2 via NatScience.com
I totally amazed of your intelligence level. I got no respect for
people like you who cannot understand what they read.
Dr. Nizar Hamdan
--
Message posted via NatScience.com
http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/relativity/200607/1
nham...@lycos.com
You Idiot, dda1
I totally amazed of your intelligence level. I got no respect for
people like you who cannot understand what they read.
Dr. Nizar Hamdan
dda1
dda1
<snipped>
It has been explain to you, crank, why your "papers" are worthless
pieces of shit.
So go advertise elswhere. Wait, you have already advertised all over
the internet including the crackpot sites.
>
>
>
>
dda1
<snipped>
It has been explain to you, crank, why your "papers" are worthless
pieces of shit.
So go advertise elswhere. Wait, you have already advertised all over
the internet including the crackpot sites.
dda1
<snipped>
It has been explain to you, crank, why your "papers" are worthless
pieces of shit.
So go advertise elswhere. Wait, you have already advertised all over
the internet including the crackpot sites.
> dda1 wrote:
dda1
<snipped>
It has been explain to you, crank, why your "papers" are worthless
pieces of shit.
So go advertise elswhere. Wait, you have already advertised all over
the internet including the crackpot sites.
>
dda1
<snipped>
It has been explain to you, crank, why your "papers" are worthless
pieces of shit.
So go advertise elswhere. Wait, you have already advertised all over
the internet including the crackpot sites.
>
>
dda1
<snipped>
It has been explain to you, crank, why your "papers" are worthless
pieces of shit.
So go advertise elswhere. Wait, you have already advertised all over
the internet including the crackpot sites.
>
>
>
>
dda1
<snipped>
It has been explain to you, crank, why your "papers" are worthless
pieces of shit.
So go advertise elswhere. Wait, you have already advertised all over
the internet including the crackpot sites.
>
>
>
dda1
<snipped>
It has been explain to you, crank, why your "papers" are worthless
pieces of shit.
So go advertise elswhere. Wait, you have already advertised all over
the internet including the crackpot sites.
>
>
>
dda1
<snipped>
It has been explain to you, crank, why your "papers" are worthless
pieces of shit.
So go advertise elswhere. Wait, you have already advertised all over
the internet including the crackpot sites.
>
>
>
dda1
<snipped>
It has been explain to you, crank, why your "papers" are worthless
pieces of shit.
So go advertise elswhere. Wait, you have already advertised all over
the internet including the crackpot sites.
>
>
>
>