HILBERT'S "PROOFS"
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Staats- und Universitaetsbibliothek Goettingen Cod. Ms. D. Hilbert 634
is an incomplete document and has been mutilated at some point in its
history to remove the upper portion of one sheet, thereby removing the
printed portion of printed pages 7 and 8. This document is the
supposed printer's proof of David Hilbert's paper* containing the
gravitational field equations of the general theory of relativity,
which would have appeared in this missing section. Does anyone have
information which would corroborate or refute this report?
Thank you!
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
*D. Hilbert, "Die Grundlagen der Physik, (Erste Mitteilung.) Vorgelegt
in der Sitzung vom 20. November 1915.", _Nachrichten von der
Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen.
Mathematisch-physikalische Klasse_, (1915), pp. 395-407.
Raymond Manzoni
For interested people the paper is available online :
Raymond
Stephen Speicher
Thanks, but he is not referring to Hilbert's printed paper, but
to the printer's proofs found by Leo Corry while doing archival
work at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science. I
have written about this in detail before, but, in essence,
analysis of the proofs lays to rest any silly notions regarding
Einstein plagiarizing Hilbert. In fact, if anything, the reverse
may be true. See Belated Decision in the Hilbert- Einstein
Priority Dispute," Leo Corry, Jurgen Renn, and John Stachel,
_Science_, 278, pp. 1270-1273, 14 November 1997.
As to the proofs themselves, it has been reported and verified
that from the single sheet which has pages 7 and 8, a small
section has been cut off from the top such that it is missing ten
lines, but the rest of the page is intact. There is nothing
sinister to this -- nor does it in any way affect the analysis --
except perhaps for those who are so intent on smearing Einstein
that they may seek to conjour up a conspiracy to undermine the
objective evidence which acquits Einstein from the nonsensical
charges of plagiarism.
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Hunter
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.020928...@localhost.localdomain...
He did plagiarize, since like all MORON "theoretical" scientists,
and Euclid wannabees he somehow forgot to mention
that science is *exerimental*.
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
of the University of Nevada, Reno, to publish on the internet his
statement of facts regarding the printer's proofs* of David Hilbert's
paper**:
"1. The upper part of page 8 of the proofs, together with eq.(17), has
been cut off by someone.
2.The text following the cut off part on page 8 refers to the Ricci
curvature invariant and to the metric tensor. This alone shows that
the upper part of page 8 with the missing eq. (17) has to do with the
gravitational field equations.
3.Prior to eq. (26), Hilbert states that with the form of the
variational derivative given by eq. (17), the gravitational field
equations assume the form given by eq. (26). But it is the variational
derivative for the _expression on l.h.s. of eq. (26) which contains
the crucial trace term, missing in all of Einstein's papers prior to
Einstein having seen Hilbert's paper."
We should all be grateful to Prof. Winterberg for sharing with us his
significant insights.
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
*Niedersachsischen Staats- und Universitaetsbibliothek Goettingen Cod.
Ms. D. Hilbert 634.
**D. Hilbert, "Die Grundlagen der Physik, (Erste Mitteilung.)
Robert Kolker
James Hunter wrote:
> He did plagiarize, since like all MORON "theoretical" scientists,
> and Euclid wannabees he somehow forgot to mention
> that science is *exerimental*.
Ultimately the veracity of theories must be supported (or refuted) by
experiment. But hypotheses are rarely wrung out of a large pile of
facts. For example, there were few if any facts supporting Maxwell'a
addition of a term account for what he called displacement current. He
was intent on maintaining the conservation of charge principles. That
is, electrical charges do not appear out of nowhere.
The apparatus necessary for supporting his displacement current term was
not invented at the time he proposed it. So how empirical was his science?
Bob Kolker
greywolf42
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3D972689...@attbi.com...
Bob, why do you continue to repeat the big lie?
Maxwell did not just try to "maintain the conservation of charge
principles." He DERIVED his equations from a fluid aether. The
displacement current is a direct result of that derivation.
The "apparatus" (the aether fluid) was explicitly "invented" at the time he
first DERIVED (not proposed) the displacement current. In 1861, "On
Physical Lines of Force."
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Robert Kolker
greywolf42 wrote:
> Bob, why do you continue to repeat the big lie?
One, it is not a lie.
Two, aether is a hypothesis, not a fact.
There was not a single laboratory observation that necessitated the
postulation of the displacement current. It was purely for theoretical
reasons.
Bob Kolker
Jan Bielawski
Was there supposed to be a content to your posting or something?
Jan Bielawski
Franz Heymann
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:upedvb6...@corp.supernews.com...
I wonder if Greywolf could quote the relevant piece from that paper of
Maxwell? In particular, it would be nice to know which properties of
the Aether were required for formulating the concept of a displacement
current. My understanding, reinforced by looking at all my textbooks,
is that Maxwell introduced the concept of displacement current by
sucking it out of his thumb (i.e. it was a postulate). The postulate
was introduced specifically because Maxwell wanted to maintain current
density continuity in all space. None of my textbooks make any mention
of any properties of the putative Aether in the sections which deal with
displacement current.
Franz Heymann
James Hunter
"Jan Bielawski" <j...@nostalghia.com> wrote in message
news:db455fa2.02092...@posting.google.com...
Yes! The exact same amount of content contained in GTR,
which is THE NULL SET.
> Jan Bielawski
spam]@world.std.com Blair P. Houghton
>greywolf42 wrote:
>> Bob, why do you continue to repeat the big lie?
>
>One, it is not a lie.
>
>Two, aether is a hypothesis, not a fact.
A rather plainly disproved hypothesis.
--Blair
"Unless someone wants to get semantic."
spam]@world.std.com Blair P. Houghton
>"Jan Bielawski" <j...@nostalghia.com> wrote in message
>news:db455fa2.02092...@posting.google.com...
>>
>
> Yes! The exact same amount of content contained in GTR,
> which is THE NULL SET.
The null set is a member of all sets, so GTR contains it,
but clearly GTR contains many other sets, so the null set
alone is not "the exact same amount of content" as the GTR.
But thank you for admitting your posts are empty.
--Blair
"I hope your thorazine bottle is not."
James Hunter
> > Yes! The exact same amount of content contained in GTR,
> > which is THE NULL SET.
>
> The null set is a member of all sets, so GTR contains it,
> but clearly GTR contains many other sets, so the null set
> alone is not "the exact same amount of content" as the GTR.
The null set is only a member of the sets that
Hilbert Dorks can actually remember.
So which ones are those?
We vote for the Turing sets, since Turing
was actually a *non* moron set theorist.
David McAnally
Remember that James Hunter claimed to be an engineer, and claimed that all
engineers know that the Doppler Effect is just a figment of the
imagination of mathematicians and physicists. This second statement was
certainly untrue, as there exists plenty of examples of engineers who
acknowledge no such claim. Hunter claims that the Doppler Effect is
nonexistent and a hallucination. I don't believe that he ever explained
how radar guns work when asked, or why the spectral lines from distant
galaxies are red-shifted.
David McAnally
--------
James Hunter
"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote in message
news:an976o$djg$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> >But thank you for admitting your posts are empty.
>
> > --Blair
> > "I hope your thorazine bottle is not."
>
> Remember that James Hunter claimed to be an engineer, and claimed that all
> engineers know that the Doppler Effect is just a figment of the
> imagination of mathematicians and physicists.
I have never said that the *Doppler Shift* is a figment of anybody's
imagination.
I simply claim that Doppler was a *scientist*, and Einstonians are mere
MORONS.
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
the article; "Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority
Dispute", _Science_ Volume 278, (14 November 1997), pp. 1270-173;
asking each:
"Would you please state for the record why you elected to avoid
mention of the fact in your above referenced article in the journal
'Science' that this document, Doc. Ms. D. Hilbert 634, is in an
incomplete copy, which has been mutilated at some point in its history
to remove the upper portion of one sheet, thereby removing the printed
matter atop printed pages 7 and 8, and with it, equation (17)?"
Dr. Stachel has since responded. He confirms that document 634 has
been mutilated at some point in its history--he knows not when. His
explanation for the failure to mention the fact is that the paper in
_Science_ was an incomplete and preliminary report. I pointed out to
him that his statement appears to contradict the face of the article
itself. My reply to his response states, among other things:
Your statement contradicts the face of the article, which makes the
following statements:
"Belated Decision"
which indicates, without further explication, that a final judgement
has been reached after
"[a] close analysis[.]"
This "Belated Decision" contradicts that which you acknowledge to be
the
"commonly accepted view"
"presently accepted. . . among physicists and historians of
science[.]"
You avow that
"Detailed analysis. . . of these proofs. . . enabled us to construct
an account. . . that radically differs from the standard view[.]"
I fail to see how you could not have noticed that the top section of a
sheet of this document had gone missing, while conducting your
detailed analysis. I could not find any statement in your paper that
it was a "preliminary and incomplete report[.]" On the contrary, you
style it as a "Belated Decision[.]" Surely, in four pages there was
room for a mention of the material fact that the document upon which
you relied had been mutilated to exclude text and an equation. I
suspect that the pages of "Science" would not have been overburdened
by a mention of this material fact in the intervening years.
[END QUOTATION]
Dr. Stachel has mentioned that he has since made mention of the
mutliation in "Hilbert's Foundation of Physics: From a Theory of
Everything to a Comstituent of General Relativity", Preprint 118 of
the Max-Planck-Institut fuer Wissenschaftsgeschichte, (1999). And he
states that he notes the missing portion of printed page 7 of document
634 with note 72, on page 33 and that of printed page 8 with note 40,
on page 17.
Dr. Stachel has also mentioned that he wanted to take the opportunity
of our correspondance to mention to me that he has been asked to
publish a review of my book, "Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible
Plagiarist". He wonders if the complete absence of any mention of
anti-Semitism in my book leaves me vulnerable to being accused of
plagiarizing the German media of Nazi-times. I must confess that I
fail to follow Dr. Stachel's line of thought.
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
David McAnally
From http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3C7EBB6E.2AF376C6%40Jhuapl.edu
comes:
From: James Hunter (James....@Jhuapl.edu)
Subject: Re: stupid professionals?
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: 2002-02-28 15:30:09 PST
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "James Hunter" <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message news:3C7EB790.79EFB
3...@Jhuapl.edu...
> >
> >
> > The other point is that Engineers have to constantly remind
> > acousticians that it obviously only happens that way in *your* dreams d
ork.
>
> Er... can you tell me what your point is please?
> Who is the engineer??
The Engineer is the one who knows that the Doppler effect
only exists in physicists *minds*.
---------
which is a clear statement that the Doppler Effect is a figment in the
imagination of physicists' imagonations. So there is documented evidence
that you did make that claim.
From http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3C7EC4A4.C6B46276%40Jhuapl.edu
comes:
From: James Hunter (James....@Jhuapl.edu)
Subject: Re: stupid professionals?
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: 2002-02-28 16:10:08 PST
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
>
> > The Engineer is the one who knows that the Doppler effect
> > only exists in physicists *minds*.
>
> Most revealing.
> Never mind. I didn't expect clarification of your point anyway.
It wasn't supposed to revealing. since revelation is philosophy,
which is exactly what the nonexistent Doppler Effect is.
-------------------
which is a clear assertion by you that the Doppler Effect does not exist.
So there we have it in your own words: your assertion that the Doppler
Effect is a figment of the imaginations of physicists and your assertion
that the Doppler Effect does not exist.
David McAnally
-----------
greywolf42
>
=====================
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3D972689...@attbi.com...
>
>
> James Hunter wrote:
> > He did plagiarize, since like all MORON "theoretical" scientists,
> > and Euclid wannabees he somehow forgot to mention
> > that science is *exerimental*.
>
> Ultimately the veracity of theories must be supported (or refuted) by
> experiment. But hypotheses are rarely wrung out of a large pile of
> facts. For example, there were few if any facts supporting Maxwell'a
> addition of a term account for what he called displacement current. He
> was intent on maintaining the conservation of charge principles. That
> is, electrical charges do not appear out of nowhere.
>
> The apparatus necessary for supporting his displacement current term was
> not invented at the time he proposed it. So how empirical was his science?
>
Bob, why do you continue to repeat the big lie?
Maxwell did not just try to "maintain the conservation of charge
principles." He DERIVED his equations from a fluid aether. The
displacement current is a direct result of that derivation.
The "apparatus" (the aether fluid) was explicitly "invented" at the time he
first DERIVED (not proposed) the displacement current. In 1861, "On
Physical Lines of Force."
=====================
>
> greywolf42 wrote:
> > Bob, why do you continue to repeat the big lie?
>
> One, it is not a lie.
Sure it's a lie. That's why you snipped it.
Your statement was "there were few if any facts supporting Maxwell'a
addition of a term account for what he called displacement current. He was
intent on maintaining the conservation of charge principles."
> Two, aether is a hypothesis, not a fact.
>
> There was not a single laboratory observation that necessitated the
> postulation of the displacement current. It was purely for theoretical
> reasons.
Sure there were. Faraday's experiments. Ampere's experiments.
Maxwell did not just "add a term". Nor was he "intent on maintaining
conservation" of anything except Newton's laws of motion.
No matter how often you repeat the lie, it does not change history.
greywolf42
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:an7nu2$ro4$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
Conservation of momentum, conservation of energy and Newton's laws.
For background, I'll reference a book that's in print (since we've had
serious unwillingness to actually look at Maxwell's original work):
(volume 2 section 822 "On the Hypothesis of Molecular Vortices" [starting on
page 461 of Whittaker's "History of Electricity and the Aether"])
"The consideration of the action of magnetism on polarized light leads, as
we have seen, to the conclusion that in a medium under the action of
magnetic force is something belonging to the same mathematical class as an
angular velocity, whose axis is in the direction of the magnetic force,
forms a part of the phenomenon.
"This angular velocity cannot be that of any portion of the medium of
sensible dimensions rotating as a whole. We must therefore conceive the
rotation to be that of very small portions of the medium, each rotating on
its own axis. This is the hypothesis of molecular vortices.
"The motion of these vortices, though, as we have shewn (Art.575), does not
sensibly affect the visible motions of large bodies, may be such as to
affect that vibratory motion on which the propagation of light, according to
the undulatory theory, depends. The displacements of the medium, during the
propagation of light, will produce a disturbance of the vortices, and the
vortices when so disturbed may react on the medium so as to affect the mode
of propagation of the ray."
in the next section (823) he goes on to say...
"... We shall therefore assume that the variation of vortices caused by the
displacement of the medium is subject to the same conditions which
Helmholtz, in his great memoir on Vortex-motion, has shewn to regulate the
variation of the vortices of a perfect fluid."
Keep in mind that the terms used by Maxwell are not the terms used by
"modern" texts. Much of Maxwell's physics was removed from the math by the
redefinition of electromagnetic constants and units in the 1920's. (i.e.
the definition of mu naught, epsilon naught and the coulomb unit of charge).
Now to the specifics of your request, directly from "On Physical Lines of
Force". First from Proposition 11:
"Electromotive force acting on a dielectric produces a state of polarization
of its parts similar in distribution to the polarity of the particles of
iron under the influence of a magnet, and, like the magnetic polarization,
capable of being described as a state in which every particle has its poles
in opposite conditions.
"In a dielectric under induction, we may conceive that the electricity in
each molecule is so displaced that one side is rendered positively, and the
other negatively electrical, but that the electricity remains entirely
connected with the molecule, and does not pass from one molecule to another.
"The effect of this action on the whole dielectric mass is to produce a
general displacement of the electricity in a certain direction. This
displacement does not amount to a current, because when it has attained a
certain value it remains constant, but it is the commencement of a current,
and its variations constitute currents in the positive or negative
direction, according as the displacement is increasing or diminishing. The
amount of the displacement depends on the nature of the body, and on the
electromotive force; so that if h is the displacement, R the electromotive
force, and E a coefficient depending on the nature of the dielectric, R
= -4?E2h; and if r is the valueof the electric current due to displacement,
r = dh / dt.
"These relations are independent of any theory about the internal mechanism
of dielectrics; but where we find electromotive force producing electric
displacement in a dielectric, and when we find the dielectric recovering
from its state of displacement with an equal electromotive force, we cannot
help regarding the phenomena as that of an elastic body, yielding to a
pressure, and recovering its form when the pressure is removed.
"According to our hypothesis, the magnetic medium is divided into cells
separated by partitions formed of a stratum of particles which play the part
of electricity. When the electric particles are urged in any direction,
they will, by their tangential action on the elastic substance of the cells
distort each cell, and call into play an equal and opposite force arising
from the elasticity of the cells. When the force is removed, the cells will
recover their form, and the electricity will return to its former position."
But what we call the displacement current today is directly dealt with in
Maxwell's "Proposition XIV: To correct the equations (9) of electric
currents for the effect due to the elasticity of the medium."
"We have seen that electromotive force and electric displacement are
connected by equation (105). Differentiating this equation with respect to
t, we find
dR over dt = - 4 pi E^2 dh over dt, (eq. 111)
showing that when the electromotive force varies, the electric displacement
also varies. But a variation of displacement is equivalent to a current,
and this current must be taken into account in equations (9) and added to
r."
The entire work of Maxwell is 120 pages long. And it's difficult to pick
pieces out at random, because the whole is tied together -- and because of
the "mathematizing" of the 1920's that makes direct comparison to modern
texts more difficult. Maxwell's notation for vectors is also archaic by
modern standards.
> My understanding, reinforced by looking at all my textbooks,
> is that Maxwell introduced the concept of displacement current by
> sucking it out of his thumb (i.e. it was a postulate). The postulate
> was introduced specifically because Maxwell wanted to maintain current
> density continuity in all space. None of my textbooks make any mention
> of any properties of the putative Aether in the sections which deal with
> displacement current.
Your textbook reads a lot like my old textbooks. But those are
"simplifications" done to keep students "focused" on the true faith ....
excuse me, paradigm.
Welcome to modern teaching methods. This is the purpose of the big lie,
wielded by Mr. Kolker, and others. As Dr. Carlip has mentioned before, and
Kuhn demonstrates in his "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," the
purpose of a modern textbook is to "motivate" the student to learn the
details of mathematical methods that give the "right" answer, according to
the current paradigm. Not to provide the true history or physics.
If you want to learn real history, you usually have to make the effort to
read the original works.
Robert Kolker
greywolf42 wrote:
> But what we call the displacement current today is directly dealt with in
> Maxwell's "Proposition XIV: To correct the equations (9) of electric
> currents for the effect due to the elasticity of the medium."
Note: to correct the equations for an effect not seen. What medium. No
one had ever seen (i.e. detected) the medium. Not then. Not now.
Maxwell fixed the equations. If he did not, there would have been a
magnetic field appearing out of the blue.
Maxwell's fix was pure inspiration, not forced by any experimental
outcome whatsoever.
Bob Kolker
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
> mutliation in "Hilbert's Foundation of Physics: From a Theory of
> Everything to a Comstituent of General Relativity", Preprint 118 of
> the Max-Planck-Institut fuer Wissenschaftsgeschichte, (1999). And he
> states that he notes the missing portion of printed page 7 of document
> 634 with note 72, on page 33 and that of printed page 8 with note 40,
> on page 17.
I should like to add that note 6 on page 2 also mentions the
mutilation. Is anyone aware of any publicity, which may have attended
the public disclosure that the instrument employed to dispute David
Hilbert's priority is an incomplete document, which was mutilated at
some unknown point in its history to remove the upper portion of
printed pages 7 and 8, and with them crucial equation (17)?
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
greywolf42
<blair[no spam]@world.std.com (Blair P. Houghton)> wrote in message
news:H38Hw9...@world.std.com...
> Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >greywolf42 wrote:
> >> Bob, why do you continue to repeat the big lie?
> >
> >One, it is not a lie.
> >
> >Two, aether is a hypothesis, not a fact.
>
> A rather plainly disproved hypothesis.
>
Excellent! Now could you please direct us to the reference that "plainly
disproved" all aether hypotheses under all conditions?
greywolf42
Again the big lie by Bob Kolker. A true coward, who not only snips the
reference, but the exact quotes from Maxwell. That's enough of Bob for me
in this thread.
Spaceman
>Again the big lie by Bob Kolker. A true coward, who not only snips the
>reference, but the exact quotes from Maxwell. That's enough of Bob for me
>in this thread.
Bob has some sort of clock god worshipping complex.
He must lie or the clock God will punish him.
<LOL>
:)
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Robert Ehrlich
impression. Do you suggest that Einstein was a plagiarist? that Hilbert
saw more deeply into GR than Einstein? If so, I do not see the relevance of
any of your evidence. Your continuing on in this vein indicates that you
are a complete nutcase.
BTW what has Hilbert to say about the photoelectric effect?
go away little man mean in spirit and try to live a life of your own.
Russell Blackadar
>
> What on earth are you implying? Your very vagueness leaves a sinister
> impression. Do you suggest that Einstein was a plagiarist?
Robert, meet Bjerkook, as he is known on sci.physics.relativity.
He's written an *entire book* with that very accusation as its
title. Five stars at amazon.com! including one customer review
that itself plagiarizes the editorial review (amusing) and another
one from some benighted student who says it was "very helpful" for
writing a term paper (not amusing).
Which shows you can get pretty much anything published *somewhere*,
and someone will buy it.
Robert Kolker
Christopher Jon Bjerknes wrote:
>
> I should like to add that note 6 on page 2 also mentions the
> mutilation. Is anyone aware of any publicity, which may have attended
> the public disclosure that the instrument employed to dispute David
> Hilbert's priority is an incomplete document, which was mutilated at
Agents of International World Jewery did the mutilation, obviously.
Damned Jews! Acting on Einstein's behalf they stole Hilbert's glory.
> some unknown point in its history to remove the upper portion of
> printed pages 7 and 8, and with them crucial equation (17)?
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
greywolf42 wrote:
> Again the big lie by Bob Kolker. A true coward, who not only snips the
> reference, but the exact quotes from Maxwell. That's enough of Bob for me
> in this thread.
What big lie? He was correcting an equation to maintain the continuity
of the circuit. What experiment -forced- him to make this hypothesis as
an ad hoc assumption. Can you specify it. If not, then he put the term
in the equation to balance the books.
Bob Kolker
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
internet:
In reference to Preprint 118 by Renn and Stachel :
. . .Renn and Stachel now say that the upper part of page 8 had the
equation H = K + L , as in Hilbert's published version, where the
variational derivative automatically leads to the trace term, as I had
explained to Mr. Renn in my first letter. In the published version,
Hilbert writes down the variational derivative following there
equation (21), which is the same as the equation (26) in the proofs.
In his published version Hilbert does not give the equation with the
variational derivative a separate number, because he assumed it to be
known. If the missing equation (17) in the proofs is the equation H =
K + L as Renn and Stachel believe, the equation with the variational
derivative most likely comes after equation (17) on the missing upper
part of page 8, as in the published version where it comes after
equation (21). The variational derivative has the important trace
term, absent in all of Einstein's papers, prior to Einstein having
seen Hilbert's paper. But even without writing down the explicit
_expression for the variational derivative, the equation H = K + L ,
with K the Ricci invariant, is sufficient to obtain the correct
gravitational field equations simply by taking the variational
derivative of the Lagrangian with the Ricci invariant, as it is
demanded by Hilbert's variational principle. On this point the whole
long paper by Renn and Stachel is an obfuscation of the facts.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Christopher Jon Bjerknes" <bjerk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:fd29af27.0210...@posting.google.com...
> I have received written permission from Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg,
> of the University of Nevada, Reno, to publish his comments on the
> internet:
Winterberg http://physics.unr.edu/faculty/winterberg/winterberg.html
is also a supporter of our notorious crackpot Louis Savain (Nemesis):
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/Crackpots/physicists.htm#FriedWardt%20Winterberg
Another puzzling hit:
http://www.pir.org/main2/Friedwardt_Winterberg.html
directly pointing to
http://www.pir.org/cgi-bin/nbonlin1.cgi/OZ
talking about Nazi scientists.
Bizarre.
Dirk Vdm
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Hilbert anticipated Einstein was the "commonly accepted view"
"presently accepted. . . among physicists and historians of
proofs. . . enabled us to construct an account. . . that radically
were doing so based on an incomplete document, which had been
mutilated at some point in its history to remove the very part which
must have contained that which they claimed was missing. L. Corry, J.
Renn and J. Stachel, "Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein
Priority Dispute", _Science_, Volume 278, (14 November 1997), pp.
1270-1273
Hilbert asserted his priority, by the mere fact of publishing his
paper, and, further, by statements in that paper. Einstein
acknowledged Hilbert's priority, as did Pauli, Kottler, Dampier,
Whittaker, Mehra, etc. . . .
Renn and Stachel again made clear that they sought to overturn a very
well-established fact, in 1999,
"Hilbert is commonly seen as having publicly presented the derivation
of the field equations of general relativity five days before
Einstein"--J. Renn and J. Stachel, "Hilbert's Foundation of Physics:
From a Theory of Everything to a Constituent of General Relativity",
Max Planck Institute fuer Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Preprint 118,
(1999), p. 1
"Remarkably, Einstein was not the first to discover the correct form
of the law of warpage [***] Recognition for the first discovery must
go to Hilbert."--Kip Thorne, quoted in J. Renn and J. Stachel,
"Hilbert's Foundation of Physics: From a Theory of Everything to a
Constituent of General Relativity", Max Planck Institute fuer
Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Preprint 118, (1999), p. 1
In this 1999 preprint article, which has appearently not been as
widely read as the article published in the multi-discipline journal
_Science_, which _Science_ article received considerable
sensationalistic publicity, and is itself sensationalistic, the
authors finally mention that the instrument employed to raise doubts
about Hilbert's well-established priority is an incomplete document
missing crucial printed matter.
These are the facts.
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
_Science_ article, that Hilbert had conceded Einstein's priority,
Hilbert repeatedly asserted his priority:
In the republication of Felix Klein's "Zu Hilberts erster Note über
die Grundlagen der Physik" in _Gesammelte mathematische Abhandlungen_,
a notation points out that it was Hilbert who _deduced_ the field
equations in a scientific synthesis, before Einstein, while Einstein
parroted them in an inductive analysis, disguised by fallacy of
_Petitio Principii_ posturing as a synthesis--as was Einstein's method
of plagiarism. I must gratefully acknowledge that I became aware of
this notation in the work of Renn and Stachel, in their 1999 Preprint
118.
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Dirk Van de moortel
"Christopher Jon Bjerknes" <bjerk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:fd29af27.02100...@posting.google.com...
[snip possible facts]
> These are the facts.
I'm not interested in your possible facts.
I'm not interested in *what* Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg
permitted you to publish.
I'm interested in *who* Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg is.
I'm interested in *why* you might publish a comment by
Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg.
I said I was puzzled by:
Winterberg http://physics.unr.edu/faculty/winterberg/winterberg.html
is also a supporter of our notorious crackpot Louis Savain (Nemesis):
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/Crackpots/physicists.htm#FriedWardt%20Winterberg
Another puzzling hit:
http://www.pir.org/main2/Friedwardt_Winterberg.html
directly pointing to
http://www.pir.org/cgi-bin/nbonlin1.cgi/OZ
talking about Nazi scientists.
Bizarre, don't you think so?
Perhaps you are a fan of Louis Savain?
Perhaps you are a neo-Nazi scientist?
Dirk Vdm
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
murder me. I thanked you before your post, and I thank you again!
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Dirk Van de moortel
"Christopher Jon Bjerknes" <bjerk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:fd29af27.02100...@posting.google.com...
> No, Dirk, I am not a neo-Nazi. Those who would murder any Jew would
> murder me. I thanked you before your post, and I thank you again!
>
> Christopher Jon Bjerknes
I am not looking for thanks.
I am looking for an intelligent comment.
I am puzzled.
Aren't you?
Dirk Vdm
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
. . .I am puzzled.
Aren't you?
Dirk Vdm
Stunned and outraged is what I am. My wife found through your post a
book, "Secret Agenda: The United States Government, Nazi, Scientists,
and Project Paperclip, 1945 to 1990" by Linda Hunt, which contains
highly serious statements. There are always two sides to a story, but.
. .
Thank you again for bringing this to my attention.
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Dirk Van de moortel
"Christopher Jon Bjerknes" <bjerk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:fd29af27.02100...@posting.google.com...
Since you insist on thanking me... you are welcome.
Do not forget to keep us informed on what your wife finds out, but.
Dirk Vdm
Bilge
Re: HILBERT'S "PROOFS" to usenet:
>> >
>> >
>> > James Hunter wrote:
>> > > He did plagiarize, since like all MORON "theoretical"
>scientists,
>> > > and Euclid wannabees he somehow forgot to mention
>> > > that science is *exerimental*.
>> >
>> > Ultimately the veracity of theories must be supported (or refuted)
>by
>> > experiment. But hypotheses are rarely wrung out of a large pile of
>> > facts. For example, there were few if any facts supporting Maxwell'a
>> > addition of a term account for what he called displacement current.
>He
>> > was intent on maintaining the conservation of charge principles.
>That
>> > is, electrical charges do not appear out of nowhere.
>> >
>> > The apparatus necessary for supporting his displacement current term
>was
>> > not invented at the time he proposed it. So how empirical was his
>science?
>> >
>>
>>
>> principles." He DERIVED his equations from a fluid aether. The
>> displacement current is a direct result of that derivation.
>>
>> The "apparatus" (the aether fluid) was explicitly "invented" at the
>time he
>> first DERIVED (not proposed) the displacement current. In 1861, "On
>> Physical Lines of Force."
>
>I wonder if Greywolf could quote the relevant piece from that paper of
>Maxwell?
Save yourself the effort of asking. I've requested that he include
the relevant arguments from that text numerous times, but apparently,
he can't figure out which pages out of the claimed 120 are relevant
or can be summarized, except as he's done above.
spam]@world.std.com Blair P. Houghton
Michelson-Morley.
Now, if you want to make up other aether hypotheses just
because that one got vaporized, go ahead, but if you have
no observational basis and no theoretical underpinning
for your hypotheses besides guessing and making things
up, then don't expect them to be respected.
--Blair
"Have a crack, pot."
greywolf42
> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> >
> ><blair[no spam]@world.std.com (Blair P. Houghton)> wrote in message
> >news:H38Hw9...@world.std.com...
> >> Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >> >greywolf42 wrote:
> >> >> Bob, why do you continue to repeat the big lie?
> >> >
> >> >One, it is not a lie.
> >> >
> >> >Two, aether is a hypothesis, not a fact.
> >>
> >> A rather plainly disproved hypothesis.
> >>
> >
> >Excellent! Now could you please direct us to the reference that "plainly
> >disproved" all aether hypotheses under all conditions?
>
> Michelson-Morley.
A truly pathetic lie, even in this NG. The only "theory" that the MMX
disproved is a solid aether that is not affected by matter and in which
matter is unaffected by the aether. See anything by Lorentz, Maxwell or
even Heaviside.
> Now, if you want to make up other aether hypotheses just
> because that one got vaporized, go ahead, but if you have
> no observational basis and no theoretical underpinning
> for your hypotheses besides guessing and making things
> up, then don't expect them to be respected.
That's why you don't get no respect. At least have the decency to learn a
fragment of physics history before you wade in with the proof by assertion.
Robert Kolker
greywolf42 wrote:
>
>
> That's why you don't get no respect. At least have the decency to learn a
> fragment of physics history before you wade in with the proof by assertion.
O.K. Assume a "soft" or gasious aether. Are the conditions right for
transverse waves? Maxwell's equations imply that light is a transverse
wave.
Bob Kolker
greywolf42
>
> <blair[no spam]@world.std.com (Blair P. Houghton)> wrote in message
> news:H3Jt63...@world.std.com...
> > greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> > >
> > ><blair[no spam]@world.std.com (Blair P. Houghton)> wrote in message
> > >news:H38Hw9...@world.std.com...
> > >> Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > >> >greywolf42 wrote:
> > >> >> Bob, why do you continue to repeat the big lie?
> > >> >
> > >> >One, it is not a lie.
> > >> >
> > >> >Two, aether is a hypothesis, not a fact.
> > >>
> > >> A rather plainly disproved hypothesis.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Excellent! Now could you please direct us to the reference that
"plainly
> > >disproved" all aether hypotheses under all conditions?
> >
> > Michelson-Morley.
>
> A truly pathetic lie, even in this NG. The only "theory" that the MMX
> disproved is a solid aether that is not affected by matter and in which
> matter is unaffected by the aether. See anything by Lorentz, Maxwell or
> even Heaviside.
In retrospect, I believe I may have been too hard on "blair". I don't
recognize his usename, so he could be new to this NG, and merely suffering
from textbook "motivations." For he did just repeat a variant of the
classic lie contained in almost all Physics textbooks.
So, "blair", if you're a newbie you have my apologies for coming down on you
too hard. If you're not new, I'd like to know if you have a text or other
reference that provides an explicit claim that the MMX disproved "all"
aether theories, as opposed to "THE" aether theory (sic).
{snip}
greywolf42
Yes, Mr. Kolker. Just like the last 50 time. Maxwell derived his equations
using a "soft" perfect fluid aether. See "On Physical Lines of Force,"
1861.
Robert Kolker
greywolf42 wrote:
> Yes, Mr. Kolker. Just like the last 50 time. Maxwell derived his equations
> using a "soft" perfect fluid aether. See "On Physical Lines of Force,"
> 1861.
You mean the aether with the rotating hex nuts and idler wheels?
His 1861 paper was not his last word.
Bob Kolker
greywolf42
>
>
> greywolf42 wrote:
> > Yes, Mr. Kolker. Just like the last 50 time. Maxwell derived his
equations
> > using a "soft" perfect fluid aether. See "On Physical Lines of Force,"
> > 1861.
>
> You mean the aether with the rotating hex nuts and idler wheels?
Sigh. The big lie again. There are no "hex nuts" or "idler wheels" in "On
Physical Lines of Force."
> His 1861 paper was not his last word.
>
Correct. It was his first word. Where he derived "Maxwell's equations."
David Evens
wrote:
Yes, he started out with a matter medium, then realised it didn't work
because of the assumption that interstellar space was a perfect
vacuum, which was standard 19th-century cosmology. He eventually
realised that there could be no need for a medium and took it out
entirely, which makes no difference to the equations whatsoever.
spam]@world.std.com Blair P. Houghton
>That's why you don't get no respect. At least have the decency to learn a
>fragment of physics history before you wade in with the proof by assertion.
<*plonk*>
--Bliar
"When you ask a question and I
answer it, shut up and wait
until you have another one."
spam]@world.std.com Blair P. Houghton
>In retrospect, I believe I may have been too hard on "blair". I don't
>recognize his usename, so he could be new to this NG, and merely suffering
>from textbook "motivations." For he did just repeat a variant of the
>classic lie contained in almost all Physics textbooks.
So you're a newbie.
>So, "blair", if you're a newbie you have my apologies for coming down on you
>too hard. If you're not new, I'd like to know if you have a text or other
>reference that provides an explicit claim that the MMX disproved "all"
>aether theories, as opposed to "THE" aether theory (sic).
The only 'sic' is the puking you're doing all over the net.
--Blair
"Off of which you should now get."
greywolf42
Oh, goodie! Another Bilge clone. Zero content, insults and the occasional
proof by assertion. Plus the unwillingness to provide any reference at all.
greywolf42
"David Evens" <dev...@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:3da275fe...@news.falls.igs.net...
Amazingly self-contradictory lie. Maxwell did no such thing. 'Twas
Einstein claimed the aether was "unnecessary." Maxwell had been dead 30
years.
greywolf42
> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> >That's why you don't get no respect. At least have the decency to learn
a
> >fragment of physics history before you wade in with the proof by
assertion.
>
> <*plonk*>
>
Awwwww, poor baby. Did someone disagree with him?
Robert Kolker
greywolf42 wrote:
>
> Correct. It was his first word. Where he derived "Maxwell's equations."
Which neither imply nor require aether. Maxwellian electrodynamics works
without the aether hypothesis and furthermore, the four vector version
can be derived from Coulomb's Law and the Lorentz Transformation (the
magenetic field is a relativistic artifact of motion with respect to a
moving charge). See chapter 8 of -Special Relativity- by A.P.French.
Bob Kolker
greywolf42
>
>
> greywolf42 wrote:
> >
> > Correct. It was his first word. Where he derived "Maxwell's
equations."
>
> Which neither imply nor require aether.
Don't you get tired of making these absurd and pathetic lies? Maxwell's
derivation of his equations emphatically requires a fluid aether.
> Maxwellian electrodynamics works
> without the aether hypothesis
If by this you mean that you can use the equations without mentioning the
word "aether". Or that you can use them without thinking what you are
doing, you are correct. But that's pretty lame.
> and furthermore, the four vector version
> can be derived from Coulomb's Law and the Lorentz Transformation (the
> magenetic field is a relativistic artifact of motion with respect to a
> moving charge). See chapter 8 of -Special Relativity- by A.P.French.
>
Since the Lorentz transform can be derived from Maxwell's equations (as
Lorentz showed in 1904) that's not very interesting, either.
Maxwell assumed SR in his original derivation. It is the result of a
simplification made to reproduce Faraday's law. It is not generally true --
in situations where both source and target are moving at significant
fractions of c. The ME work quite well where either the measuring device or
the source is moving slowly w.r.t. the aether (i.e. on the Earth).
Gregory L. Hansen
greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>
>"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:3DA308AF...@attbi.com...
>>
>>
>> greywolf42 wrote:
>> >
>> > Correct. It was his first word. Where he derived "Maxwell's
>equations."
>>
>> Which neither imply nor require aether.
>
>Don't you get tired of making these absurd and pathetic lies? Maxwell's
>derivation of his equations emphatically requires a fluid aether.
Maxwell's equations are Gauss's law, Faraday's law, Ampere's law, and
div B = 0
all of which were derived empirically, e.g. by running an electrical
current through a wire and noting which direction a compass needle swings,
or hanging pith balls by thread and noting deflection versus distance from
a charged sphere. No notion of an aether was needed for this kind of
work.
Besides collecting these equations that other people derived, Maxwell
fixed up Ampere's law,
curl B = J
Try taking the divergence of both sides,
div curl B = div J
The divergence of a curl is always zero, it's a mathematical result that
follows from the definitions of divergence and curl. But the right-hand
side of Ampere's law is not zero. So Maxwell added that which is required
to make it zero.
curl B = J + dE/dt
He called it the displacement current, and he did indeed have an aetherial
motivation for it. But you can see simply from the mathematical form
and Gauss's law, since a current is a charge in motion, that this result
is inevitable and doesn't otherwise depend on a physical model.
--
"A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
Paul Stowe
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <uq720bb...@corp.supernews.com>,
>greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>>news:3DA308AF...@attbi.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> greywolf42 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Correct. It was his first word. Where he derived "Maxwell's
>>>> equations."
>>>
>>> Which neither imply nor require aether.
>>
>> Don't you get tired of making these absurd and pathetic lies?
>> Maxwell's derivation of his equations emphatically requires a
>> fluid aether.
>
> Maxwell's equations are Gauss's law, Faraday's law, Ampere's law,
> and div B = 0
So?
> all of which were derived empirically, e.g. by running an
> electrical current through a wire and noting which direction
> a compass needle swings, or hanging pith balls by thread and
> noting deflection versus distance from a charged sphere. No
> notion of an aether was needed for this kind of work.
Wrong... All of these require that the effects be communicated
through 'space' as in,
- the compass needle swings with no apparent connection to the
wire...
- hanging pith balls by thread and noting deflection versus
distance from a charged sphere...
Now you can pretend that these are communicated over the
intervening separation by magic, action at a distance, or
field effect but all the aether ever was defined to be was
that substance which permeates all of space and gives rise
to such. That is very clearly what Maxwell 'assumed'!
> Besides collecting these equations that other people derived,
> Maxwell fixed up Ampere's law,
>
> curl B = J
>
> Try taking the divergence of both sides,
>
> div curl B = div J
>
> The divergence of a curl is always zero, it's a mathematical
> result that follows from the definitions of divergence and
curl. But the right-hand side of Ampere's law is not zero.
> So Maxwell added that which is required to make it zero.
>
> curl B = J + dE/dt
>
>He called it the displacement current, and he did indeed have
> an aetherial motivation for it. But you can see simply from
> the mathematical form and Gauss's law, since a current is a
> charge in motion, that this result is inevitable and doesn't
> otherwise depend on a physical model.
Yes, it does. What is this mathematical form descibing? What
class of processes and phenomena does the whole branch of
mathematics descibe Gregory? Could it be Continuum Mechanics?
Is Continuum Mechanics also used to correctly define the behavior
of substances? Are these same equations manifested? Now, you
'could' argue that this is just a coincidence but then you're
making an 'ad hoc' exception to the general rule and that flies
in the face of Ockham's Razor...
Paul Stowe
Gregory L. Hansen
You're talking about interpretation of the phenomena, something perhaps
best left until after the equations have been determined. But to
determine those equations you don't need to have an interpretation of why
the compass needle swings in a certain direction when you send a current
through a wire, you simply need to note that it does so.
spam]@world.std.com Blair P. Houghton
><blair[no spam]@world.std.com (Blair P. Houghton)> wrote in message
>news:H3nGnH...@world.std.com...
>
>Oh, goodie! Another Bilge clone. Zero content, insults and the occasional
>proof by assertion. Plus the unwillingness to provide any reference at all.
I gave all the content and references that were asked
for, troll. You prove me and Michelson and Morley wrong.
Then you'll have used science the way it's supposed to
be used.
You're about two threads away from being a net.kook.
--Blair
"Look it up."
David Evens
wrote:
You're right, you DID post an amazingly self-contradictory lie there.
David Evens
wrote:
That's the first time I've seen you refer to yourself as a Bilge
clone.
Robert Kolker
greywolf42 wrote:
>> Don't you get tired of making these absurd and pathetic lies? Maxwell's
> derivation of his equations emphatically requires a fluid aether.
Produce a -proof- that Maxwell's equations imply an aether. If you can't
then why not keep still?
Hertz once pointed out that Maxwell's Equations ARE Maxewell's theory.
If Maxwell came by his equations because he assumed a medium (which he
does), so what. Sadie Carnot got a correct version of the second law of
thermodynamics assuming Caloric. The correctness of the law does not
imply Caloric exists (it doesn't). Just the same way, the correctness of
Maxwell's Equations does not imply the existence on an aether. Lorentz
came by his transformations by way a a save-the-appearence hypothesis
and an aprehension that aether would squeeze charged matter ploughing
through it. Einstein derived the very same transformation without a
whiff of aether.
Furthermore, the 4-vector version of Maxwell's Equations can be derived
from Coulomb's electrostatic force law and the Lorentz Transformations.
Not a whiff of aether there, doc.
Bob Kolker
greywolf42
David, don't you have anything better than kindergarten insults?
greywolf42
David, don't you have anything better than kindergarten insults?
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
greywolf42
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:ao02ao$kho$3...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <uq720bb...@corp.supernews.com>,
> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> >news:3DA308AF...@attbi.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> greywolf42 wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Correct. It was his first word. Where he derived "Maxwell's
> >equations."
> >>
> >> Which neither imply nor require aether.
> >
> >Don't you get tired of making these absurd and pathetic lies? Maxwell's
> >derivation of his equations emphatically requires a fluid aether.
>
> Maxwell's equations are Gauss's law, Faraday's law, Ampere's law, and
>
> div B = 0
You are incorrect. Maxwell's equations do not include an unmodified
Ampere's law. Maxwell's equations include something called displacement
current. Which is a physical consequence of his fluid aether assumption.
> all of which were derived empirically,
Don't you get tired of making these absurd and pathetic lies? Maxwell
derived his equations from a fluid aether. That certainly implies a fluid
aether. (Though it certainly doesn't "prove" it.) That's the reason we
call them "Maxwell's equations."
> e.g. by running an electrical
> current through a wire and noting which direction a compass needle swings,
> or hanging pith balls by thread and noting deflection versus distance from
> a charged sphere. No notion of an aether was needed for this kind of
> work.
No particular theory is "needed" to do "experiments." What's your point?
> Besides collecting these equations that other people derived, Maxwell
> fixed up Ampere's law,
>
> curl B = J
>
> Try taking the divergence of both sides,
>
> div curl B = div J
>
> The divergence of a curl is always zero, it's a mathematical result that
> follows from the definitions of divergence and curl. But the right-hand
> side of Ampere's law is not zero. So Maxwell added that which is required
> to make it zero.
>
> curl B = J + dE/dt
>
> He called it the displacement current, and he did indeed have an aetherial
> motivation for it.
Thanks for reinforcing my point.
> But you can see simply from the mathematical form
> and Gauss's law, since a current is a charge in motion, that this result
> is inevitable and doesn't otherwise depend on a physical model.
Pretty pathetic. You invoked a physical model for Gauss' law, to claim that
no physical model is needed for the rest of Maxwell's equations.
> --
> "A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
> with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
> our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
>
A great description of the "Standard Model" and SR. Thanks.
The quote does not apply to Maxwell's derivation, however. For he had no
need to "adapt conditions."
greywolf42
>
>
> greywolf42 wrote:
> > Don't you get tired of making these absurd and pathetic lies?
Maxwell's
> > derivation of his equations emphatically requires a fluid aether.
>
> Produce a -proof- that Maxwell's equations imply an aether. If you can't
> then why not keep still?
Unbelievable! How does one "prove" and "implication?" Maxwell derived his
equations in 1861 "On Physical Lines of Force." He used a fluid aether to
do so. And he will STILL have done this no matter how many times you snip
the reference.
Maxwell used a Newtonian, fluid aether to derive his equations AND to
demonstrate for the first time that light was a transverse electromagnetic
wave in said fluid. So Maxwell's equations RESULTED from a fluid aether.
Therefore Maxwell's Equations "imply" and aether.
Of course it doesn't "prove" that the aether exists. Just like we can't
"prove" the atmosphere exists by using Maxwell's atmospheric equations.
>
> Hertz once pointed out that Maxwell's Equations ARE Maxwell's theory.
And Hertz was wrong, just like you are. That's why appeal to authority
(Hertz) is invalid in science.
> If Maxwell came by his equations because he assumed a medium (which he
> does), so what.
Well, that implies that the medium is viable as a "true" aspect of nature --
as far as Maxwell's equations can tell us, anyway.
> Sadie Carnot got a correct version of the second law of
> thermodynamics assuming Caloric.
But she only got one law. Maxwell got them all with a "correct" physical
theory.
> The correctness of the law does not
> imply Caloric exists (it doesn't).
Actually, the correctness of the law DOES imply that Caloric exists. It
requires OTHER experiments or discrepancies to determine whether Caloric
exists or not.
> Just the same way, the correctness of
> Maxwell's Equations does not imply the existence on an aether.
And you are still wrong. The ME -- alone -- do imply a physical aether.
You may freely ignore the theoretical understanding and just use the
equations. There's nothing "wrong" with that.
> Lorentz
> came by his transformations by way a a save-the-appearence hypothesis
> and an aprehension that aether would squeeze charged matter ploughing
> through it.
Don't you get tired of these absurd and pathetic lies? Lorentz made two
separate derivations of his equations (similar to Maxwell). His first was
purely mathematical, his second (1904) was physical (inverting Maxwell's
direction). In the latter he utilized Maxwell's equations and the
assumption of a spherical charge distribution for the electron.
> Einstein derived the very same transformation without a
> whiff of aether.
And without any physical model. Your point would be what?
> Furthermore, the 4-vector version of Maxwell's Equations can be derived
> from Coulomb's electrostatic force law and the Lorentz Transformations.
> Not a whiff of aether there, doc.
Don't you get tired of these absurd and pathetic lies? Lorentz used
Maxwell's equations -- which even you admit were based on a fluid aether.
Robert, the vehemence and outright lies that you demonstrate is incredibly
inappropriate in a scientific newsgroup. No one is claiming that the
existence of Maxwell's equations "prove" the existence of an aether.
Maxwell himself expanded the field in 1873 by demonstrating that any
PHYSICAL causation that met his equations would work. You -- and anyone
else -- are welcome to use Maxwell's equations and never consider the
possibility that there might be an aether.
But the outright lies and distortions you use to deny that Maxwell used a
physical, cause-and-effect fluid aether to derive his equations are NOT
acceptable outside of a church.
greywolf42
> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> ><blair[no spam]@world.std.com (Blair P. Houghton)> wrote in message
> >news:H3nGnH...@world.std.com...
> >> The only 'sic' is the puking you're doing all over the net.
> >
> >Oh, goodie! Another Bilge clone. Zero content, insults and the
occasional
> >proof by assertion. Plus the unwillingness to provide any reference at
all.
>
> I gave all the content and references that were asked
> for, troll.
You gave no references at all. You mentioned the letters "MMX". As if that
holy word explained everything.
> You prove me and Michelson and Morley wrong.
> Then you'll have used science the way it's supposed to
> be used.
Science requires those making the claim to back it up. YOU have to prove
your claim correct.
>
> You're about two threads away from being a net.kook.
Unable to respond in any rational manner, "blair" resorts to "threats." Add
me to "net.kook?" Please, oh please don' t'row me in da' bria' patch!
I can't wait to see what "rationale" you use, aside from "asks for
references when 'blair' makes pronouncements."
greywolf42
ROTFLMAO!
> But to
> determine those equations you don't need to have an interpretation of why
> the compass needle swings in a certain direction when you send a current
> through a wire, you simply need to note that it does so.
One derives the equations from the understanding of the underlying
phenomena. If you can't do it, all you've got to discuss are ad hoc
hypotheses. Or simply invoke magic, blue fairies or God.
Gregory L. Hansen
greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>
>"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:ao02ao$kho$3...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
>> In article <uq720bb...@corp.supernews.com>,
>> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3DA308AF...@attbi.com...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> greywolf42 wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Correct. It was his first word. Where he derived "Maxwell's
>> >equations."
>> >>
>> >> Which neither imply nor require aether.
>> >
>> >Don't you get tired of making these absurd and pathetic lies? Maxwell's
>> >derivation of his equations emphatically requires a fluid aether.
>
>>
>> Maxwell's equations are Gauss's law, Faraday's law, Ampere's law, and
>>
>> div B = 0
>
>You are incorrect. Maxwell's equations do not include an unmodified
>Ampere's law. Maxwell's equations include something called displacement
>current. Which is a physical consequence of his fluid aether assumption.
Keep reading, you'll get there...
>
>> all of which were derived empirically,
>
>Don't you get tired of making these absurd and pathetic lies?
What the hell are you talking about, boyo? "Don't you ever get tired
of..." Check the header, my name is Gregory L. Hansen, I've just stepped
into this thread.
>Maxwell
>derived his equations from a fluid aether. That certainly implies a fluid
>aether. (Though it certainly doesn't "prove" it.) That's the reason we
>call them "Maxwell's equations."
Before you run around making more accusations I'm going to ask for some
kind of proof that you're not just talking out of your ass. For
starters, except for fixing up Ampere's law, Maxwell didn't "derive" those
equations, he collected them. Maybe you've noticed three of four have
other people's names attached. And I'd like you to explain how an aether
is needed to go from, say, forces on pith balls to Coulomb's law. Because
with E understood to be nothing more than an abstracted ability to exert
force, such that F=qE, the only thing Coulomb's law contains is force
versus distance and charge, quantities that can be controlled and measured
directly by the experimentalist. And the same holds true for all of the
equations.
>
>> e.g. by running an electrical
>> current through a wire and noting which direction a compass needle swings,
>> or hanging pith balls by thread and noting deflection versus distance from
>> a charged sphere. No notion of an aether was needed for this kind of
>> work.
>
>No particular theory is "needed" to do "experiments." What's your point?
My point is that except for his modification of Ampere's law, no
particular theory was *used* to derive Maxwell's equations, aether theory
or otherwise.
>
>> Besides collecting these equations that other people derived, Maxwell
>> fixed up Ampere's law,
>>
>> curl B = J
>>
>> Try taking the divergence of both sides,
>>
>> div curl B = div J
>>
>> The divergence of a curl is always zero, it's a mathematical result that
>> follows from the definitions of divergence and curl. But the right-hand
>> side of Ampere's law is not zero. So Maxwell added that which is required
>> to make it zero.
>>
>> curl B = J + dE/dt
>>
>> He called it the displacement current, and he did indeed have an aetherial
>> motivation for it.
>
>Thanks for reinforcing my point.
>
>> But you can see simply from the mathematical form
>> and Gauss's law, since a current is a charge in motion, that this result
>> is inevitable and doesn't otherwise depend on a physical model.
>
>Pretty pathetic. You invoked a physical model for Gauss' law, to claim that
>no physical model is needed for the rest of Maxwell's equations.
I invoked a definition, current equals charge density times velocity, to
claim that no further physical model ("doesn't otherwise depend on") is
needed to fix Ampere's law.
>
>> --
>> "A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
>> with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
>> our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
>>
>
>A great description of the "Standard Model" and SR. Thanks.
Ah... this explains it.
>
>The quote does not apply to Maxwell's derivation, however. For he had no
>need to "adapt conditions."
>
>greywolf42
>ubi dubium ibi libertas
>
>
Randy Poe
> "Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3DA440D7...@attbi.com...
>>then why not keep still?
>
>
> Unbelievable! How does one "prove" and "implication?"
One shows that the result is derivable from the starting
assumptions.
- Randy
Robert Kolker
greywolf42 wrote:
> wave in said fluid. So Maxwell's equations RESULTED from a fluid aether.
> Therefore Maxwell's Equations "imply" and aether.
Ass backward. The aether hypothesis plus other stuff implied the Maxwell
Equations.
>
> Of course it doesn't "prove" that the aether exists. Just like we can't
> "prove" the atmosphere exists by using Maxwell's atmospheric equations.
>
>
>>Hertz once pointed out that Maxwell's Equations ARE Maxwell's theory.
>
>
> And Hertz was wrong, just like you are. That's why appeal to authority
> (Hertz) is invalid in science.
>
>
>
>>If Maxwell came by his equations because he assumed a medium (which he
>>does), so what.
>
>
> Well, that implies that the medium is viable as a "true" aspect of nature --
> as far as Maxwell's equations can tell us, anyway.
>
>
>>Sadie Carnot got a correct version of the second law of
>>thermodynamics assuming Caloric.
>
>
> But she only got one law. Maxwell got them all with a "correct" physical
> theory.
>
>
>>The correctness of the law does not
>>imply Caloric exists (it doesn't).
>
>
> Actually, the correctness of the law DOES imply that Caloric exists. It
> requires OTHER experiments or discrepancies to determine whether Caloric
> exists or not.
It does not so imply. It shows the second law could be -inferred- from
Caloric and other stuff. Once more you have it backward.
>
>
>>Just the same way, the correctness of
>>Maxwell's Equations does not imply the existence on an aether.
>
>
> And you are still wrong. The ME -- alone -- do imply a physical aether.
> You may freely ignore the theoretical understanding and just use the
> equations. There's nothing "wrong" with that.
Prove the implication. Show logical steps leading from Maxwell's
Equations to the existence of aether. Or show that if aether does not
exist then Maxwell's equations are incorrect.
So far all have done is assert backward propositions which leads me to
believe you do not understand what the word "implies" means.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Randy Poe wrote:
> One shows that the result is derivable from the starting
> assumptions.
Greywolf does not know the difference between imply and infer.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
greywolf42 wrote:
>
> Unbelievable! How does one "prove" and "implication?"
and = an.
You do it by showing the conclusion follows from the premis by
mathematics and logic. The old fashioned way. In the the very paper you
quote ( you know the one with the hex nuts and the idler wheels ),
Maxwell states a proposition. To wit:
Prop 1: If in two fluid systems geometrically similar the velocities and
densities at corresponding points are proportional, then the differences
of pressures at corresponding points due to the motion will vary in the
duplicate ratio of the velocities and the simple ratio of the densities.
The he goes on to -prove- this proposition.
That is what implies means. To show the conclusion follows from the
premis by logic and math.
Bob Kolker
Bilge
Re: HILBERT'S "PROOFS" to usenet:
>
>"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:3DA440D7...@attbi.com...
>>
>>
>> greywolf42 wrote:
>> > Don't you get tired of making these absurd and pathetic lies?
>Maxwell's
>> > derivation of his equations emphatically requires a fluid aether.
>>
>> Produce a -proof- that Maxwell's equations imply an aether. If you can't
>> then why not keep still?
>
>Unbelievable! How does one "prove" and "implication?"
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:uq8s2ql...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3DA440D7...@attbi.com...
> >
> >
> > greywolf42 wrote:
> > > Don't you get tired of making these absurd and pathetic lies?
> > > Maxwell's derivation of his equations emphatically requires a fluid aether.
> >
> > Produce a -proof- that Maxwell's equations imply an aether. If you can't
> > then why not keep still?
>
> Unbelievable! How does one "prove" and "implication?" Maxwell derived his
> equations in 1861 "On Physical Lines of Force." He used a fluid aether to
> do so. And he will STILL have done this no matter how many times you snip
> the reference.
>
> Maxwell used a Newtonian, fluid aether to derive his equations AND to
> demonstrate for the first time that light was a transverse electromagnetic
> wave in said fluid. So Maxwell's equations RESULTED from a fluid aether.
> Therefore Maxwell's Equations "imply" and aether.
>
> Of course it doesn't "prove" that the aether exists. Just like we can't
> "prove" the atmosphere exists by using Maxwell's atmospheric equations.
Don't you know how to prove an implication?
With all the help you already got from Randy, Robert and Bilge,
here's the final tip:
Have you ever heard of the equivalence of
"P ==> Q" and "Not(Q) ==> Not(P)"
?
Well, suppose there is no aether. If you can prove then that
Maxwell's equations are false or cannot possibly work, then
you have produced proof that Maxwell's equations imply an
aether. That must be very simple to do for you. What are
you waiting for?
Dirk Vdm
Paul Stowe
Unless you are 'ad hoc'ing those equations (as in back-fitting')
it is, as Maxwell clearly demonstrated, NOT BEST left to 'after'...
> But to determine those equations you don't need to have an
> interpretation of why the compass needle swings ...
Yup, let's just ignore the whole thing and just play Ostrich...
> in a certain direction when you send a current through a wire,
> you simply need to note that it does so.
Now there's shallow idea...
Paul Stowe
Gregory L. Hansen
Oh, you can pop your head out of the sand, but that doesn't mean you'll
see an aether. And that's the point. An aether may have been on the
minds of many of the people that did the work to set down those equations,
but it's not essential. And they do quite well with the notion of fields,
and in the quantum picture.
Stephen Speicher
> In article <ao2i2h$29i$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>,
> Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >Yup, let's just ignore the whole thing and just play Ostrich...
> >
>
> Oh, you can pop your head out of the sand, but that doesn't mean you'll
> see an aether. And that's the point. An aether may have been on the
> minds of many of the people that did the work to set down those equations,
> but it's not essential. And they do quite well with the notion of fields,
> and in the quantum picture.
>
To wit:
"Magneto-electric phenomena are due to the existence of
matter under certain conditions of motion or of
pressure in every part of the magnetic field, and not
to direct action at a distance between the magnets or
currents. The substance producing these effects may be
a certain part of ordinary matter, or it may be an
aether associated with matter."
--James Clerk Maxwell, "On Physical Lines of Force," 1861.
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Stowe
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>
>> In article <ao2i2h$29i$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>,
>> Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Yup, let's just ignore the whole thing and just play Ostrich...
>> >
>>
>> Oh, you can pop your head out of the sand, but that doesn't mean you'll
>> see an aether. And that's the point. An aether may have been on the
>> minds of many of the people that did the work to set down those equations,
>> but it's not essential. And they do quite well with the notion of fields,
>> and in the quantum picture.
>>
>
>To wit:
>
> "Magneto-electric phenomena are due to the existence of
> matter under certain conditions of motion or of
> pressure in every part of the magnetic field, and not
> to direct action at a distance between the magnets or
> currents. The substance producing these effects may be
> a certain part of ordinary matter, or it may be an
> aether associated with matter."
>
> --James Clerk Maxwell, "On Physical Lines of Force," 1861.
" In all phenomena involving attractions or
repulsions, or any forces depending on the relative
position of bodies, we have to determine the
magnitude and direction of the force which would act
on a given body, if placed in a given position.
In the case of a body acted on by the gravitation
of a s here, this force is inversely as the square
of the distance, and in a straight line to the
centre of the sphere. In the case of two attracting
spheres, or of a body not spherical, the magnitude
and direction of the force vary according to more
complicated laws. In electric and magnetic phenomena,
the magnitude and direction of the resultant force
at any point is the main subject of investigation.
Suppose that the direction of the force at any point
is known, then, if we draw a line so that in every
part of its course it coincides in direction with
the force at that point, this line may be called a
line of force, since it indicates the direction of
the force in every part of its course.
By drawing a sufficient number of lines of force,
we may indicate the direction of the force in every
part of the space in which it acts.
Thus if we strew iron filings on paper near a
magnet, each filing will be magnetized by induction,
and the consecutive filings will unite by their
opposite poles, so as to form fibres, and these
fibres will indicate the direction of the lines of
force. The beautifuI illustration of the presence
of magnetic force afforded by this experiment,
naturally tends to make us think of the lines of
force as something real, and as indicating something
more than the mere resultant of two forces, whose
seat of action is at a distance, and which do not
exist there at all until a magnet is placed in that
part of the field. We are dissatisfied 'with the
explanation founded on the hypothesis of attractive
and repellent forces directed towards the magnetic
poles, even though we may have satisfied ourselves
that the phenomenon is in strict accordance with that
hypothesis, and we cannot help thinking that in every
place where we find these lines of force, some
physical state or action must exist in sufficient
energy to produce the actual phenomena.
My object in this paper is to clear the way for
speculation in this direction, by investigating the
mechanical results of certain states of tension and
motion in a medium, and comparing these with the
observed phenomena of magnetism and electricity. By
pointing out the mechanical consequences of such
hypotheses, I hope to be of some use to those who
consider the phenomena as due to the action of a
medium, but are in doubt as to the relation of this
hypothesis to the experimental laws already
established, which have generally been expressed in
the language of other hypotheses.
I have in a former paper* endeavoured to lay before
the mind of the geometer a clear conception of the
relation of the lines of force to the space in which
they are traced. By making use of the conception of
currents in a fluid, I showed how to draw lines of
force, which should indicate by their number the
amount of force, so that each line may be called a
unit-line of force (see Faraday's I Researches,' 3122);
and I have investigated the path of the lines where
they pass from one medium to another.
In the same paper I have found the geometrical
significance of the " Electrotonic State," and have
shown how to deduce the mathematical relations between
the electrotonic state, magnetism, electric currents,
and the electromotive force, using mechanical
illustrations to assist the imagination, but not to
account for the phenomena.
I propose now to examine magnetic phenomena from a
mechanical point of view, and to determine what
tensions in, or motions of, a medium are capable of
producing the mechanical phenomena observed. If, by
the same hypothesis, we can connect the phenomena of
magnetic attraction with electromagnetic phenomena
and with those of induced currents, we shall have
found a theory which, if not true, can only be proved
to be erroneous by experiments which will greatly
enlarge our knowledge of this part of physics ..."
--James Clerk Maxwell, "On Physical Lines of Force," Part I
March 1861.
Paul Stowe
spam]@world.std.com Blair P. Houghton
><blair[no spam]@world.std.com (Blair P. Houghton)> wrote in message
>> I gave all the content and references that were asked
>> for, troll.
>
>You gave no references at all. You mentioned the letters "MMX". As if that
>holy word explained everything.
You lie. I mentioned the entire name of the experiment,
which is documented in many, many places. You fear the
epistemology. Typical kook behavior.
>> You prove me and Michelson and Morley wrong.
>> Then you'll have used science the way it's supposed to
>> be used.
>
>Science requires those making the claim to back it up. YOU have to prove
>your claim correct.
The experiment is correct. You're the one claiming
something is true when it's already disproved. You're
the one with the burden of verifying your hypothesis.
>> You're about two threads away from being a net.kook.
>
>Unable to respond in any rational manner, "blair" resorts to "threats." Add
It's not a threat. It's a prediction.
>me to "net.kook?" Please, oh please don' t'row me in da' bria' patch!
So you want to be a kook. Clearly, you want to be
a pariah and denizen of as many killfiles as possible.
You don't care aobut science. You care about farting
in a school assembly.
>I can't wait to see what "rationale" you use, aside from "asks for
>references when 'blair' makes pronouncements."
Michelson-Morley Experiment. All the reference you need.
Feel free to look it up. Or provide one credible reference
that it is not a proof of what it proved.
--Blair
"Or stop trolling."
spam]@world.std.com Blair P. Houghton
>"David Evens" <dev...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>news:3da3ee0e...@news.falls.igs.net...
>>
>> clone.
>
>David, don't you have anything better than kindergarten insults?
So he nailed you.
--Blair
"So he did."
Bilge
>
>Now you can pretend that these are communicated over the
>intervening separation by magic, action at a distance, or
>field effect but all the aether ever was defined to be was
>that substance which permeates all of space and gives rise
>to such. That is very clearly what Maxwell 'assumed'!
What force acts between the "ether" and the charges? How is
it transfer momentum from the ether to the particles? All you've
done is change the questions to ones you think you don't have
to address.
Bilge
If it's so clear, why is that neither you nor numbskull42 will
post it? The "120-page" excuse is nonsense. I certainly don't want
the verbose narrative that goes with the so-called "derivation",
but which seems to be the only bits and pieces you'll post. If
you require 120 pages to provide a convincing argument for adding
a single term to one equation, given that E&M is not exactly a
new discovery, then the argument that's most convincing is that
you don't understand anything in those 120 pages. If you actually
understood what was in those pages, you would have more options
than to post the text verbatim, or post nothing.
David Evens
It is unfortunate that you keep posting kindergarten-level lies.
David Evens
wrote:
Greywolf42, don't you have anything better than kindergarten insults?
greywolf42
>
>
> greywolf42 wrote:
> >
> > Unbelievable! How does one "prove" an "implication?"
>
> and = an.
>
> You do it by showing the conclusion follows from the premis by
> mathematics and logic.
Then you have a theorem. Not an implication. A proof is rigorous (as you
describe). An implication is not rigorous -- by definition (see below).
> The old fashioned way. In the the very paper you
> quote ( you know the one with the hex nuts and the idler wheels ),
You lie again. There are no "hex nuts" and no "idler wheels" in "On
Physical Lines of Force." Why do you continue to lie? Do you think no one
will notice, if you just keep repeating it?
> Maxwell states a proposition. To wit:
>
> Prop 1: If in two fluid systems geometrically similar the velocities and
> densities at corresponding points are proportional, then the differences
> of pressures at corresponding points due to the motion will vary in the
> duplicate ratio of the velocities and the simple ratio of the densities.
>
> The he goes on to -prove- this proposition.
>
> That is what implies means. To show the conclusion follows from the
> premis by logic and math.
>
You are incorrect. Here from Merriam-Webster:
Imply:
Main Entry: im·ply
Pronunciation: im-'plI
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): im·plied; im·ply·ing
Etymology: Middle English emplien, from Middle French emplier,
from Latin implicare
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : ENFOLD, ENTWINE
2 : to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary
consequence rather than by direct statement <rights imply obligations>
3 : to contain potentially
4 : to express indirectly <his silence implied consent>
synonym see SUGGEST
usage see INFER
Note the words "by association", "association" rather than by direct
statement (which is a proof); "potentially", and "indirectly."
So we see that Robert Kolker, Dirk Van de moortel, Gregory L. Hansen, Randy
Poe (and others even less worth mentioning) thought there might be yet
another way to divert attention from the implication that an aether exists.
By clamoring for a "proof" that the aether exists by virtue of Maxwell's
equations.
Of course the issue they want to bury is the simple fact that Maxwell
derived his equations from a very physical aether. The fact that Maxwell
did this -- of course -- implies that so long as Maxwell's equations are
valid, the existence of an aether is a viable premise. This is heresy! So
they all repeatedly lie about the source of Maxwell's equations, lie about
the content of Maxwell's "On Physical Lines of Force", and try to pretend
that one must work "backwards" from Maxwell's equations to "prove" the
existence (oops "implication") of an aether.
I'm done with this thread. There's no point in further responding to these
pathetic priests. Should I come across these repeated lies about the source
of Maxwell's equations in other threads, I'll continue the corrections.
greywolf42
>
>
> greywolf42 wrote:
> > wave in said fluid. So Maxwell's equations RESULTED from a fluid
aether.
>
> Ass backward. The aether hypothesis plus other stuff implied the Maxwell
> Equations.
No, Maxwell's aether hypothesis -- alone -- derived Maxwell's equations (no
"other stuff" needed). Math is math. No math ever presented can prove (or
"imply") anything about the physical world.
> >
> > Of course it doesn't "prove" that the aether exists. Just like we can't
> > "prove" the atmosphere exists by using Maxwell's atmospheric equations.
> >
> >>Hertz once pointed out that Maxwell's Equations ARE Maxwell's theory.
> >
> > And Hertz was wrong, just like you are. That's why appeal to authority
> > (Hertz) is invalid in science.
> >
> >>If Maxwell came by his equations because he assumed a medium (which he
> >>does), so what.
> >
> > Well, that implies that the medium is viable as a "true" aspect of
nature --
> > as far as Maxwell's equations can tell us, anyway.
> >
> >>Sadie Carnot got a correct version of the second law of
> >>thermodynamics assuming Caloric.
> >
> > But she only got one law. Maxwell got them all with a "correct"
physical
> > theory.
> >
> >>The correctness of the law does not
> >>imply Caloric exists (it doesn't).
> >
> > Actually, the correctness of the law DOES imply that Caloric exists. It
> > requires OTHER experiments or discrepancies to determine whether Caloric
> > exists or not.
> It does not so imply. It shows the second law could be -inferred- from
> Caloric and other stuff. Once more you have it backward.
There is no "backward" to "imply." See below.
> >>Just the same way, the correctness of
> >>Maxwell's Equations does not imply the existence on an aether.
> >
> > And you are still wrong. The ME -- alone -- do imply a physical aether.
> > You may freely ignore the theoretical understanding and just use the
> > equations. There's nothing "wrong" with that.
>
> Prove the implication. Show logical steps leading from Maxwell's
> Equations to the existence of aether. Or show that if aether does not
> exist then Maxwell's equations are incorrect.
These would be proofs. Implication is -- by definition -- not rigorous (see
below).
> So far all have done is assert backward propositions which leads me to
> believe you do not understand what the word "implies" means.
Per Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: im·ply
Pronunciation: im-'plI
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): im·plied; im·ply·ing
Etymology: Middle English emplien, from Middle French emplier,
from Latin implicare
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : ENFOLD, ENTWINE
2 : to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary
consequence rather than by direct statement <rights imply obligations>
3 : to contain potentially
4 : to express indirectly <his silence implied consent>
synonym see SUGGEST
usage see INFER
Note the words "inference," "association" rather than by direct statement
(which is a proof); "potentially", and "indirectly."
So we see that Robert Kolker, Dirk Van de moortel, Gregory L. Hansen, Randy
Poe (and others even less worth mentioning) thought there might be yet
another way to divert attention from the implication that an aether exists.
By clamoring for a "proof" that the aether exists by virtue of Maxwell's
equations.
Of course the issue they want to bury is the simple fact that Maxwell
derived his equations from a very physical aether. The fact that Maxwell
did this -- of course -- implies that so long as Maxwell's equations are
valid, the existence of an aether is a viable premise. This is heresy! So
they all repeatedly lie about the source of Maxwell's equations, lie about
the content of Maxwell's "On Physical Lines of Force", and try to pretend
that one must work "backwards" from Maxwell's equations to "prove" the
existence (oops "implication") of an aether.
I'm done with this thread. There's no point in further responding to these
pathetic priests. Should I come across these repeated lies about the source
of Maxwell's equations in other threads, I'll continue the corrections.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
greywolf42
"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ao1uc...@enews2.newsguy.com...
One cannot "prove" an "implication." By definition (Merriam-Webster), an
implication" is NOT a direct proof:
Imply:
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
greywolf42
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:2x1p9.154462$8o4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
"Help?" :) You mean the repeated religious insults?
> here's the final tip:
> Have you ever heard of the equivalence of
> "P ==> Q" and "Not(Q) ==> Not(P)"
> ?
Yes. Neither has anything to do with the word "implication." (See below).
>
> Well, suppose there is no aether. If you can prove then that
> Maxwell's equations are false or cannot possibly work, then
> you have produced proof that Maxwell's equations imply an
> aether.
Huh? "Cannot possibly work?" On what basis? One cannot prove a negative
in this manner. One can only prove/disprove or imply about a single premis.
One cannot prove that NO premise will ever be found that comes up with
similar math.
> That must be very simple to do for you. What are
> you waiting for?
Pigs to fly.
===============
Imply:
Main Entry: im·ply
Pronunciation: im-'plI
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): im·plied; im·ply·ing
Etymology: Middle English emplien, from Middle French emplier,
from Latin implicare
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : ENFOLD, ENTWINE
2 : to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary
consequence rather than by direct statement <rights imply obligations>
3 : to contain potentially
4 : to express indirectly <his silence implied consent>
synonym see SUGGEST
usage see INFER
Note the words "by association", "association" rather than by direct
statement (which is a proof); "potentially", and "indirectly."
So we see that Robert Kolker, Dirk Van de moortel, Gregory L. Hansen, Randy
Poe (and others even less worth mentioning) thought there might be yet
another way to divert attention from the implication that an aether exists.
By clamoring for a "proof" that the aether exists by virtue of Maxwell's
equations.
Of course the issue they want to bury is the simple fact that Maxwell
derived his equations from a very physical aether. The fact that Maxwell
did this -- of course -- implies that so long as Maxwell's equations are
valid, the existence of an aether is a viable premise. This is heresy! So
they all repeatedly lie about the source of Maxwell's equations, lie about
the content of Maxwell's "On Physical Lines of Force", and try to pretend
that one must work "backwards" from Maxwell's equations to "prove" the
existence (oops "implication") of an aether.
I'm done with this thread. There's no point in further responding to these
pathetic priests. Should I come across these repeated lies about the source
of Maxwell's equations in other threads, I'll continue the corrections.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
greywolf42
My apologies. Why are you attempting to pass off this absurd and pathetic
lie even once?
> >Maxwell
> >derived his equations from a fluid aether. That certainly implies a
fluid
> >aether. (Though it certainly doesn't "prove" it.) That's the reason we
> >call them "Maxwell's equations."
>
> Before you run around making more accusations I'm going to ask for some
> kind of proof that you're not just talking out of your ass. For
> starters, except for fixing up Ampere's law, Maxwell didn't "derive" those
> equations, he collected them.
That's still a damned lie. See "On Physical Lines of Force." 1861.
> Maybe you've noticed three of four have
> other people's names attached.
But if you'd bothered to read the reference (given over 50 times in this NG)
the answer would have been obvious. And Faraday's law was not called
"Faraday's law" until after Maxwell derived it. Faraday was shunned by the
establishment. Everyone "knew" that magnetism and electricity were
separate.
> And I'd like you to explain how an aether
> is needed to go from, say, forces on pith balls to Coulomb's law.
See Maxwell's "On Physical Lines of Force."
> Because
> with E understood to be nothing more than an abstracted ability to exert
> force, such that F=qE,
Unfortunately, the real world does not move to "abstractions" or ideals.
> the only thing Coulomb's law contains is force
> versus distance and charge, quantities that can be controlled and measured
> directly by the experimentalist. And the same holds true for all of the
> equations.
Except Ampere's :)
This is a bit of difference between "collecting" empirical equations and
deriving them all from one first principle. The latter is what Maxwell did.
That's why they are collectively called "Maxwell's equations."
> >> e.g. by running an electrical
> >> current through a wire and noting which direction a compass needle
swings,
> >> or hanging pith balls by thread and noting deflection versus distance
from
> >> a charged sphere. No notion of an aether was needed for this kind of
> >> work.
> >
> >No particular theory is "needed" to do "experiments." What's your point?
>
> My point is that except for his modification of Ampere's law, no
> particular theory was *used* to derive Maxwell's equations, aether theory
> or otherwise.
OK, now that you've been corrected once, why are you continuing to attempt
to pass off this absurd and pathetic lie? Maxwell DID derive all four
equations. And he explicitly DID use an aether theory for this.
Whether he was the first to drop ink on a page in these forms is irrelevant.
Maxwell was the first to derive all four from a single premise. And -- as a
result of this derivation -- to show that light was probably a transverse
electromagnetic wave.
{snip some levels uncommented by Gregory}
> >> But you can see simply from the mathematical form
> >> and Gauss's law, since a current is a charge in motion, that this
result
> >> is inevitable and doesn't otherwise depend on a physical model.
> >
> >Pretty pathetic. You invoked a physical model for Gauss' law, to claim
that
> >no physical model is needed for the rest of Maxwell's equations.
>
> I invoked a definition, current equals charge density times velocity, to
> claim that no further physical model ("doesn't otherwise depend on") is
> needed to fix Ampere's law.
That is a physical model. Not just a definition. "Charge" is something
physical. Not a mere word.
> >> --
> >> "A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
> >> with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not
advance
> >> our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
> >>
> >
> >A great description of the "Standard Model" and SR. Thanks.
>
> Ah... this explains it.
>
> >The quote does not apply to Maxwell's derivation, however. For he had no
> >need to "adapt conditions."
So we see that Robert Kolker, Dirk Van de moortel, Gregory L. Hansen, Randy
Poe (and others even less worth mentioning) thought there might be yet
another way to divert attention from the implication that an aether exists.
By clamoring for a "proof" that the aether exists by virtue of Maxwell's
equations. (Or in Gregory's case, just repeating the lie.)
Of course the issue they want to bury is the simple fact that Maxwell
derived his equations from a very physical aether. The fact that Maxwell
did this -- of course -- implies that so long as Maxwell's equations are
valid, the existence of an aether is a viable premise. This is heresy! So
they all repeatedly lie about the source of Maxwell's equations, lie about
the content of Maxwell's "On Physical Lines of Force", and try to pretend
that one must work "backwards" from Maxwell's equations to "prove" the
existence (oops "implication") of an aether.
I'm done with this thread. There's no point in further responding to these
pathetic priests. Should I come across these repeated lies about the source
of Maxwell's equations in other threads, I'll continue the corrections.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Randy Poe
> "Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3DA48713...@attbi.com...
>
>>
>>greywolf42 wrote:
>>
>>>wave in said fluid. So Maxwell's equations RESULTED from a fluid
>>
> aether.
>
>>>Therefore Maxwell's Equations "imply" an aether.
>>
>>Ass backward. The aether hypothesis plus other stuff implied the Maxwell
>>Equations.
>
>
> No, Maxwell's aether hypothesis -- alone -- derived Maxwell's equations (no
> "other stuff" needed). Math is math. No math ever presented can prove (or
> "imply") anything about the physical world.
Math derived from physical hypotheses makes physical predictions.
From F = GMm/r^2 you can predict that there should be such a
thing as escape velocity. You can then confirm this.
If the starting assumptions are physical, then the conclusions
are also physical.
But anyway, this is all besides the point. You are saying that
the math DOES imply the existence of an aether. Now you are
backing off from that and saying the math does not make any
physical claims at all, and never can. Fine.
So Maxwell's equations do not imply the existence of a physical
thing called an aether. The describe how changing fields
lead to other changing fields, without specifying by what
mechanism that happens.
> These would be proofs. Implication is -- by definition -- not rigorous (see
> below).
Well that's a new one, that derivations are required to be
wrong.
> 1 obsolete : ENFOLD, ENTWINE
> 2 : to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary
> consequence rather than by direct statement <rights imply obligations>
> 3 : to contain potentially
> 4 : to express indirectly <his silence implied consent>
> synonym see SUGGEST
> usage see INFER
This dictionary entry (which is not, by the way, an authoritative
source for any technical concept) does not anywhere suggest
that an implication is by definition fuzzy or imprecise.
It says that the conclusion is a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of
the premise. Which implies a rigorous connection.
>
> Note the words "inference," "association" rather than by direct statement
> (which is a proof); "potentially", and "indirectly."
But not imprecise, fuzzy, or non-rigorous.
> I'm done with this thread.
That's fine. Since you already said that the aether, being
a physical thing if it exists, can not be divined from the
mathematical equations, we are in agreement.
- Randy
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ao1uc...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
>>greywolf42 wrote:
>>
>>>"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3DA440D7...@attbi.com...
>>>
>>>>Produce a -proof- that Maxwell's equations imply an aether. If you can't
>>>>then why not keep still?
>>>
>>>
>>>Unbelievable! How does one "prove" and "implication?"
>>
>>One shows that the result is derivable from the starting
>>assumptions.
>
>
> One cannot "prove" an "implication." By definition (Merriam-Webster), an
> implication" is NOT a direct proof:
Even if Merriam-Webster were a good source for mathematical
definitions, which it is not, the quoted definition does
not support your previous claim..
> 2 : to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary
> consequence rather than by direct statement <rights imply obligations>
An implication is not a proof. That is not the same as
"an implication can not be proven".
Here's a mathematical statement: x being a solution to
x^2 - 2 = 0 implies that x is irrational. This is a theorem,
in the form of an implication, P => Q.
You are correct with your weaseling that "the implication
is not a proof". A theorem is not a proof.
However, this implication is easily proven. As I said, it
is proven by showing a chain of reasoning that explains
how the consequence (x is irrational) follows from the
starting assumptions (x is a aolution to x^2 - 2 = 0).
- Randy
Robert Kolker
greywolf42 wrote:
>
> Then you have a theorem. Not an implication. A proof is rigorous (as you
> describe). An implication is not rigorous -- by definition (see below).
A theorem is in a subclass of implications. One starts with the
hypothesis of the theorem and step by step reaches the conclusion.
There is a slightly more general definition given for propositional
logic and first order logics.
The implication refered to here is -material implication- usually
written like p -> q where p, q are well formed expressions. This is
logically the same as -p v q, i.e. the inclusive disjunction of negation
of p with q. It is used in conjunction with the rule of inference, modus
ponens thusly: given p and p->q infer q or more loosely p, and p->q
entail (or implies) q. You do that mucho times along with substitution
to reach the conclusion.
Go get a book on logic if this this stuff makes your poor little head hurt.
And don't quote from dictionaries unless they are specialized to
mathematical usage in the mathematical literature. The common venacular
is generally not the exact and technical usage of a term.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
greywolf42 wrote:
> So we see that Robert Kolker, Dirk Van de moortel, Gregory L. Hansen, Randy
> Poe (and others even less worth mentioning) thought there might be yet
> another way to divert attention from the implication that an aether exists.
> By clamoring for a "proof" that the aether exists by virtue of Maxwell's
> equations.
So what. Here you have.
Aether hypothesis => maxwell's equations.
I am asking you to demonstrate, prove that
Maxwell's equations (which are empirically verified) => Aether hypthesis.
Do you have the directions straight now? Can you do as I requested or
are you blowing hot gas ex ano?
Bob Kolker
Stephen Speicher
>
> "Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3DA48DC1...@attbi.com...
> >
> > quote ( you know the one with the hex nuts and the idler wheels ),
>
> You lie again. There are no "hex nuts" and no "idler wheels" in "On
> Physical Lines of Force." Why do you continue to lie? Do you think no one
> will notice, if you just keep repeating it?
>
"The hypothesis about the vortices which I suggest is
that a layer of of particles, acting as idle wheels, is
interposed bewtween each vortex..."
--James Clerk Maxwell, "On Physical Lines of Force."
Why do you continue to lie? Do you think no one will notice, if
you just keep repeating it?
--
Bilge
Re: HILBERT'S "PROOFS" to usenet:
>
>in message news:2x1p9.154462$8o4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>> With all the help you already got from Randy, Robert and Bilge,
>
>"Help?" :) You mean the repeated religious insults?
>
>> here's the final tip:
>> Have you ever heard of the equivalence of
>> "P ==> Q" and "Not(Q) ==> Not(P)"
>> ?
>
>Yes. Neither has anything to do with the word "implication." (See below).
>
>>
>> Well, suppose there is no aether. If you can prove then that Maxwell's
>> equations are false or cannot possibly work, then you have produced proof
>> that Maxwell's equations imply an aether.
>
>Huh? "Cannot possibly work?" On what basis? One cannot prove a negative
>in this manner. One can only prove/disprove or imply about a single premis.
>One cannot prove that NO premise will ever be found that comes up with
>similar math.
>
>> That must be very simple to do for you. What are you waiting for?
>
>Pigs to fly.
you finally figured out what eryone else knew all along - getting
pigs to fly is more likely than you having anything substantive in
support of anything you claim.
>
>===============
>Imply:
>
>Main Entry: im·ply
> Pronunciation: im-'plI
> Function: transitive verb
> Inflected Form(s): im·plied; im·ply·ing
> Etymology: Middle English emplien, from Middle French emplier,
> from Latin implicare
> Date: 14th century
> 1 obsolete : ENFOLD, ENTWINE
> 2 : to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary
> consequence rather than by direct statement <rights imply obligations>
> 3 : to contain potentially
> 4 : to express indirectly <his silence implied consent>
> synonym see SUGGEST
> usage see INFER
>
>Note the words "by association", "association" rather than by direct
>statement (which is a proof); "potentially", and "indirectly."
I see that looking up definitions of simple words and posting them
has a higher priority than satisfying the requests containing the
words with which you chose to play semantics games as a diversionary
tactic.
>So we see that Robert Kolker, Dirk Van de moortel, Gregory L. Hansen, Randy
>Poe (and others even less worth mentioning) thought there might be yet
>another way to divert attention from the implication that an aether exists.
>By clamoring for a "proof" that the aether exists by virtue of Maxwell's
>equations.
Oh, yes, I forgot. Since this is a sci.* newsgroup, asking you to provide
any science with your kafkaesque ramblings is definitely a diversion.
However, looking up words like "exists" and "proof" to argue about is too
much effort just to keep the thread on the the semantics of the word
"imply", lively.
>Of course the issue they want to bury is the simple fact that Maxwell
>derived his equations from a very physical aether.
Since we keep asking you to produce the relevant material and you keep
refusing, you would be the one burying anything that isn't already dead.
>The fact that Maxwell did this -- of course -- implies that so long as
See the above definition of "imply" to conjugate this verb.
>Maxwell's equations are
>valid, the existence of an aether is a viable premise. This is heresy! So
>they all repeatedly lie about the source of Maxwell's equations, lie about
Yes, everyone is so dishonest that you just can't seem to bring yourself
to post any of the lies they request that you post.
>the content of Maxwell's "On Physical Lines of Force", and try to pretend
>that one must work "backwards" from Maxwell's equations to "prove" the
>existence (oops "implication") of an aether.
So far, you've been unable to work backwards, forwards sideways or
anything else. I could derive a better incorrect theory than anything
you think is correct and could ever manage to post.
>I'm done with this thread. There's no point in further responding to these
>pathetic priests. Should I come across these repeated lies about the source
>of Maxwell's equations in other threads, I'll continue the corrections.
Why is it that people who threaten to quit responding, never quit if
their promise gets a response?
Matthew Nobes
> Of course the issue they want to bury is the simple fact that
> Maxwell derived his equations from a very physical aether.
> The fact that Maxwell did this -- of course -- implies that so
> long as Maxwell's equations are valid, the existence of an
> aether is a viable premise. This is heresy! So they all
> repeatedly lie about the source of Maxwell's equations, lie
> about the content of Maxwell's "On Physical Lines of Force",
> and try to pretend that one must work "backwards" from
> Maxwell's equations to "prove" the existence (oops
> "implication") of an aether.
Okay, Mr. Mingst and Mr. Stowe continue to bring sort of
argument up over and over again. Personally I don't think it
means much, but let's take it at face value for a second.
Now, in addition to Maxwell's aether model, there is another well
known way to derive Maxwell's equations. Namely as the classical
limit of Quantum Electrodynamics. None of the founding fathers
of QED assumed any sort of mechanical model in their work on the
subject, so I think it's safe to assume that QED is *not*
Maxwell's mechanical aether.
Okay so now we have two DIFFERENT ways to derive classical
electrodynamics, how do we choose between them? Well,
experiments seem a natural choice, this is physics after all.
Now it's well known that QED predicts *different* values for
many things then classical electrodynamics does, for example the
scattering of an electron and a positron.
One would assume that Maxwell's aether model also predicts
something different than classical electrodynamics in the region
where the continuum approximation breaks down. This region is,
of course, at short distances, which, conveniently, is the same
region where QED takes over from classical E&M.
**THE CHALLENGE**
The annihilation of electrons and positrons into two photons is not
predicted by Maxwell's equations (classical E&M). It IS
predicted by QED, and it has been observed [1]. Thus my
challenge to Mingst and/or Stowe;
1) Is this process predicted by Maxwell's aether model?
2) If yes, can the scattering cross section for this process be
computed using Maxwell's aether model?
3) If yes, does the prediction agree with experiments?
Of course, in QED the answer to (1) is yes, the answer to (2) is
yes and the answer to (3) is yes [2].
How does Maxwell's model stand up?
[1] M. Derrick, et. al., Phys. Rev. D34, 3286, 1986.
[2] M. Peskin and D. Schroeder, An Introduction to Quantum Field
Theory, Addison-Wesley, 1995, pages 168,169.
**END OF CHALLENGE**
Prediction: We'll never see an actual Maxwell aether model
calculation for the process in question.
--
Matthew Nobes
c/o Physics Dept. Simon Fraser University, 8888 University
Drive Burnaby, B.C., Canada
http://normland.phys.sfu.ca
Spaceman
>1) Is this process predicted by Maxwell's aether model?
Yes,
If you do not ignore "free electrons and all stuff smaller too"
>2) If yes, can the scattering cross section for this process be
> computed using Maxwell's aether model?
Yes,
It can.
>3) If yes, does the prediction agree with experiments?
Of course they would.
If the experiment finds all the "free electron states"
Hint,
the "aether" is "free electrons and smaller stuff"
and.
It would work with Maxwells "stuff" if all the "stuff was actually found.
and not just accepted as "pure energy without "form".
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Stephen Speicher
>
> **THE CHALLENGE**
>
> The annihilation of electrons and positrons into two photons is not
> predicted by Maxwell's equations (classical E&M). It IS
> predicted by QED, and it has been observed [1]. Thus my
> challenge to Mingst and/or Stowe;
>
> 1) Is this process predicted by Maxwell's aether model?
>
> 2) If yes, can the scattering cross section for this process be
> computed using Maxwell's aether model?
>
> 3) If yes, does the prediction agree with experiments?
>
> Of course, in QED the answer to (1) is yes, the answer to (2) is
> yes and the answer to (3) is yes [2].
>
> How does Maxwell's model stand up?
>
> [1] M. Derrick, et. al., Phys. Rev. D34, 3286, 1986.
>
> [2] M. Peskin and D. Schroeder, An Introduction to Quantum Field
> Theory, Addison-Wesley, 1995, pages 168,169.
>
> **END OF CHALLENGE**
>
> Prediction: We'll never see an actual Maxwell aether model
> calculation for the process in question.
>
You are a gutsy guy, Matthew.
Did you see Simon Clark's challenge to Stowe several months ago,
on using Le Sage for the Lense-Thirring Effect? Better keep a
large shovel handy, as well as a gas mask.
Matthew Nobes
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Matthew Nobes wrote:
> >
> > **THE CHALLENGE**
> >
> > The annihilation of electrons and positrons into two photons is not
> > predicted by Maxwell's equations (classical E&M). It IS
> > predicted by QED, and it has been observed [1]. Thus my
> > challenge to Mingst and/or Stowe;
> >
> > 1) Is this process predicted by Maxwell's aether model?
> >
> > 2) If yes, can the scattering cross section for this process be
> > computed using Maxwell's aether model?
> >
> > 3) If yes, does the prediction agree with experiments?
> >
> > Of course, in QED the answer to (1) is yes, the answer to (2) is
> > yes and the answer to (3) is yes [2].
> >
> > How does Maxwell's model stand up?
> >
> > [1] M. Derrick, et. al., Phys. Rev. D34, 3286, 1986.
> >
> > [2] M. Peskin and D. Schroeder, An Introduction to Quantum Field
> > Theory, Addison-Wesley, 1995, pages 168,169.
> >
> > **END OF CHALLENGE**
> >
> > Prediction: We'll never see an actual Maxwell aether model
> > calculation for the process in question.
> >
>
> You are a gutsy guy, Matthew.
Well, rather then rambling on about interpretation it seems
useful to get straight to the point. Maxwell's aether model
doesn't seem to predict the same things that QED does. And
that's a problem. We'll see what the response is.
> Did you see Simon Clark's challenge to Stowe several months ago,
> on using Le Sage for the Lense-Thirring Effect?
No. Perhaps I should google...
> Better keep a
> large shovel handy, as well as a gas mask.
Well, I want proper references or a proper computation.
Otherwise, I'll just repost the challenge with a polite ``you
didn't answer the question''.