Why SR is correct (attention all crackpots)
Shambolic
plagiarist, on the basis of certain results of SR being predicted by
other scientists (for example Fitzgerald suggesting length
contraction).
Here's the difference...every scientist that came before Einstein in
this field simply introduced empirically derived transforms to explain
experimental anomalies. Einstein started with two simple postulates (I
will explain soon why these postulates are good ones), and derived the
entire theory from first principles. So, he proved that the ideas of
length contraction etc. were right, showed WHY they were right, and
defined them precisely. THAT is why he is credited with SR, and hailed
as one of the greatest physicists ever (well, it's part of the
reason).
Now, for those who don't believe in SR, I will explain why the two
postulates of relativity are valid ones (if you believe in the
postulates, you HAVE to believe in the theory's predictions, because
they are the only logical conclusions if the postulates are
correct...follow the maths yourselves).
First, that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference
frames (take special note here, Henry Wilson, or whatever your name
is):
This is directly implied by Newton's First Law, which does away with
absolute velocity. If there is no way to measure absolute velocity,
there can be no absolute reference frame, and all inertial frames must
be equivalent. If they weren't, then a system would evolve in
different ways depending on who/what 'looked' at it. This is an absurd
notion. To paraphrase Hawking (I think it was in A Brief History Of
Time), 'Any passing sub-atomic particle could cause entire star
systems to collapse.'
Enough said of the first postulate.
The second postulate, that the speed of light is constant in all such
frames:
This is actually an extension of the first postulate, as the speed of
light is determined by the laws of physics. First, remember the
process by which light was realised to be electromagnetic in nature.
Maxwell, from his equations of electromagnetism, realised that a
combination of an electric and magnetic field could propagate through
space without a conductor or a magnet present. If you do the maths, it
turns out that this disturbance MUST propagate at the speed of light,
or it wouldn't 'work'. Because the speed of light was fairly well
known, and agreed with Maxwell's predictions of electromagnetic waves,
it was suggested that light WAS these waves. Subsequent experiments
proved it.
So, with all inertial frames being equivalent, and light only being
ABLE to propagate at c, SR is the only possible answer. The fact that
a century of experiments have agreed again and again with relativity
only confirms this.
Regards to all
P.S. Note that GR came about from (sort of) applying SR to
accelerating reference frames, and must consequently also be correct.
Mike Hanson
<snip>
> Now, for those who don't believe in SR, I will explain why the two
> postulates of relativity are valid ones (if you believe in the
> postulates, you HAVE to believe in the theory's predictions, because
> they are the only logical conclusions if the postulates are
> correct...follow the maths yourselves).
<snip>
With respect, Mr. Quixote, that paragraph contains a hidden
assumption. Kudos for trying, though. :-)
> P.S. Note that GR came about from (sort of) applying SR to
> accelerating reference frames, and must consequently also be correct.
Here, however, momentum has carried you too far: GR has additional
postulates. (Also, I assume you meant 'valid' rather than 'correct'.)
Mike.
greywolf42
Shambolic <r.da...@ugrad.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in message
news:e37c3dcf.03061...@posting.google.com...
> This post will first address those who accuse Einstein of being a
> plagiarist, on the basis of certain results of SR being predicted by
> other scientists (for example Fitzgerald suggesting length
> contraction).
>
> Here's the difference...every scientist that came before Einstein in
> this field simply introduced empirically derived transforms to explain
> experimental anomalies.
You are merely ignorant. Both Lorentz and Poincare (at least) provided
detailed derivations of the "Lorentz transform".
> Einstein started with two simple postulates (I
> will explain soon why these postulates are good ones), and derived the
> entire theory from first principles.
Actually, he started with FOUR postulates. He termed the other two of his
postulates "definitions." Since these "definitions" were not needed by
Lorentz and Poincare, they are simply additional postulates, required by SR.
> So, he proved that the ideas of
> length contraction etc. were right, showed WHY they were right, and
> defined them precisely.
Your logic is fallacious. But, according to his definitions, it is indeed
mathematically "required." But that doesn't mean that the universe works
that way.
> THAT is why he is credited with SR, and hailed
> as one of the greatest physicists ever (well, it's part of the
> reason).
Actually, he got his Nobel for the photoelectric effect. Not for SR or GR.
> Now, for those who don't believe in SR, I will explain why the two
> postulates of relativity
(sic, four postulates)
> are valid ones (if you believe in the
> postulates, you HAVE to believe in the theory's predictions, because
> they are the only logical conclusions if the postulates are
> correct...follow the maths yourselves).
But I don't believe in the postulates. So your remaining effort is
worthless -- to me. Or to anyone who doesn't share your personal religion
(belief) in SR's postulates.
> First, that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference
> frames (take special note here, Henry Wilson, or whatever your name
> is):
Actually, you have misstated Einstein's postulate. Einstein's postulate is
that the EQUATIONS of physics do not change with reference frames. This is
significantly different than the PHYSICS doesn't change. In an aether
theory -- for example -- the "physics" doesn't change from coordinate system
to coordinate system -- but the mathematical equations DO change -- because
of the effect of varying motion through the aether.
> This is directly implied by Newton's First Law, which does away with
> absolute velocity.
Your argument fails because an aether is a wave-medium theory. Two-body
problems don't cut it here. You CAN pick any two bodies you wish -- but the
waves respond to the average motions of large numbers of bodies. Thus,
there is a "stationary" frame. ("Absolute" frame is an SR straw-man
invention. It's not used in aether theories.)
> If there is no way to measure absolute velocity,
> there can be no absolute reference frame,
But there ARE ways to measure velocity relative to the local rest frame
(this is not "absolute", as it can vary from place to place) -- i.e. CMBR.
> and all inertial frames must be equivalent.
So, since we CAN determine the local rest frame, inertial frames don't all
have the same math. They are PHYSICALLY "equivalent."
> If they weren't, then a system would evolve in
> different ways depending on who/what 'looked' at it. This is an absurd
> notion.
I believe you have it backwards. It is SR that causes systems to be
recreated with every observer. Aetherists don't care about who's looking.
> To paraphrase Hawking (I think it was in A Brief History Of
> Time), 'Any passing sub-atomic particle could cause entire star
> systems to collapse.'
If that was a correct paraphrase, then Hawking was wrong in this instance,
too. (You have provided the argument from authority, but not bothered to
actually use the authority.)
> Enough said of the first postulate.
Yep. Zero for 1. Poor understanding of concept, atrocious logic and
ignorance combined.
> The second postulate, that the speed of light is constant in all such
> frames:
>
> This is actually an extension of the first postulate, as the speed of
> light is determined by the laws of physics.
??? WHICH "laws of physics"? That's the key question.
> First, remember the
> process by which light was realised to be electromagnetic in nature.
This ought to be really amusing! ;)
> Maxwell, from his equations of electromagnetism, realised that a
> combination of an electric and magnetic field could propagate through
> space without a conductor or a magnet present. If you do the maths, it
> turns out that this disturbance MUST propagate at the speed of light,
> or it wouldn't 'work'. Because the speed of light was fairly well
> known, and agreed with Maxwell's predictions of electromagnetic waves,
> it was suggested that light WAS these waves. Subsequent experiments
> proved it.
LOL! Maxwell derived "Maxwell's equations" in 1861, "On Physical Lines of
Force." To derive "Maxwell's eqautions (and more), Maxwell used a fluid
aether of physical corpuscles. Part of that work was his derivation of the
speed of transverse waves in this fluid -- based on magnetic and electric
measurments already performed. He compared this calculated speed with the
previously measured speed of light -- and they matched. This was the FIRST
identification that light was transverse electric and magnetic waves (in
aether). Maxwell didn't just ASSUME that electric and magnetic effects
propagated at the speed of light.
> So, with all inertial frames being equivalent,
They never were.
> and light only being ABLE to propagate at c,
Relative to the rest frame of Maxwell's aether.
> SR is the only possible answer.
But only if you first BELIEVE in Einstein's postulates, and follow this with
historical ignorance and continued mixing up of the PHYSICS within "frames"
and the EQUATIONS of different frames.
> The fact that
> a century of experiments have agreed again and again with relativity
> only confirms this.
It does confirm your ignorance.
> Regards to all
>
> P.S. Note that GR came about from (sort of) applying SR to
> accelerating reference frames, and must consequently also be correct.
Another indication of ignorance. GR does not contain SR at all. According
to Einstein and according to modern efforts to "prove" GR (the latter use
the CMBR "rest" frame as the "preferred frame" for all calculations).
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Shambolic
> > Einstein started with two simple postulates (I
> > will explain soon why these postulates are good ones), and derived the
> > entire theory from first principles.
>
> Actually, he started with FOUR postulates. He termed the other two of his
> postulates "definitions." Since these "definitions" were not needed by
> Lorentz and Poincare, they are simply additional postulates, required by SR.
What are the other two? It will depend how broad your definition of
'postulate' is. Do you mean something like 'Maxwell's equations are
correct'?
> > So, he proved that the ideas of
> > length contraction etc. were right, showed WHY they were right, and
> > defined them precisely.
>
> Your logic is fallacious.
[snip]
How so, oh great one?
> > THAT is why he is credited with SR, and hailed
> > as one of the greatest physicists ever (well, it's part of the
> > reason).
>
> Actually, he got his Nobel for the photoelectric effect. Not for SR or GR.
I know, as I'm sure everyone here does. That's why I put the part in
brackets. At least bother to read the post properly first.
> > are valid ones (if you believe in the
> > postulates, you HAVE to believe in the theory's predictions, because
> > they are the only logical conclusions if the postulates are
> > correct...follow the maths yourselves).
>
> But I don't believe in the postulates. So your remaining effort is
> worthless -- to me. Or to anyone who doesn't share your personal religion
> (belief) in SR's postulates.
>
> > First, that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference
> > frames (take special note here, Henry Wilson, or whatever your name
> > is):
>
> Actually, you have misstated Einstein's postulate. Einstein's postulate is
> that the EQUATIONS of physics do not change with reference frames. This is
> significantly different than the PHYSICS doesn't change. In an aether
> theory -- for example -- the "physics" doesn't change from coordinate system
> to coordinate system -- but the mathematical equations DO change -- because
> of the effect of varying motion through the aether.
This is the direct quote from Einstein's paper (assuming a good
translator):
"...the same LAWS of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all
frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."
This is referring to inertial reference frames, and if the equations
'hold good', the physics can't be different.
If an aether is the answer, then what properties does it have? Does it
store energy? What effect does the expansion of the universe have on
this aether?
> > This is directly implied by Newton's First Law, which does away with
> > absolute velocity.
>
> Your argument fails because an aether is a wave-medium theory. Two-body
> problems don't cut it here. You CAN pick any two bodies you wish -- but the
> waves respond to the average motions of large numbers of bodies. Thus,
> there is a "stationary" frame. ("Absolute" frame is an SR straw-man
> invention. It's not used in aether theories.)
'Stationary frames' are arbitrary. Nothing can be said to be truly
stationary. Surely when you say 'stationary', you can only mean with
respect to an 'absolute' frame...you just don't want to use the word.
If you believe otherwise then please, do explain.
> > If there is no way to measure absolute velocity,
> > there can be no absolute reference frame,
>
> But there ARE ways to measure velocity relative to the local rest frame
> (this is not "absolute", as it can vary from place to place) -- i.e. CMBR.
What, pray tell, is the 'local rest frame', and if it varies from
place to place, how do particles, light etc. know when they change
rest frames?
>[snip]
> > If they weren't, then a system would evolve in
> > different ways depending on who/what 'looked' at it. This is an absurd
> > notion.
>
> I believe you have it backwards. It is SR that causes systems to be
> recreated with every observer. Aetherists don't care about who's looking.
Actually, the achievement of SR is to make observations consistent
between frames. All the laws of physics hold in all frames.
> > To paraphrase Hawking (I think it was in A Brief History Of
> > Time), 'Any passing sub-atomic particle could cause entire star
> > systems to collapse.'
>
> If that was a correct paraphrase, then Hawking was wrong in this instance,
> too. (You have provided the argument from authority, but not bothered to
> actually use the authority.)
And you have just made a random statement without backing it up.
[snip]
> > This is actually an extension of the first postulate, as the speed of
> > light is determined by the laws of physics.
>
> ??? WHICH "laws of physics"? That's the key question.
The laws of electrodynamics, as described by the Maxwell-Heaviside
equations.
[snip]
> LOL! Maxwell derived "Maxwell's equations" in 1861, "On Physical Lines of
> Force." To derive "Maxwell's eqautions (and more), Maxwell used a fluid
> aether of physical corpuscles. Part of that work was his derivation of the
> speed of transverse waves in this fluid -- based on magnetic and electric
> measurments already performed. He compared this calculated speed with the
> previously measured speed of light -- and they matched. This was the FIRST
> identification that light was transverse electric and magnetic waves (in
> aether). Maxwell didn't just ASSUME that electric and magnetic effects
> propagated at the speed of light.
Naturally, there would be no way to tell if light were travelling in a
medium or self-propagating, in a stationary frame. However, the speed
of light doesn't change between frames moving relative to each other.
There ends the aether argument. Anyone who knows some basic wave
theory knows that c could not be constant in any frame but the rest
frame of the aether, if one existed.
[snip]
> > Regards to all
> >
> > P.S. Note that GR came about from (sort of) applying SR to
> > accelerating reference frames, and must consequently also be correct.
>
> Another indication of ignorance. GR does not contain SR at all. According
> to Einstein and according to modern efforts to "prove" GR (the latter use
> the CMBR "rest" frame as the "preferred frame" for all calculations).
The CMBR is one frame that can be used. It is not 'superior' in any
way to any other inertial frame. And SR can easily be used to show
how acceleration 'curves' space (consider a rapidly rotating cylinder,
with one observer inside and one outside. The observer outside
measures the circumference of the cylinder, and gets C. However, the
observer inside sees the other's measuring instruments Lorentz
contracted, so that from inside, the measured circumference is <C.
Thanks to Prof. David Jamieson, University of Melbourne, for that
example).
Randy Poe
> > as one of the greatest physicists ever (well, it's part of the
> > reason).
>
> Actually, he got his Nobel for the photoelectric effect. Not for SR or GR.
Ask the general public a couple of questions. Feel
free to confine your "general public" to as educated
an audience as you like.
1. What was Einstein most famous for?
2. How many Nobel prize winners in physics can you name?
For physics audiences you can add this one:
3. What was Einstein's most significant contribution to
physics?
"Nobel" does not equal "fame".
Nor does it even equate to "greatest physics accomplishment".
Nice try, though.
- Randy
Pmb
"Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:585ab5d8.03062...@posting.google.com...
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:<vf41dgb...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > THAT is why he is credited with SR, and hailed
> > > as one of the greatest physicists ever (well, it's part of the
> > > reason).
> >
> > Actually, he got his Nobel for the photoelectric effect. Not for SR or
GR.
>
> Ask the general public a couple of questions. Feel
> free to confine your "general public" to as educated
> an audience as you like.
>
> 1. What was Einstein most famous for?
> 2. How many Nobel prize winners in physics can you name?
> For physics audiences you can add this one:
> 3. What was Einstein's most significant contribution to
> physics?
>
> "Nobel" does not equal "fame".
It doesn't? Why not? Fame within the physics community seems accurate.
>
> Nor does it even equate to "greatest physics accomplishment".
But it does equate to "great physics accomplishement" at least by some - the
Nobel committee
Pmb
Tom Roberts
> Both Lorentz and Poincare (at least) provided
> detailed derivations of the "Lorentz transform".
Oh? I understand Poincare' here, but not Lorentz. Where did he do this?
Certainly he did not do it in his 1904 paper....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Dirk Van de moortel
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:bcva1h$3...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> greywolf42 wrote:
> > Both Lorentz and Poincare (at least) provided
> > detailed derivations of the "Lorentz transform".
>
> Oh? I understand Poincare' here, but not Lorentz. Where did he do this?
> Certainly he did not do it in his 1904 paper....
He got the idea from Petr Beckmann's book "Lorentz Plus Three".
Here is the exact quote (page 123):
"Both Lorentz and Poincare (at least) provided
detailed derivations of the "Lorentz transform",
and let no Die Hard Relativist tell you otherwise."
Dirk Vdm
Gregory L. Hansen
What do you think of the idea?
"and let no Die Hard Relativist tell you otherwise", eh? What does
Beckmann do?
--
"Is that plutonium on your gums?"
"Shut up and kiss me!"
-- Marge and Homer Simpson
puppe...@hotmail.com
> 1. What was Einstein most famous for?
His hair.
> 2. How many Nobel prize winners in physics can you name?
Einstein. Feynman. Glashow. Salam. Weinberg. Rubbia. Bardeen.
Cooper. Gell-Mann. Yang. Lee. Pauli. Dirac. Heisenberg. Bohr.
Hum, hum,.... Must be getting old.
> For physics audiences you can add this one:
> 3. What was Einstein's most significant contribution to
> physics?
Bose-Einstein statisitics.
Socks
greywolf42
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:bcva1h$3...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> greywolf42 wrote:
You're slipping, Tom. You're now borrowing the slimy tactics of Semon,
Speicher and Van der Mortel -- snipping defining context without notice (and
in violation of N.G. guidelines). You're usually more honest and
professional (if not always correct).
Here is statement to which I was replying:
======================================
> This post will first address those who accuse Einstein of being a
> plagiarist, on the basis of certain results of SR being predicted by
> other scientists (for example Fitzgerald suggesting length
> contraction).
>
> Here's the difference...every scientist that came before Einstein in
> this field simply introduced empirically derived transforms to explain
> experimental anomalies.
======================================
We see that the subject at hand is whether Lorentz just "introduced
empirically derived transforms to explain experimental anomalies." To
which my response was:
> > Both Lorentz and Poincare (at least) provided
> > detailed derivations of the "Lorentz transform".
And your response is now:
> Oh? I understand Poincare' here, but not Lorentz. Where did he do this?
> Certainly he did not do it in his 1904 paper....
Now you are well aware that Lorentz did not just "introduce empirically
derived transforms to explain experimental anomalies." in his 1904 paper.
Are you not?
Did you perhaps notice the quotes I placed around the term "Lorentz
transform"? Lorentz DID provide a detailed derivation of HIS version of the
"Lorentz transform" -- though HIS version included the motion relative to
the field. It is not the same as Einstein's version.
However, since the point under discussion was whether Lorentz derived the
above, or simply backfit it, your quibble is wasted bandwidth.
greywolf42
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:<vf41dgb...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > Shambolic <r.da...@ugrad.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in message
> [snip]
> > > Einstein started with two simple postulates (I
> > > will explain soon why these postulates are good ones), and derived the
> > > entire theory from first principles.
> >
> > Actually, he started with FOUR postulates. He termed the other two of
his
> > postulates "definitions." Since these "definitions" were not needed by
> > Lorentz and Poincare, they are simply additional postulates, required by
SR.
>
> What are the other two?
SR has four basic postulates (though SRist's only "count") two:
1) The principle of relativity
2) The constancy of the speed of light
3) The requirement for clock synchronization
4) The exension of 1, 2, and 3 from EM to all matter.
More modern versions of SR add a fifth: That no "information" may travel
faster than light.
See the thread "Case Against Relativity" 6/21/01, in this N.G for more
discussion.
> It will depend how broad your definition of
> 'postulate' is. Do you mean something like 'Maxwell's equations are
> correct'?
A "postulate" is -- by definition -- an assumption that cannot be proven
within the logical structure. It matters not whether one attempts to
"broaden" or "narrow" the definition. The point being that one cannot
define postulates by simply waiting for an author to mention it.
Thus, "Maxwell's theoretically-derived equations are correct -- under all
possible physical conditions, for all time throughout eternity, and to all
scales of all dimensions (including conditions explicitly at odds with the
theoretical conditions under which Maxwell's equations were derived)" is,
indeed, a postulate. But I didn't count it against Einstein as an
additional postulate.
> > > So, he proved that the ideas of
> > > length contraction etc. were right, showed WHY they were right, and
> > > defined them precisely.
> >
> > Your logic is fallacious.
> [snip]
>
> How so, oh great one?
See the rest of the response that you snipped, oh frivolous one.
=====================
But, according to his definitions, it is indeed
mathematically "required." But that doesn't mean that the universe works
that way.
=====================
I.O.W., Einstein's assumptions require a redefinition of time in such a
manner as to preclude any ability to disprove his other assumptions -- does
not "prove" that Einstein's assumptions were "right." Contrary to your
prior claim.
> > > THAT is why he is credited with SR, and hailed
> > > as one of the greatest physicists ever (well, it's part of the
> > > reason).
> >
> > Actually, he got his Nobel for the photoelectric effect. Not for SR or
GR.
>
> I know, as I'm sure everyone here does. That's why I put the part in
> brackets. At least bother to read the post properly first.
I just pointed out another of your fallacious claims. First off, Einstein
didn't "prove" anything. He assumed a lot. One reasonable measure of his
standing among fellow physicists (as opposed to the ignorant millions raised
to believe Dr. E was a super genius, different from other mortals) was based
more on his work with the photoelectric effect.
> > > are valid ones (if you believe in the
> > > postulates, you HAVE to believe in the theory's predictions, because
> > > they are the only logical conclusions if the postulates are
> > > correct...follow the maths yourselves).
> >
> > But I don't believe in the postulates. So your remaining effort is
> > worthless -- to me. Or to anyone who doesn't share your personal
religion
> > (belief) in SR's postulates.
No comment?
> > > First, that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference
> > > frames (take special note here, Henry Wilson, or whatever your name
> > > is):
> >
> > Actually, you have misstated Einstein's postulate. Einstein's postulate
is
> > that the EQUATIONS of physics do not change with reference frames. This
is
> > significantly different than the PHYSICS doesn't change. In an aether
> > theory -- for example -- the "physics" doesn't change from coordinate
system
> > to coordinate system -- but the mathematical equations DO change --
because
> > of the effect of varying motion through the aether.
>
> This is the direct quote from Einstein's paper (assuming a good
> translator):
> "...the same LAWS of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all
> frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."
> This is referring to inertial reference frames, and if the equations
> 'hold good', the physics can't be different.
I see you missed the point. My point was the reverse. You claimed that
Einstein only assumed that the "physics" doesn't change. What Einstein
actually assumed was that the *equations* did not change. There is a
difference.
> If an aether is the answer, then what properties does it have?
See Maxwell, "On Physical Lines of Force", 1861 -- wherein Maxwell's
equations was derived. It's a superfluid.
> Does it store energy?
Of course. See "vector potential" (Maxwell called it the electrotonic
state).
> What effect does the expansion of the universe have on this aether?
Non sequiteur. No fluid (even a superfluid) is perfect. There is always
some loss of energy to the medium in the transmission of a wave. Hence the
waves lose energy as they travel long distances. This is a redshift. Net
result is that the "expansion of the universe" is an illusion. An aether
just happened to predict what we now call "dark energy."
Care to join the "club?"
> > > This is directly implied by Newton's First Law, which does away with
> > > absolute velocity.
> >
> > Your argument fails because an aether is a wave-medium theory. Two-body
> > problems don't cut it here. You CAN pick any two bodies you wish -- but
the
> > waves respond to the average motions of large numbers of bodies. Thus,
> > there is a "stationary" frame. ("Absolute" frame is an SR straw-man
> > invention. It's not used in aether theories.)
>
> 'Stationary frames' are arbitrary.
Not in GR "confirmations." See Will.
> Nothing can be said to be truly
> stationary. Surely when you say 'stationary', you can only mean with
> respect to an 'absolute' frame...you just don't want to use the word.
> If you believe otherwise then please, do explain.
Aetherists have no need to use the relativist's straw-man of "absolute"
frame. There are NO "frames" in aether theories. Aetherists, of course,
can identify "at rest" with respect to the local aether medium. There's
nothing "absolute" about it. Any more than the local "no wind" region is
"absolute" in the atmosphere.
> > > If there is no way to measure absolute velocity,
> > > there can be no absolute reference frame,
> >
> > But there ARE ways to measure velocity relative to the local rest frame
> > (this is not "absolute", as it can vary from place to place) -- i.e.
CMBR.
>
> What, pray tell, is the 'local rest frame',
Same as for any fluid. The place where there is no wind. The average
motions of all the particle momentum vectors is zero.
> and if it varies from
> place to place, how do particles, light etc. know when they change
> rest frames?
Waves (i.e. sound and light) are never "in" a "rest frame" -- by definition.
They are always moving. However we observe the changes in the speed of a
wave in a fluid as temperature, pressures, densities and winds changes.
Macroscopic bodies within the fluid will.experience differing accelerations
as they are affected by the local medium (i.e. wind shear causing airliners
to crash). The precise effect depends on the properties of both the medium
and the body.
> >[snip]
{replacing, to see your original claim}
===================================
> and all inertial frames must be equivalent.
So, since we CAN determine the local rest frame, inertial frames don't all
have the same math. They are PHYSICALLY "equivalent."
===================================
> > > If they weren't, then a system would evolve in
> > > different ways depending on who/what 'looked' at it. This is an absurd
> > > notion.
> >
> > I believe you have it backwards. It is SR that causes systems to be
> > recreated with every observer. Aetherists don't care about who's
looking.
>
> Actually, the achievement of SR is to make observations consistent
> between frames.
You again have it backwards. The classic "twin paradox" exists only in SR.
The observations (each twin thinks the other is older) is NOT consistent.
The observations are diametrically opposed. Aetherists know which twin
moved through the aether -- and how fast.
>All the laws of physics hold in all frames.
But that is the assumption USED as a starting point by SR. It is not an
"achievement" of SR.
> > > To paraphrase Hawking (I think it was in A Brief History Of
> > > Time), 'Any passing sub-atomic particle could cause entire star
> > > systems to collapse.'
> >
> > If that was a correct paraphrase, then Hawking was wrong in this
instance,
> > too. (You have provided the argument from authority, but not bothered
to
> > actually use the authority.)
>
> And you have just made a random statement without backing it up.
My statement was not random -- it classified your "paraphrase" as an invalid
argument from authority.
> [snip]
> > > This is actually an extension of the first postulate, as the speed of
> > > light is determined by the laws of physics.
> >
> > ??? WHICH "laws of physics"? That's the key question.
>
> The laws of electrodynamics, as described by the Maxwell-Heaviside
> equations.
In which case, "c" is the speed relative to the aether -- according to
Maxwell's derivation. That's what I mean about "which" physics. :)
> [snip]
> > LOL! Maxwell derived "Maxwell's equations" in 1861, "On Physical Lines
of
> > Force." To derive "Maxwell's eqautions (and more), Maxwell used a fluid
> > aether of physical corpuscles. Part of that work was his derivation of
the
> > speed of transverse waves in this fluid -- based on magnetic and
electric
> > measurments already performed. He compared this calculated speed with
the
> > previously measured speed of light -- and they matched. This was the
FIRST
> > identification that light was transverse electric and magnetic waves (in
> > aether). Maxwell didn't just ASSUME that electric and magnetic effects
> > propagated at the speed of light.
>
> Naturally, there would be no way to tell if light were travelling in a
> medium or self-propagating, in a stationary frame.
Sure there is. You examine something like the CMBR (who's source is
apparently universal), and see where it is centered.
> However, the speed
> of light doesn't change between frames moving relative to each other.
What makes you say this? This is merely Einstein's starting assumption back
again. Your statement contradicts experiment (Sagnac, for example).
> There ends the aether argument.
The argument "ends" because "Einstein has assumed?"
> Anyone who knows some basic wave
> theory knows that c could not be constant in any frame but the rest
> frame of the aether, if one existed.
???? That's my point. And the point of all aetherists. And "c" is observed
to vary with motion of the observiing device (Sagnac).
>
> [snip]
> > > Regards to all
> > >
> > > P.S. Note that GR came about from (sort of) applying SR to
> > > accelerating reference frames, and must consequently also be correct.
> >
> > Another indication of ignorance. GR does not contain SR at all.
According
> > to Einstein and according to modern efforts to "prove" GR (the latter
use
> > the CMBR "rest" frame as the "preferred frame" for all calculations).
>
> The CMBR is one frame that can be used. It is not 'superior' in any
> way to any other inertial frame.
Except that no other frames make GR "work." See Will.
> And SR can easily be used to show
> how acceleration 'curves' space (consider a rapidly rotating cylinder,
> with one observer inside and one outside. The observer outside
> measures the circumference of the cylinder, and gets C. However, the
> observer inside sees the other's measuring instruments Lorentz
> contracted, so that from inside, the measured circumference is <C.
> Thanks to Prof. David Jamieson, University of Melbourne, for that
> example).
Unfortuneatly, it's simply another proof-by-assertion, here. Also
irrelvant.
Randy Poe
>
>"Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:585ab5d8.03062...@posting.google.com...
>> "Nobel" does not equal "fame".
>
>It doesn't? Why not? Fame within the physics community seems accurate.
OK, without checking, how many Nobel prize winners in physics over the
last two decades can you name?
>>
>> Nor does it even equate to "greatest physics accomplishment".
>
>But it does equate to "great physics accomplishement" at least by some - the
>Nobel committee
Sure. But not necessarily "the greatest accomplishment, the one for
which your peers revere you". And most certainly not necessarily "the
one by which the unwashed masses know you, if they do".
- Randy
Shambolic
> Shambolic <r.da...@ugrad.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:e37c3dcf.03061...@posting.google.com...
> > "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:<vf41dgb...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > Shambolic <r.da...@ugrad.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in message
[snip]
> 1) The principle of relativity
> 2) The constancy of the speed of light
> 3) The requirement for clock synchronization
> 4) The exension of 1, 2, and 3 from EM to all matter.
>
> More modern versions of SR add a fifth: That no "information" may travel
> faster than light.
Surely the statement that no information can travel faster than light
is a result, rather than a postulate. And postulate 2) above includes
postulate 3) implicitly, so 3) cannot be counted separately. And I'm
not quite sure what 4) is trying to get at, so I'll still consider SR
to be based on 2 (good) postulates.
> > It will depend how broad your definition of
> > 'postulate' is. Do you mean something like 'Maxwell's equations are
> > correct'?
>
> A "postulate" is -- by definition -- an assumption that cannot be proven
> within the logical structure. It matters not whether one attempts to
> "broaden" or "narrow" the definition. The point being that one cannot
> define postulates by simply waiting for an author to mention it.
I understand the concept of a postulate, I just couldn't see where you
got four from, so I thought we may have had our wires crossed.
I see your point, but although his description of the photoelectric
effect was an excellent achievement, it wasn't the quantum leap (pun
intended) in thinking that relativity was.
> > > > are valid ones (if you believe in the
> > > > postulates, you HAVE to believe in the theory's predictions, because
> > > > they are the only logical conclusions if the postulates are
> > > > correct...follow the maths yourselves).
> > >
> > > But I don't believe in the postulates. So your remaining effort is
> > > worthless -- to me. Or to anyone who doesn't share your personal
> religion
> > > (belief) in SR's postulates.
>
> No comment?
No, this part of our discussion is going nowhere. I'm sure you'll
agree
> > > > First, that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference
> > > > frames (take special note here, Henry Wilson, or whatever your name
> > > > is):
> > >
> > > Actually, you have misstated Einstein's postulate. Einstein's postulate
> is
> > > that the EQUATIONS of physics do not change with reference frames. This
> is
> > > significantly different than the PHYSICS doesn't change. In an aether
> > > theory -- for example -- the "physics" doesn't change from coordinate
> system
> > > to coordinate system -- but the mathematical equations DO change --
> because
> > > of the effect of varying motion through the aether.
> >
> > This is the direct quote from Einstein's paper (assuming a good
> > translator):
> > "...the same LAWS of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all
> > frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."
> > This is referring to inertial reference frames, and if the equations
> > 'hold good', the physics can't be different.
>
> I see you missed the point. My point was the reverse. You claimed that
> Einstein only assumed that the "physics" doesn't change. What Einstein
> actually assumed was that the *equations* did not change. There is a
> difference.
I'm still missing your point, I'm afraid. How could the physical world
be behaving differently, but still be described by the same equations?
> > If an aether is the answer, then what properties does it have?
>
> See Maxwell, "On Physical Lines of Force", 1861 -- wherein Maxwell's
> equations was derived. It's a superfluid.
>
> > Does it store energy?
>
> Of course. See "vector potential" (Maxwell called it the electrotonic
> state).
>
> > What effect does the expansion of the universe have on this aether?
>
> Non sequiteur. No fluid (even a superfluid) is perfect. There is always
> some loss of energy to the medium in the transmission of a wave. Hence the
> waves lose energy as they travel long distances.
I may be wrong, but I thought the definition of a superfluid was that
it had zero viscosity, which by definition means no energy dispersion
when the fluid flows.
>This is a redshift. Net
> result is that the "expansion of the universe" is an illusion. An aether
> just happened to predict what we now call "dark energy."
It only just struck me: you are describing light purely as a classical
wave (I realise this applies to all discussion stemming from Maxwell's
equations), but in that case, a loss of energy to the medium would
mean a reduction in amplitude, not frequency, would it not?
> Care to join the "club?"
No, sorry.
Why doesn't light get caught up in eddies, or otherwise change
direction, if this aether is dynamic in the way you seem to be
describing?
> Macroscopic bodies within the fluid will.experience differing accelerations
> as they are affected by the local medium (i.e. wind shear causing airliners
> to crash). The precise effect depends on the properties of both the medium
> and the body.
But we don't see any such random accelerations.
>
> > >[snip]
> {replacing, to see your original claim}
> ===================================
> > and all inertial frames must be equivalent.
>
> So, since we CAN determine the local rest frame, inertial frames don't all
> have the same math. They are PHYSICALLY "equivalent."
> ===================================
> > > > If they weren't, then a system would evolve in
> > > > different ways depending on who/what 'looked' at it. This is an absurd
> > > > notion.
> > >
> > > I believe you have it backwards. It is SR that causes systems to be
> > > recreated with every observer. Aetherists don't care about who's
> looking.
> >
> > Actually, the achievement of SR is to make observations consistent
> > between frames.
>
> You again have it backwards. The classic "twin paradox" exists only in SR.
> The observations (each twin thinks the other is older) is NOT consistent.
> The observations are diametrically opposed. Aetherists know which twin
> moved through the aether -- and how fast.
Actually, technically the twin paradox cannot exist in SR, as there is
no way two objects can be at rest w.r.t. each other, then moving fast
w.r.t. each other, then at rest again, while always being in inertial
frames. So, in SR, the so-called twin paradox is a moot point, and it
just so happens that GR explains it anyway.
> >All the laws of physics hold in all frames.
>
> But that is the assumption USED as a starting point by SR. It is not an
> "achievement" of SR.
>
> > > > To paraphrase Hawking (I think it was in A Brief History Of
> > > > Time), 'Any passing sub-atomic particle could cause entire star
> > > > systems to collapse.'
> > >
> > > If that was a correct paraphrase, then Hawking was wrong in this
> instance,
> > > too. (You have provided the argument from authority, but not bothered
> to
> > > actually use the authority.)
> >
> > And you have just made a random statement without backing it up.
>
> My statement was not random -- it classified your "paraphrase" as an invalid
> argument from authority.
All I actually did was use someone else's words which I considered
eloquent. I don't understand your objection
> > [snip]
> > > > This is actually an extension of the first postulate, as the speed of
> > > > light is determined by the laws of physics.
> > >
> > > ??? WHICH "laws of physics"? That's the key question.
> >
> > The laws of electrodynamics, as described by the Maxwell-Heaviside
> > equations.
>
> In which case, "c" is the speed relative to the aether -- according to
> Maxwell's derivation. That's what I mean about "which" physics. :)
Newton derived his gravitation law from the idea of 'action at a
distance', but didn't believe in the concept. The tools used in the
derivation are next to irrelevant if the final theory describes the
world accurately.
>
> > [snip]
> > > LOL! Maxwell derived "Maxwell's equations" in 1861, "On Physical Lines
> of
> > > Force." To derive "Maxwell's eqautions (and more), Maxwell used a fluid
> > > aether of physical corpuscles. Part of that work was his derivation of
> the
> > > speed of transverse waves in this fluid -- based on magnetic and
> electric
> > > measurments already performed. He compared this calculated speed with
> the
> > > previously measured speed of light -- and they matched. This was the
> FIRST
> > > identification that light was transverse electric and magnetic waves (in
> > > aether). Maxwell didn't just ASSUME that electric and magnetic effects
> > > propagated at the speed of light.
> >
> > Naturally, there would be no way to tell if light were travelling in a
> > medium or self-propagating, in a stationary frame.
>
> Sure there is. You examine something like the CMBR (who's source is
> apparently universal), and see where it is centered.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by 'where it is centred'. I
may be ignorant on this one. Enlighten me.
> > However, the speed
> > of light doesn't change between frames moving relative to each other.
>
> What makes you say this? This is merely Einstein's starting assumption back
> again. Your statement contradicts experiment (Sagnac, for example).
Can you provide a link to a URL describing this experiment?
Gauge
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:04:40 GMT, "Pmb" <som...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:585ab5d8.03062...@posting.google.com...
> >> "Nobel" does not equal "fame".
> >
> >It doesn't? Why not? Fame within the physics community seems accurate.
>
> OK, without checking, how many Nobel prize winners in physics over the
> last two decades can you name?
Well I do know one -
Claude Cohen-Tannoudji Winner of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics
But that's because we used his text on quantum mechanics in grad
schoo. So when he won it this fact stuck in my mind.
Is that what you mean by 'fame'? The names that I rememeber? Well for
me that's a poor criteria since I have a very poor memory. And I've
spent more time in the last two decades learning and doing physics
than learning about who's famous in physics.
> >>
> >> Nor does it even equate to "greatest physics accomplishment".
> >
> >But it does equate to "great physics accomplishement" at least by some - the
> >Nobel committee
>
> Sure. But not necessarily "the greatest accomplishment, the one for
> which your peers revere you".
What is a "great accomplishment" is highly subjective. And that's
differenet than "the one for which your peers revere you." I know that
one of the coolest ideas in physics in the last 20 years was the
invention of the tunneling microscope and that the inventor won the
Nobel prize for it. That doesn't mean I recall the guys name. I know
I've heard it and I also know that I've forgotten it.
How many great accomplishments by a single individual do you know of
in the last 20 years and what's the name of the single person
associated with it?
Pmb
Gregory L. Hansen
greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>
>Shambolic <r.da...@ugrad.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in message
>news:e37c3dcf.03061...@posting.google.com...
>> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
>news:<vf41dgb...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> > Shambolic <r.da...@ugrad.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in message
>> [snip]
>> > > Einstein started with two simple postulates (I
>> > > will explain soon why these postulates are good ones), and derived the
>> > > entire theory from first principles.
>> >
>> > Actually, he started with FOUR postulates. He termed the other two of
>his
>> > postulates "definitions." Since these "definitions" were not needed by
>> > Lorentz and Poincare, they are simply additional postulates, required by
>SR.
>>
>> What are the other two?
>
>SR has four basic postulates (though SRist's only "count") two:
>1) The principle of relativity
>2) The constancy of the speed of light
>3) The requirement for clock synchronization
Your third is no more a postulate in relativity than it is in Newtonian
mechanics. Imagine a lattice of rulers with clocks at the vertices, would
you build your coordinate system with clocks that aren't synchronized?
Even in a Newtonian world? Should Saturday and Tuesday occur
simultaneously?
You forgot an additional postulate: that all the unit rulers in your rest
frame are the same length (i.e. ruler synchronization).
>4) The exension of 1, 2, and 3 from EM to all matter.
Your fourth will get you from Maxwell's equations to all of mechanics
without the need for the other postulates above. But the first two
postulates are not specifically about electromagnetism, so your fourth is
not needed.
>
>More modern versions of SR add a fifth: That no "information" may travel
>faster than light.
That is a conclusion derived from the first two postulates.
tj Frazir
understand why .
SR = mass and enegy are interchangable ....
no more no less ....
so why not forget all the bullshit and say CONSERVATION .
Gravity is a push to less energy and identcal to conservation .
You cant stand talking gravity in terms of energy can U !
SR is simple but morons argue with no understanding of what it is.
ITS IDENTICAL TO CONSERVATION .
and all arguments are in vain .
Mass is equal the energy it displaces ... mass is equal the energy it
contains ,, the more energy mass contains the more energy it displaces
as the universe of energy under presure .....
The universe is energy under presure ,,,,,,,
OR you dummies must show the force expanding the universe ,,,it dont
expand by its self dose it !
Attract is wave interaction lowering the energy between objects and
repulsion is waves coliding rasing the energy between objects and
gravity is the low that forms around the objects
as the universe expands and matter of condeced energy dont.
Condenced energy is a eddie in energy with o resistance .
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:bcva1h$3...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
>>greywolf42 wrote:
> Here is statement to which I was replying:
>>plagiarist, on the basis of certain results of SR being predicted by
>>other scientists (for example Fitzgerald suggesting length
>>contraction).
>>
>>Here's the difference...every scientist that came before Einstein in
>>this field simply introduced empirically derived transforms to explain
>>experimental anomalies.
>
> empirically derived transforms to explain experimental anomalies." To
> which my response was:
>
>>>Both Lorentz and Poincare (at least) provided
>>>detailed derivations of the "Lorentz transform".
>
> And your response is now:
>
>>Oh? I understand Poincare' here, but not Lorentz. Where did he do this?
>>Certainly he did not do it in his 1904 paper....
>
> Now you are well aware that Lorentz did not just "introduce empirically
> derived transforms to explain experimental anomalies." in his 1904 paper.
> Are you not?
Yes. He did NOT introduce "empirically derived transforms" in his 1904
paper, he introduced a transform WITH NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER. That
is, he simply "further transform[ed] these formulae by a change of
variables [...]" [Lorentz, "Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving
With Any Velocity Less than that of Light", proc. Acad. Sci. Am., 6,
1904; start of section 4]
> Did you perhaps notice the quotes I placed around the term "Lorentz
> transform"? Lorentz DID provide a detailed derivation of HIS version of the
> "Lorentz transform"
As I asked before: WHERE?
As I said before: Certainly he did not do it in his 1904 paper....
Note: I believe he had used this transform in some papers
earlier than 1904. I don't have them. This is a simple request
for a reference backing up your claims.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> SR has four basic postulates (though SRist's only "count") two:
> 1) The principle of relativity
> 2) The constancy of the speed of light
> 3) The requirement for clock synchronization
> 4) The exension of 1, 2, and 3 from EM to all matter.
>
> More modern versions of SR add a fifth: That no "information" may travel
> faster than light.
There are many ways to derive the Lorentz transforms. Your supposed 3
and 4 are redundant (see Einstein's 1905 paper), and your "fifth" can be
reduced to "nothing can travel with infinite speed".
You forgot the "hidden" postulates Einstein acknowledged in a 1907 paper:
a) clocks and rulers have no memory
b) space is isotropic and homogeneous.
c) time is homogeneous
There is no question that these are required.
Here's another set:
I) The principle of relativity, as stated by Einstein in 1905.
II) Nothing can move with infinite speed wrt any inertial frame.
III-V) a-c above
One must also use the inherent fact that transformations must form a
group....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Patrick Reany
[snip]
> However, since the point under discussion was whether Lorentz derived the
> above, or simply backfit it, your quibble is wasted bandwidth.
>
> greywolf42
> ubi dubium ibi libertas
Gee, I haven't seen the "wasted bandwidth" charge for over five years.
Patrick
Pmb
"Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:844a1b64.03062...@posting.google.com...
I recall varney using a similar arguement. His idea was that if I hurried up
and died then there'd be more "room" for he and his slimey friends.
Pmb
Mathew Orman
"Shambolic" <r.da...@ugrad.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in message
news:e37c3dcf.03061...@posting.google.com...
Paper theories against hard evidence of fallacy!
See hard evidence based on physical device at:
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
Perfectly Innocent
of relativity." There is no real need to presuppose that the
transformations form a group. See:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
Dharma Fog
This thread was designed with you in mind
spaceballs.
In the URL above, you're merely ignoring time altogether
and parameterizing a circle with t embedded in a two
dimensional Euclidean space.
Then you pull a velocity dependent transform from were
the sun doesn't shine and bounce around in the wrong
space.
You're a crackpot.
Perfectly Innocent
> Perfectly Innocent wrote:
> >
> > If you wish, you may also derive relativity without "the principle
> > of relativity." There is no real need to presuppose that the
> > transformations form a group. See:
> >
> > http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
> >
> > Eugene Shubert
> > http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
> You're a crackpot.
I'm sure Tom Roberts would be inclined to say, judging from past
performance, that we are equally ignorant and confused and that
his understanding is true perfection.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
Bill Rowe
perfectl...@as-if.com (Perfectly Innocent) wrote:
> If you wish, you may also derive relativity without "the principle
> of relativity." There is no real need to presuppose that the
> transformations form a group. See
Perhaps you are not fully aware of what a group is in mathematics. A
group has the following properties:
existence of an indentity
existence of an inverse
closure
associativity
For example,
The set of integers under the operation of addition is a group
0 is the identity element, i.e. n + 0 = n for all integers n
-n is the inverse of all integers n, i.e., n + (-n) = 0
the sum of any two integers is an integer demonstrating closure
and finally for any intergers m,k,n m + (k + n) = (m + k) + n
If you think about it you will realize any transform that corresponds to
what can be physically measured must be a group to be valid. So,
presuppose the transformations form a group is nothing more than
requiring them to make physical sense
keith stein
> news:e37c3dcf.03061...@posting.google.com...
> > postulates of relativity are valid ones (if you believe in the
> > postulates, you HAVE to believe in the theory's predictions, because
> > they are the only logical conclusions if the postulates are
> > correct...follow the maths yourselves).
> >
> > First, that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference
> > frames
Which is true eh!
> > Enough said of the first postulate.
> > The second postulate, that the speed of light is constant in all such
> > frames:
This postulate is ambiguous.
It all depends what is meant by "constant"
If we mean that when we measure the speed of light IN any inertial frame
we always get the same value, then of course it is correct. The speed of
sound too is "constant" in that sence eh!
OTOH if we take "constant" to imply that light travels at the same speed
relative to ALL inertial frames everywhere, then that is simply WRONG,
for it just as impossible light to behave in such an extraordinary way, as
it
would be for sound, or indeed anything !
> > This is actually an extension of the first postulate, as the speed of
> > light is determined by the laws of physics.
According to Maxwell e-m waves travel relative to the "finite density"
medium,
which Maxwell insisted was necessary, and there is NO evidence that Maxwell
was wrong. Indeed the only significant finding in this respect since
Maxwell's
day is that we now know that "space" is in fact full of Hydrogen gas eh!,
but
for sure Maxwell already knew there had to be some "medium" in space.
"THE ENERGY OF ELECTRIFICATION RESIDES IN THE
DIELECTRIC MEDIUM,WHETHER THAT MEDIUM BE
SOLID, LIQUID, OR GASEOUS, DENSE OR RARE,
OR EVEN WHAT IS CALLED A VACUUM." J.C. Maxwell.
keith stein
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Akeith%20author:stein
Gregory L. Hansen
Perfectly Innocent <perfectl...@as-if.com> wrote:
>If you wish, you may also derive relativity without "the principle
>of relativity." There is no real need to presuppose that the
>transformations form a group. See:
Presupposing that the transformations form a group ensures:
One step left plus another step left equals two steps left.
You can go somewhere and then come back.
You can start moving, and then you can stop.
You can stand in one place.
These are not very astonishing properties, in my opinion.
Dharma Fog
[snip]
> I'm sure Tom Roberts would be inclined to say, judging from past
> performance, that we are equally ignorant and confused and that
> his understanding is true perfection.
Spoken like a true crackpot.
>
> Eugene Shubert
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
These URL's are rubbish spaceballs.
Tom Roberts
> In article <c45b45b3.03062...@posting.google.com>,
> Perfectly Innocent <perfectl...@as-if.com> wrote:
>
>>If you wish, you may also derive relativity without "the principle
>>of relativity." There is no real need to presuppose that the
>>transformations form a group. See:
>
> Presupposing that the transformations form a group ensures:
> One step left plus another step left equals two steps left.
> You can go somewhere and then come back.
> You can start moving, and then you can stop.
> You can stand in one place.
> These are not very astonishing properties, in my opinion.
Yes, but you introduced an additional concept in your example: addition.
In fact, the group postulates only ensure that:
One step left plus another step left equals a single step in some
direction (not necessarily an integral number of steps, and not
necessarily to the left).
And you forgot associativity....
But yes, it is utterly necessary that the set of all potential
transformations forms a group.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Perfectly Innocent
Nonsense! In the link:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
I derived some important transformation equations from a global clock
synchronization scheme. The transformation is well known, physically
meaningful, has no non-trivial group property, yet it reliably maps
events from an absolute and unprimed frame of reference to a general
moving frame:
x' = (x - v t) / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
t' = t sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
Perfectly Innocent
> In article <c45b45b3.03062...@posting.google.com>,
> Perfectly Innocent wrote:
> >If you wish, you may also derive relativity without "the principle
> >of relativity." There is no real need to presuppose that the
> >transformations form a group. See:
>
> Presupposing that the transformations form a group ensures:
>
> One step left plus another step left equals two steps left.
>
> You can go somewhere and then come back.
>
> You can start moving, and then you can stop.
>
> You can stand in one place.
>
> These are not very astonishing properties, in my opinion.
Gregory,
Some groups have remarkable properties. Try doing the proofs to
exercise 1 and 2 on this page dealing with generalized Lorentz
Transformations:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
Eugene Shubert
Gregory L. Hansen
That's what I get for making these things up by the seat of the pants.
And I was a little loose with starting and stopping since that's derived.
Let's see,
1. You can stand in one place. (identity)
2. You can go somewhere and then come back. (inverse)
3. A journey begins with a single step. (closed)
4. (associative)
Can't think of a glib interpretation of associativity.
greywolf42
{replaced context}
===============================================
===============================================
{now we rejoin our hero}
> > However, since the point under discussion was whether Lorentz derived
the
> > above, or simply backfit it, your quibble is wasted bandwidth.
>
> Gee, I haven't seen the "wasted bandwidth" charge for over five years.
Unfortunately, I've seen this cowardly removal of the substance of the
thread, and diversion into quibbles and insults quite often by relativists.
Would this be irrelevancy squared?
greywolf42
> greywolf42 wrote:
> > SR has four basic postulates (though SRist's only "count") two:
> > 1) The principle of relativity
> > 2) The constancy of the speed of light
> > 3) The requirement for clock synchronization
> > 4) The exension of 1, 2, and 3 from EM to all matter.
> >
> > More modern versions of SR add a fifth: That no "information" may
travel
> > faster than light.
>
> There are many ways to derive the Lorentz transforms.
I don't care about your fetish for the "Lorentz transform". We are
discussing Einstein's SR -- not the LT.
> Your supposed 3
> and 4 are redundant (see Einstein's 1905 paper), and your "fifth" can be
> reduced to "nothing can travel with infinite speed".
A) You admit that there are more than 2 postulates in SR (you accept #3)?
B) 3 and 4 are NOT redundant. Despite Einstein's claim.
C) OK, you accept #5 is an additional postulate. Even though you reword it.
> You forgot the "hidden" postulates Einstein acknowledged in a 1907 paper:
>
> a) clocks and rulers have no memory
> b) space is isotropic and homogeneous.
> c) time is homogeneous
>
> There is no question that these are required.
Personally, I'd say b & c were required by #3, above. And a is true of all
theories (not just SR). But why aren't you out there correcting other
relativists?
> Here's another set:
>
> I) The principle of relativity, as stated by Einstein in 1905.
> II) Nothing can move with infinite speed wrt any inertial frame.
> III-V) a-c above
>
> One must also use the inherent fact that transformations must form a
> group....
Tom, your fetish does not affect the rest of the world. Your desire for a
masturmatical "group" in no way requires a natural "fact."
greywolf42
Gregory L. Hansen <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:bd72kf$8uq$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <c45b45b3.03062...@posting.google.com>,
> Perfectly Innocent <perfectl...@as-if.com> wrote:
> >If you wish, you may also derive relativity without "the principle
> >of relativity." There is no real need to presuppose that the
> >transformations form a group. See:
>
> Presupposing that the transformations form a group ensures:
>
> One step left plus another step left equals two steps left.
>
> You can go somewhere and then come back.
>
> You can start moving, and then you can stop.
>
> You can stand in one place.
>
> These are not very astonishing properties, in my opinion.
They are pretty astonishing if you're swimming in a river, Simplicio. See
the "Dialog on the Two Great World Systems." Galileo
Gregory L. Hansen
Did I really have to mention any disclaimers like "Unless a bully steps in
and doesn't let you go back"?
Henri Wilson
wrote:
The 'medium' is what makes 'empty space' different from 'empty space carrying
EM'. It is made of EM itself. It is my aforementioned H-aether, consisting of
M2 matter.
Henri Wilson.
The BIG BANG Theory = The creationists' attempt to hijack science!
But they didn't succeed!
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
Perfectly Innocent
> If you wish, you may also derive relativity without "the principle
> of relativity." There is no real need to presuppose that the
> transformations form a group. See:
>
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:<3EEDD876...@lucent.com>...
>
> x' = (x - v t) / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> t' = t sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> [This transform is from ether-frame coordinates to
> coordinates of a frame moving with velocity v wrt
> the ether frame; v is along the +x=+x' axes.]
>
> This transform has been known for many decades, and has been discussed
> in the litrature by Ives, Sallieri, Tangherlini, and others. It can be
> derived from an ether theory with only a few basic assumptions. It leads
> to predictions of experimental observations that are identical in every
> respect with the predictions of SR.
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
What did I just say?
xxein
xxein: Groups are born of theory. No theory: no grouping. One could
propose a theory and groups, but if the theory is different from
mainstream belief, the grouping is not evident and so denied.
Groups from theory A cannot be compared to groups from theory B with
any corelation that is decisive to understanding the real and
objective reality (not subjective reality like SR-GR, as would be my
contention: subjective).
We, so, want to understand, that we will believe the max of any theory
that hasn't been proven untrue yet with our brand of specific
knowledge --- and THAT is dictated by the theory in the first place.
It is a conundrum that is only alleviated by somehow recognising the
difference between making theory from subjective observations and
making theory from the thought-out implications that the subjective
theory implies in toto. (Usually, the postulates of a subjective
theory will short-circuit attempts at complete rationality for its
believers.)
This means no more than taking a god-like view to explain our
subjective observations and how we make theory regarding them.
As we venture into deeper waters, we need more secure steppingstones.
They will not come from believing the water is shallow (contemporary,
popular, subjective theories).
I am not offering my theory except to those that I can regognise as
real scientists, but I will say that it makes SR and GR into a
kindergarten belief of reality despite its successes. If anyone only
knew beyond those kindergarten beliefs!
I don't think you are ready to step out of your belief, but if you
claim any sense of pure logic, you should, because the ugly duck is
just in the eye of the beholder. This universe may be ugly to you wrt
how you would think it is. Look at it as a stranger would, instead of
how you want it to be.
I'll stop rambling now. But remember that this universe is not a wish
on our part. It is the universe that is in complete control of our
thoughts. WOW! NOW this universe has its proper place in heirarchy.
B-bye.
Shambolic
> This postulate is ambiguous.
> It all depends what is meant by "constant"
It means that light travels at c, in any direction, in every single
inertial reference frame.
> If we mean that when we measure the speed of light IN any inertial frame
> we always get the same value, then of course it is correct. The speed of
> sound too is "constant" in that sence eh!
No, that is blatantly wrong, Keith. If the frame you measure the speed
of sound in is moving w.r.t. the medium carrying the sound, then the
sound will be travelling at a different speed depending on the
direction you measure it in.
keith stein
Indeed and if the frame you measure the speed of light in is moving w.r.t.
the medium carrying the light, then the light will be travelling at a
different speed depending on the direction you measure it in. However,
because the speed of light is very much faster than that of sound the
percentage change in the speed of sound will of course be very much greater,
and therefore much easier to measure, but in both cases the relevant frame
of reference is the one in which the medium is stationary.
Robert J. Kolker
keith stein wrote:
> "THE ENERGY OF ELECTRIFICATION RESIDES IN THE
> DIELECTRIC MEDIUM,WHETHER THAT MEDIUM BE
> SOLID, LIQUID, OR GASEOUS, DENSE OR RARE,
> OR EVEN WHAT IS CALLED A VACUUM." J.C. Maxwell.
But Maxwell was wrong. We can have his equations without the aether.
Bob Kolker
Pentcho Valev
> Now, for those who don't believe in SR, I will explain why the two
> postulates of relativity are valid ones (if you believe in the
> postulates, you HAVE to believe in the theory's predictions, because
> they are the only logical conclusions if the postulates are
> correct...follow the maths yourselves).
Consider two events - two consecutive positions of the front of a
beam.
The first coincides with the origin (x=x'=t=t'=0), the second is
characterized by t'>0 in the primed system and t>0 in the unprimed
system. Which of the following statements is true for an observer in
the unprimed system who applies Lorentz transform:
A) Always t' < t
B) Always t' > t
C) Both t' < t and t' > t are possible, depending on the direction
of the beam.
Now consider two other events - two consecutive positions of a point
on
a rotating gearwheel in a clock situated (the clock) e.g. at the
beginning of the primed system. The first event coincides with the
origin (x=x'=t=t'=0), the second is characterized by t'>0 in the
primed system
and t>0 in the unprimed system. Which of the following statements is
true
for an observer in the unprimed system who applies Lorentz transform:
A) Always t' < t
B) Always t' > t
C) Both t' < t and t' > t are possible, depending on the speed and
direction of movement of the point.
Pentcho Valev
Gregory L. Hansen
[snipped stuff about facing a brave new world of science]
I think you misunderstand what a group is. What groups from theory A are
you comparing to groups from theory B, anyway?
A group is a set of elements that, under a specific operation, follows
the conditions that Bill Rowe mentioned earlier.
existence of an identity
existence of an inverse
closure
associativity
If the transformations form a group that ensures you can, if you like,
stand in one place. You can go somewhere and come back. And if you go
somewhere, and then go somewhere else, you're still somewhere.
What if the transformations didn't form a group? Suppose there was no
identity element. Then it would be impossible for your theory to even
describe something whose state of motion doesn't change. If there were no
inverse then, in your theory, once you leave a place it no longer exists
-- it's not merely impossible to return to it, that location can no
longer even be described. If it had no closure then, in that theory,
there will be some sequence of steps that will take one out of the
universe, or at least some place that no reference frame or coordinate
system can describe.
The set of Galilean transformations form a group. The set of Lorentz
transformations form a different group. Nobody says the group from theory
A is the same as the group from theory B, but they're both groups, as
opposed to rings or fields or something else.
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vfem054...@corp.supernews.com...
When completely lost with no possible way to go, our poor
greywolf42 uses his Barry Mingst Smoke Screen Tactics: in
stead of replying, he throws in as a reply to the wrong person
a convoluted heap of randomly cut pieces and replaced
contexts of other messages in a way that no one cares
anymore to figure out what came from where, who said it
why to whom and in which context, exactly like he did on
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vemlos4...@corp.supernews.com
to hide the fact that he had no clue what he had been talking
about to begin with.
The Barry Mingst Smoke Screen Tactics At Work, a true
sign of dead meat.
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3EF83C64...@attbi.com...
Only if you ignore where they came from, Bob. (On Physical Lines of Force,
1861).
You can say the same about PV=nRT, too -- or any other physical equation.
greywolf42
Your argument was the same as Simplicio, in Galileo's "Dialog". So you're
about 400 years behind the times. It is quite funny.
To be more physically specific, the physical aethers are all fluids (except
in the minds of relativists). Hence, they move. Hence, you don't stand
"on" them -- you swim in them. In other words, your analogy stinks.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@bas.bg> wrote in message news:a5f8a53d.03062...@posting.google.com...
> r.da...@ugrad.unimelb.edu.au (Shambolic) wrote in message news:<e37c3dcf.03061...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Now, for those who don't believe in SR, I will explain why the two
> > postulates of relativity are valid ones (if you believe in the
> > postulates, you HAVE to believe in the theory's predictions, because
> > they are the only logical conclusions if the postulates are
> > correct...follow the maths yourselves).
>
> Consider two events - two consecutive positions of the front of a
> beam.
> The first coincides with the origin (x=x'=t=t'=0), the second is
> characterized by t'>0 in the primed system and t>0 in the unprimed
> system. Which of the following statements is true for an observer in
> the unprimed system who applies Lorentz transform:
Anyone can apply any transformation.
>
> A) Always t' < t
>
> B) Always t' > t
>
> C) Both t' < t and t' > t are possible, depending on the direction
> of the beam.
Both t' < t and t' > t are possible, *only* depending on the position
of the second event:
t' = g(t - vx/c^2)
or equivalently
t = g(t' + vx'/c^2).
Special cases:
if the second event has x = 0, then t' > t.
if the second event has x' = 0, then t > t'.
>
> Now consider two other events - two consecutive positions of a point
> on
> a rotating gearwheel in a clock situated (the clock) e.g. at the
> beginning of the primed system. The first event coincides with the
> origin (x=x'=t=t'=0), the second is characterized by t'>0 in the
> primed system
> and t>0 in the unprimed system. Which of the following statements is
> true
> for an observer in the unprimed system who applies Lorentz transform:
Anyone can apply any transformation.
>
> A) Always t' < t
>
> B) Always t' > t
>
> C) Both t' < t and t' > t are possible, depending on the speed and
> direction of movement of the point.
Both t' < t and t' > t are possible, *only* depending on the position
of the second event:
t' = g(t - vx/c^2).
or equivalently
t = g(t' + vx'/c^2).
Special cases:
if the second event has x = 0, then t' > t.
if the second event has x' = 0, then t > t'.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vfgtojj...@corp.supernews.com...
[snip fart of eh!]
> >
> > But Maxwell was wrong. We can have his equations without the aether.
> >
>
> Only if you ignore where they came from, Bob. (On Physical Lines of Force,
> 1861).
So because Maxwell interpreted his own equations
in some way, we have to do exactly the same.
This must be another instance of Mingst logic.
Dirk Vdm
keith stein
Maxwell's "medium" is REAL matter, Mr.Kolker,"...SOLID, LIQUID, OR GASEOUS,
DENSE OR RARE ", and although at the time he must of been guessing about the
rare gas in space, we know now that in fact MAXWELL WAS RIGHT eh!
Sure we can have Maxwell's theory without the "aether", in fact Maxwell
doesn't mention "aether" in his "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism", but
he certainly did insists on the necessity of a "medium",for if we eliminate
the "medium" from Maxwell's theory we are left with a velocity relative to
NOTHING, which is nonsense.
According to Maxwell's theory, light travels relative to the stuff it's
travelling through, just like everything do, and note that this fully
explains the null result of the Michelson and Morley too eh!
keith stein
keith stein
in message news:4u%Ja.65352$1u5....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> So because Maxwell interpreted his own equations
> in some way, we have to do exactly the same.
> Dirk Vdm
No, it's not because Maxwell interpreted his own equations in "some" way,
but rather it's because Maxwell interpreted his own equations the "sensible"
way, where the velocity he derives is relative to "something", rather than
relative to "nothing"
eh!
Robert J. Kolker
keith stein wrote:
> Maxwell's "medium" is REAL matter, Mr.Kolker,"...SOLID, LIQUID, OR GASEOUS,
> DENSE OR RARE ", and although at the time he must of been guessing about the
> rare gas in space, we know now that in fact MAXWELL WAS RIGHT eh!
It is so real that no one can measure our velocity in it. In short, what
we can measure is consistent with 1. no aether or 2. mystery aether
whoch no one can dectect independently of its ability to carry light.
But light is particles, you see, and we don't need no steenking aether
for particles to whiz through space.
>
> Sure we can have Maxwell's theory without the "aether", in fact Maxwell
> doesn't mention "aether" in his "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism", but
> he certainly did insists on the necessity of a "medium",for if we eliminate
> the "medium" from Maxwell's theory we are left with a velocity relative to
> NOTHING, which is nonsense.
That nonsense makes correct predictions. Science is about predicting
outcomes not yet observed.
>
> According to Maxwell's theory, light travels relative to the stuff it's
> travelling through, just like everything do, and note that this fully
> explains the null result of the Michelson and Morley too eh!
Or it explains nothing. The MMX would come out the same with or without
aether. So either there is no aether or the MMX is irrelevent.
Bob Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel
[snip]
> Both t' < t and t' > t are possible, *only* depending on the position
> of the second event:
> t' = g(t - vx/c^2).
> or equivalently
> t = g(t' + vx'/c^2).
> Special cases:
> if the second event has x = 0, then t' > t.
> if the second event has x' = 0, then t > t'.
Another special case:
if the second event satisfies
x/t = c^2*(1-1/g)/v
or equivalently
x'/t' = -c^2*(1-1/g)/v
then t' = t (and x' = -x)
and vice versa.
Dirk Vdm
Robert J. Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> So because Maxwell interpreted his own equations
> in some way, we have to do exactly the same.
> This must be another instance of Mingst logic.
Heinrich Hertz said something to the effect that Maxwell's theory is
Maxwell's Equations. The equations can be used in a non-aether context
to make correct preductions.
Bob Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel
Gregory L. Hansen
When people invoke an aether (at least around here) it's usually because
they don't like relativity or quantum mechanics. But I sometimes wonder
what a Lorentz invariant quantized aether theory would look like. At
first glance, fields and the aether are both continuous systems (assuming
the aether is a continuous and not atomic fluid). But the aether has a
rest frame (which may be different from point to point, but still a
preferred state), is capable of bulk movement, and could presumably have
density even where we would have said a field strength is zero. And I
suppose we'd postulate an aether for each type of force, which would make
it very different from normal mixtures like water and alcohal, which as
far as I know result in an averaged wave speed rather than two distinct
wave speeds, and so on.
greywolf42
Dinky, if you'd bother to read the post, I was replying to Patrick, not Tom.
'Twas Patrick that deleted the author headers (that identified Tom). Not
me. However, Patrick ALSO deleted the content and context of the post. And
it was the content to which I was replying.
> a convoluted heap of randomly cut pieces and replaced
> contexts of other messages in a way that no one cares
> anymore to figure out what came from where, who said it
> why to whom and in which context,
LOL! Here, Dinky accuses me of the standard relativist ploy. I merely
reconstruct the posts AS they existed before the Speicher, Semon or Van Der
Mortal "creative", invisible snipping.
> exactly like he did on
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vemlos4...@corp.supernews.com
> to hide the fact that he had no clue what he had been talking
> about to begin with.
> The Barry Mingst Smoke Screen Tactics At Work, a true
> sign of dead meat.
LOL! Dinky -- a smoke screen is something that HIDES the items one wants to
avoid.
Still to much of a coward to accept those bets?
Jeff Krimmel
>
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:tF_Ja.65228$1u5....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>>
>> When completely lost with no possible way to go, our poor
>> greywolf42 uses his Barry Mingst Smoke Screen Tactics: in
>> stead of replying, he throws in as a reply to the wrong person
>
> Dinky, if you'd bother to read the post, I was replying to Patrick, not Tom.
> 'Twas Patrick that deleted the author headers (that identified Tom). Not
> me. However, Patrick ALSO deleted the content and context of the post. And
> it was the content to which I was replying.
Wow, you truly are completely delusional. Take a look back at Patrick's
post, Mingst. The only quoted text was the following:
"However, since the point under discussion was whether Lorentz derived the
above, or simply backfit it, your quibble is wasted bandwidth."
Directly under that, he attributed your name. Why would he include
anything else? He included the headers that pointed to you making the above
remark, which you most certainly did.
Then, as Dirk so correctly pointed out, you put on your typical somescreen
tactic of throwing in old, useless remnants that were wisely cut
previously in the conversation in an attempt to completely confuse what is
being said.
You don't need the useless context of a conversation to reply to someone
who notices your weak "wasted bandwidth" complaint. But, that wouldn't
make for an effective smokescreen, now would it?
In the infamous words of PMB: "Later, chump."
Jeff
keith stein
> keith stein wrote:
> > Maxwell's "medium" is REAL matter, Mr.Kolker,"...SOLID, LIQUID, OR >
>GASEOUS, DENSE OR RARE ", and although at the time he must of been > >
guessing about the rare gas in space, we know now that in fact MAXWELL >
>WAS RIGHT eh!
> It is so real that no one can measure our velocity in it. In short, what
> we can measure is consistent with 1. no aether or 2. mystery aether
> whoch no one can dectect independently of its ability to carry light.
The "rare gas" in space is HYDROGEN, Mr.Kolker, and it most certainly has
been detected, and indeed its velocity relative us can often be determined
too, (from the Doppler shift of the spectral lines eh!)
> But light is particles, you see,
So how you gonna to explain interference and diffraction effects without
waves, Mr.Kolker ?
You can't of course, and those waves travel relative to the matter they are
travelling through, as Maxwell's theory correctly predicts.
>and we don't need no steenking aether
> for particles to whiz through space.
and we don't need no "steenking aether" for Maxwell's theory either eh!
> > Sure we can have Maxwell's theory without the "aether", in fact Maxwell
> > doesn't mention "aether" in his "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism",
but
> > he certainly did insists on the necessity of a "medium",for if we
eliminate
> > the "medium" from Maxwell's theory we are left with a velocity relative
to
> > NOTHING, which is nonsense.
>
> That nonsense makes correct predictions.
No it doesn't! For one thing it predicts that moving clocks should run
slow, a prediction still not verified 100 years after Einstein made it eh!
> Science is about predicting
> outcomes not yet observed.
I predict that a clock on the ISS would loose 0.0 microseconds per day.
What do you predict Mr.Kolker ?
> > According to Maxwell's theory, light travels relative to the stuff it's
> > travelling through, just like everything do, and note that this fully
> > explains the null result of the Michelson and Morley too eh!
>
> Or it explains nothing. The MMX would come out the same with or without
> aether.
Why you keep going on about "aether" ? Maxwell didn't, and i don't!
> So either there is no aether or the MMX is irrelevent.
Or both are irrelevent, and Einstein's SR is twaddle eh!
keith stein
> Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
keith stein wrote:
> Or both are irrelevent, and Einstein's SR is twaddle eh!
Not so. It has never been disproved experimentally. A scientific theory
can be demolished by showing that it predicts incorrectly and there is
no auxillary condition to account for the discrepancy.
Bob Kolker
keith stein
You appear to have missed the question i asked you about your predictions
for the relativistic time dilations on the International Space Station
Mr.Kolker....
"keith stein" <ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Bm4Ka.76$vg7...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
xxein
xxein: So you prove my point. Reread carefully. I didn't say
anything about NOT forming a group. Just a different and so far
unrecognisable group from an unrecognised theory.
You adequately agree with what I posted. And you eloquently
elaborated.
Thx.
Alfred Einstead
> A group has the following properties:
> existence of an indentity
> existence of an inverse
> closure
> associativity
Actually, a group is just a non-empty algebra with a single
operation / satisfying the properties
(A/C)/(B/C) = A/B
A/(A/A) = A
(A/A)/(B/B) = B/B
and an Abelian group, a non-empty algebra with an operation -
satisfying the properties:
A-(A-B) = B
A-(B-C) = C-(B-A).
> So, presuppose the transformations form a group is nothing more than
> requiring them to make physical sense
Actually, presupposing transformations form a MONOID is nothing
more than requiring them to make physical sense. A group, on
the other hand, is quite a bit something more.
Alfred Einstead
> No it doesn't! For one thing it predicts that moving clocks should run
> [sic] Einstein made it eh!
You mean, after Einstein, Lorentz, Poincare', et. al. made it.
The effects of motion, the Earth's rotation, and gravity on clocks have
all been directly verified to a very high accuracy.
It's verified by the slowdown of the decay rates for particles in
high speed motion, the slowdown matching the predicted special
relativistic effect.
In the most extreme cases are neutrons -- whose halflife is only
around 10 minutes -- which enter the Earth's atmosphere from
sources that can be as far as 1000 light years away, after
upwards of 1000 years in transit -- without decaying.
[... bluff-prediction about ISS "losing" 0.0 microseconds...]
... which has absolutely nothing to do with Relativity.
Relativity doesn't even say the ISS clocks will go slower, in the
first place. It says they will go FASTER.
Pentcho Valev
Now we must use these results in resolving an important
problem. In his book "Relativity, the special and general theory"
Einstein places a clock at the beginning of the primed system,
(as we do above), applies Lorentz transform and obtains t' < t.
However he implicitly assumes x = vt for the movements of all
the points on all the parts of the clock. Clearly this is not
the case, and your results above (which are in fact my earlier
results) show that his conclusion t' < t is wrong. For instance,
it may so happen that, at some moment, the tip of the hour hand
of the clock moves in accordance with x' = 0 whereas the tip of
the minute hand of the clock moves in accordance with x = 0.
What are the implications for the concept of time dilation
and the special relativity theory in general?
Pentcho
Alfred Einstead
> Maxwell's [sic] "medium" is REAL matter,
Maxwell remained neutral on the issue of a medium in his Treatise.
There never was a medium, in the first place, but just a stress
tensor. And the tensor does NOT describe the electromagnetic field.
So the field can't be reduced to it, and therefore not the medium.
There is strictly more information in the field that is contained
in the electromagnetic stress tensor. Therefore, whatever the
field is MUST be more than anything described by the stresses
of any "medium".
> Mr.Kolker,"...SOLID, LIQUID, OR GASEOUS, DENSE OR RARE ",
> and although at the time he must of been guessing about the
> rare gas in space, we know now that in fact MAXWELL WAS [sic] RIGHT eh!
By Maxwell's own account (the stress tensor), it is wrong. The field is
not deriveable from its stress tensor, which permanently closes the
issue.
The tensor is
T = a(m^m^ - n^n^) - b p^p^
m^, n^, p^ principle directions of the tensor
0 <= a <= b; a, b the principle components of the tensor
the field is only determined from this up to an angle T
E = m cos T + n sin T
B = (1/c) (n cos T - m sin T).
m = sqrt((a+b)/epsilon_0) m^
n = sqrt((b-a)/epsilon_0) n^
T has absolutely nothing to do with the electromagnetic field
stress tensor, and therefore nothing to do with a medium, period.
The function T = T(x,y,z,t) is completely undetermined by any
description of an underlying medium.
Alfred Einstead
> Maxwell's "medium" is REAL matter, Mr.Kolker,"...SOLID, LIQUID, OR GASEOUS,
> DENSE OR RARE ",
... in which case the Earth and all the planets would have fallen into
the sun long before now by the fiction against it, alone.
The Earth exists. Therefore, there is no medium. Period, end of story.
Dirk Van de moortel
Indeed, round trip with x'=0 gives t' = t/g < t
> However he implicitly assumes x = vt for the movements of all
> the points on all the parts of the clock.
The clock has no moving parts: it is an idealized clock.
If you want to know what happens with a clock with
moving parts, then if you like, there are two ways open:
(1) The parts are moving with non-relativistic speeds w.r.t.
the clock's so-called primed restframe. In this case a part of
this clock will show the same time t" as the time t' an ideal
clock shows without moving parts in the same primed frame.
Don't like this? Cannot imagine a clock without moving parts?
Then Imagine a base clock with parts that run slower than
the clock *you* have in mind, and look at the proof at
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=SK0C7.2012$aA1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
where it is shown that the direction and the speed of the
parts have no influence on the round trip times t or t' as seen
by any inertial observer. If you find an error in this text,
show it.
(2) The parts are moving with relativistic speeds w.r.t.
the clock's so-called primed restframe. In this case you
must also treat such a part as a new frame with its own
time and space coordinates t",x",y",z". When you do this,
you can trace the times t' according to the primed frame
of various events of such a part using either an idealized
clock or a clock of the first kind.
However, the 'own time' and 'own space coordinates'
t",x",y",z" of a single part of this clock is *not* what you
are thinking and talking about. When you know exactly
how each part moves, you can integrate the proper time
of each individual part, but (!)... until now you have been
thinking and talking about the coordinates t',x',y',z' of
events taking place *on* such a single part, and on the
relations between these coordinates and the t,x,y,z of
another frame. Again, the balls clock at
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=SK0C7.2012$aA1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
clearly shows that there are two frames, and there are
the balls moving at *any* speed you want w.r.t. one of the
frames. You can even imagine that they are light clocks.
If you are not convinced, have a close look at David
McAnally's treatment on the same thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=9radci$s64$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au
If you find an error in this text, show it.
> Clearly this is not
> the case, and your results above (which are in fact my earlier
> results) show that his conclusion t' < t is wrong. For instance,
> it may so happen that, at some moment, the tip of the hour hand
> of the clock moves in accordance with x' = 0 whereas the tip of
> the minute hand of the clock moves in accordance with x = 0.
> What are the implications for the concept of time dilation
> and the special relativity theory in general?
That one has to read and study more than a popular but
somewhat outdated book, even if it was written by Einstein.
I would *specially* recommend:
"General relativity from A to B" by Robert Geroch
"Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler
or if you think it isn't worth the small investment, start with
http://www2.kenyon.edu/People/schumacb/Phys223/spacetim.pdf
http://physics.syr.edu/courses/PHY312.01Spring/MasterNotes.pdf
and then decide that the books *are* worth the investment.
They are.
hth
Dirk Vdm
Hayek
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> The clock has no moving parts: it is an idealized clock.
LOL.
This one goes in my book.
> Dirk Vdm
Hayek.
--
The small particles wave at
the big stars and get noticed.
:-)
Dirk Van de moortel
"Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:3EF977B8...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
>
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> > The clock has no moving parts: it is an idealized clock.
>
> LOL.
>
> This one goes in my book.
>
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> Hayek.
So you *are* paying attention.
Good dog.
Dirk Vdm
keith stein
but they don't even know which clock is supposed to go fastest eh!
"If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed
curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey
lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest
the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be (1/2 t v^2/c^2)
second slow." Einstein
N.B. Albert Einstein says the travelled clock goes SLOW,
Whereas Alfred Einstead says the travelled clock goes FAST !!!
"Alfred Einstead" <whop...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:e58d56ae.03062...@posting.google.com...
> "keith stein" <ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > No it doesn't! For one thing it predicts that moving clocks should run
> > slow, a prediction [sic] still not verified 100 years after
> > [sic] Einstein made it eh!
> Relativity doesn't even say the ISS clocks will go slower, in the
> first place. It says they will go FASTER.
LOL
keith stein
Mathew Orman
He is right, actually!
The clock that has stopped has constant periodic rate of 0,
the rate that never increases or decreases:)
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
greywolf42
Gregory L. Hansen <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:bda9el$cmj$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <3EF8A48A...@attbi.com>,
> Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >>
> >> So because Maxwell interpreted his own equations
> >> in some way, we have to do exactly the same.
> >> This must be another instance of Mingst logic.
> >
> >Heinrich Hertz said something to the effect that Maxwell's theory is
> >Maxwell's Equations.
And he was completely wrong.
> > The equations can be used in a non-aether context
> >to make correct preductions.
But only if you're lucky enough to select regions where the approximations
hold. (Did you design the Kansas City skywalks, or the Tacoma Narrows
bridge, by any chance?)
> When people invoke an aether (at least around here) it's usually because
> they don't like relativity or quantum mechanics.
The point -- of course -- is WHY they don't "like" it.
> But I sometimes wonder
> what a Lorentz invariant quantized aether theory would look like. At
> first glance, fields and the aether are both continuous systems (assuming
> the aether is a continuous and not atomic fluid).
Only relativists dream about purely continuous fluid aethers. (That is what
the time-space continuum is, after all). An aether -- by definition -- is a
physical fluid. And physical fluids are comprised of discrete corpuscles.
Even if we can (often) describe the bulk properties of the fluid with
continuous approximations (Green's identities hold).
> But the aether has a
> rest frame (which may be different from point to point,
Correct. Fluid motions may vary.
> but still a preferred state),
It is not "preferred" in any manner. The "rest frame" is simply the frame
at which the average momenta of the corpuscles average out at a given point.
> is capable of bulk movement, and could presumably have
> density even where we would have said a field strength is zero.
Excellent!
> And I
> suppose we'd postulate an aether for each type of force,
Whyever would someone make such an unnecessary and absurd assumption? Sure,
it's not theoretically prohibited. But then you'd have to find ways of
intermixed aethers to interact or not.
> which would make
> it very different from normal mixtures like water and alcohal, which as
> far as I know result in an averaged wave speed rather than two distinct
> wave speeds, and so on.
Again, if you postulate the unnecessary, you can make the problem as
difficult as you like. But this arbitrary inclination on your part does not
affect the universe -- or even the current or past theories of the aether.
greywolf42
>
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >
> > So because Maxwell interpreted his own equations
> > in some way, we have to do exactly the same.
> > This must be another instance of Mingst logic.
>
> Heinrich Hertz said something to the effect that Maxwell's theory is
> Maxwell's Equations.
And he was completely wrong.
> The equations can be used in a non-aether context
> to make correct preductions.
And incorrect ones. If you don't understand the physical basis of the
equations.
greywolf42
> > >
> > >
>
> [snip fart of eh!]
>
> > >
> > > But Maxwell was wrong. We can have his equations without the aether.
> > >
> >
Force,
> > 1861).
The standard relativist "creative" snipping. This is Lie number 1.
Replacing the snipped sentence:
=================================
You can say the same about PV=nRT, too -- or any other physical equation.
=================================
>
> So because Maxwell interpreted his own equations
> in some way,
This is bold-faced lie number 2:
Maxwell didn't "interpret" his equations. He DERIVED them in "On Physical
Lines of Force." As you well know.
> we have to do exactly the same.
> This must be another instance of Mingst logic.
Lie #3 results from Lie #1. The relationship is simple. If you don't
understand the phsyical basis of PV=nRT, you'll screw up by insisting that
PV=nRT is some universal Truth -- and apply it in a region where it does not
apply (i.e. assuming actions are instantaneous). If you don't understand
the physical basis of Maxwell's equations ("We can have his equations
without the aether"), you'll screw up and apply it in a region where it does
not apply.
greywolf42
Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.06.24....@hotmail.com...
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:28:32 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
>
> >
> > Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in
> > message news:tF_Ja.65228$1u5....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> >>
> >> When completely lost with no possible way to go, our poor
> >> greywolf42 uses his Barry Mingst Smoke Screen Tactics: in
> >> stead of replying, he throws in as a reply to the wrong person
> >
> > Dinky, if you'd bother to read the post, I was replying to Patrick, not
Tom.
> > 'Twas Patrick that deleted the author headers (that identified Tom).
Not
> > me. However, Patrick ALSO deleted the content and context of the post.
And
> > it was the content to which I was replying.
>
> Wow, you truly are completely delusional. Take a look back at Patrick's
> post, Mingst.
Patrick's Post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1737000548d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=844a1b64.0306220410.56b49275%40posting.google.com
> The only quoted text was the following:
>
> "However, since the point under discussion was whether Lorentz derived the
> above, or simply backfit it, your quibble is wasted bandwidth."
Dinky Van Der Mortel stated that I had thrown in "a reply to the wrong
person." The reply that Dinky was complaining about HAD BEEN to Patrick.
(It was Patrick's snipping of Tom's PRIOR context that confused Dinky.) So
Dinky's charge of a "smokescreen" was pure fabrication.
> Directly under that, he attributed your name. Why would he include
> anything else?
To be honest and provide the context of the quote, of course.
> He included the headers that pointed to you making the above
> remark, which you most certainly did.
The remark is indeed taken out of context from my post in reply to Tom
Roberts::
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1737000548d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=vf70i7oj6a9kd8%40corp.supernews.com
> Then, as Dirk so correctly pointed out, you put on your typical somescreen
> tactic of throwing in old, useless remnants that were wisely cut
> previously in the conversation in an attempt to completely confuse what is
> being said.
They are only "wisely cut" if one's intent is to take something out of
context and to misrepresent the statement. Which was, of course, the intent
of Patrick. It also helped bury (smokescreen) the fact that Tom had
descended into quibbling and snipping random pieces of posts in order to
change the context.
> You don't need the useless context of a conversation to reply to someone
> who notices your weak "wasted bandwidth" complaint. But, that wouldn't
> make for an effective smokescreen, now would it?
An effective smokescreen is all these posts dedicating to preserving a
quibble posted by Mr. Roberts, and diverting from catching Tom changing the
meanings of statements by cutting context. And instead of focusing on the
main issue (Tom's "creative" editing, Patrick's outright elimination of all
but the smallest closing statement. Dinky's outright fabrications), you now
focus on Patrick's ability to actually leave one sentence as an indicator of
my "delusional" state.
> In the infamous words of PMB: "Later, chump."
Note how completely Tom's errors of physics are smokescreened?
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vfjnc7a...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> wrote in message news:4u%Ja.65352$1u5....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
[snip]
> > So because Maxwell interpreted his own equations
> > in some way,
>
> This is bold-faced lie number 2:
> Maxwell didn't "interpret" his equations. He DERIVED them in "On Physical
> Lines of Force." As you well know.
Nice ;-)
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BoldFace.html
Dirk Vdm
Jeff Krimmel
>
> Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.06.24....@hotmail.com...
[SNIP!]
>>
>> Then, as Dirk so correctly pointed out, you put on your typical somescreen
>> tactic of throwing in old, useless remnants that were wisely cut
>> previously in the conversation in an attempt to completely confuse what is
>> being said.
>
> They are only "wisely cut" if one's intent is to take something out of
> context and to misrepresent the statement. Which was, of course, the intent
> of Patrick. It also helped bury (smokescreen) the fact that Tom had
> descended into quibbling and snipping random pieces of posts in order to
> change the context.
[SNIP!]
Look, Patrick wasn't trying to hide anything. He saw that you made a
"wasted bandwidth" charge against Tom, and he merely poked some fun at you
because of it. I am reasonably certain he wasn't trying to distract anyone
from the conversation you may have been having with Tom, but he was just
letting everyone know how juvenile and useless the "wasted bandwidth"
charge really is.
But, as usual, instead of recognizing Patrick's comment for what it was,
you felt the need to add in a bunch of context that had been snipped
before, and change the way the text is attributed to each author when you
re-insert the snipped portions of the conversation, so that it is entirely
too cumbersome and confusing to read. Just as you will likely do in
response to this post. That's called smoke-screening (as Dirk already
explained).
Have fun,
Jeff
Dirk Van de moortel
"Jeff Krimmel" <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:pan.2003.06.25....@hotmail.com...
[snip]
> [SNIP!]
;-)
>
> Look, Patrick wasn't trying to hide anything. He saw that you made a
> "wasted bandwidth" charge against Tom, and he merely poked some fun at you
> because of it. I am reasonably certain he wasn't trying to distract anyone
> from the conversation you may have been having with Tom, but he was just
> letting everyone know how juvenile and useless the "wasted bandwidth"
> charge really is.
>
> But, as usual, instead of recognizing Patrick's comment for what it was,
> you felt the need to add in a bunch of context that had been snipped
> before, and change the way the text is attributed to each author when you
> re-insert the snipped portions of the conversation, so that it is entirely
> too cumbersome and confusing to read. Just as you will likely do in
> response to this post. That's called smoke-screening (as Dirk already
> explained).
>
> Have fun,
If he continues doing it, I might consider creating an
Immortal SmokeScreens page. I'll use a black font
on a deep dark grey background. I love this guy ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Tom Roberts
> Actually, a group is just a non-empty algebra with a single
> operation / satisfying the properties
How silly -- groups are simpler and more basic than algebras.
> Actually, presupposing transformations form a MONOID is nothing
> more than requiring them to make physical sense. A group, on
> the other hand, is quite a bit something more.
The "quite a bit" is merely that every element must have an inverse, and
for coordinate transforms to make physical sense that must be true.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
greywolf42
Dinky Van Der Coward strikes again. Wrong as usual. But Dinky can't be
bothered to actually look at the reference.
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vfm4oe6...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:bnlKa.583$P26....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:vfjnc7a...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> > > wrote in message news:4u%Ja.65352$1u5....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > So because Maxwell interpreted his own equations
> > > > in some way,
> > >
> > > This is bold-faced lie number 2:
> > > Maxwell didn't "interpret" his equations. He DERIVED them in "On
> Physical
> > > Lines of Force." As you well know.
> >
> > Nice ;-)
> > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BoldFace.html
> >
>
> Dinky Van Der Coward strikes again. Wrong as usual.
HAHAHAHA! Wrong?
How can having fun over someone who declares a sentence
like "Maxwell interpreted his own equations" to be a *lie*, be
possibly *wrong*? :-))
> But Dinky can't be
> bothered to actually look at the reference.
Since I don't have the reference, I can't look at it and I shut
up about it. Unlike Mingst who hasn't looked at Gerber's
paper and makes the most stupid statements about it, partly
wrongly copied from a silly book with more errors and typos
than sentences. We are waiting for a decent reply to
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eeccd79...@news.gte.net
and
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eed1169...@news.gte.net
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
>
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:vfm4oe6...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in
> > message news:bnlKa.583$P26....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> > >
> > > "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > news:vfjnc7a...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > > Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote in message
news:4u%Ja.65352$1u5....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > So because Maxwell interpreted his own equations
> > > > > in some way,
> > > >
> > > > This is bold-faced lie number 2:
> > > > Maxwell didn't "interpret" his equations. He DERIVED them in "On
> > Physical
> > > > Lines of Force." As you well know.
> > >
> > > Nice ;-)
> > > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BoldFace.html
> > >
> >
> > Dinky Van Der Coward strikes again. Wrong as usual.
>
> HAHAHAHA! Wrong?
> How can having fun over someone who declares a sentence
> like "Maxwell interpreted his own equations" to be a *lie*, be
> possibly *wrong*? :-))
The lie was the slimy wording of "So because Maxwell interpreted his own
equations in some way". This deliberate lie by omission is used to hide the
fact that Maxwell did not simply "interpret" his equations, but derived
them. YOU lied by ignoring (and now diverting from) the point of the
quote -- that Maxwell derived his equations from a physical, fluid aether.
Oh -- and in case your mother didn't teach you -- deceit and lies are
"wrong."
> > But Dinky can't be
> > bothered to actually look at the reference.
>
> Since I don't have the reference, I can't look at it and I shut
> up about it.
But you haven't "shut up" about it. You continue to repeat lies about
Maxwell's work.
> Unlike Mingst who hasn't looked at Gerber's
> paper and makes the most stupid statements about it, partly
> wrongly copied from a silly book with more errors and typos
> than sentences.
How many irrelevant ad hominem attacks can you pack into one runon sentence?
Ad hominem #1: Unlike Mingst
Lie #1: who hasn't looked at Gerber's paper
Ad hominem #2: and makes the most stupid statements about it
Lie #2: partly wrongly copied
Ad hominem #3: from a silly book
Lie #3: with more errors and typos than sentences. (One, count them, one
apparent typo has been identified in Beckmann's book. Not at all unusual.)
Oh, and completely irrelevant to the subject at hand and physics-free.
> We are waiting for a decent reply to
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eeccd79...@news.gte.net
Who's "we" coward? You didn't even peek your head over the parapet. You
provided ZERO posts in the thread. And why are you "waiting"? Perhaps you
should read the "decent" response from Paul (June 15th):
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bcj02g%24hec%241%40s
lb3.atl.mindspring.net
> and
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eed1169...@news.gte.net
But, if you read the post immediately above, then you knew that your first
post had been responded to. Another bold-faced lie.
But according to my newsreader, even this last has been responded to (and
not replied to by Ed or yourself):
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bcif8h%24iql%241%40s
lb2.atl.mindspring.net
So, what's your beef, oh cowardly lyin? Specifically, what are YOUR
questions?
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vfrbjp8...@corp.supernews.com...
HAHAHAHA! a Lie?
How can saying "Maxwell interpreted his own equations"
possibly be a *lie*? :-))
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:46:36 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
>
> >
> > Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2003.06.24....@hotmail.com...
>
> [SNIP!]
Because Jeff had such a "hard time" with my prior snip indicators :) I've
used a simpler identification:
{UNSNIP!}
> >> > Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
> >in
> >> > message news:tF_Ja.65228$1u5....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> >> >>
> >> >> When completely lost with no possible way to go, our poor
> >> >> greywolf42 uses his Barry Mingst Smoke Screen Tactics: in
> >> >> stead of replying, he throws in as a reply to the wrong person
> >> >
> >> > Dinky, if you'd bother to read the post, I was replying to Patrick,
not
> >Tom.
> >> > 'Twas Patrick that deleted the author headers (that identified Tom).
> >Not
> >> > me. However, Patrick ALSO deleted the content and context of the
post.
> >> >Andit was the content to which I was replying.
> >>
> >> Wow, you truly are completely delusional. Take a look back at Patrick's
> >> post, Mingst.
> >
> >Patrick's Post:
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1737000548d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
> >lm=844a1b64.0306220410.56b49275%40posting.google.com
> >> The only quoted text was the following:
> >>
> >> "However, since the point under discussion was whether Lorentz derived
the
> >> above, or simply backfit it, your quibble is wasted bandwidth."
> >
> >Dinky Van Der Mortel stated that I had thrown in "a reply to the wrong
> >person." The reply that Dinky was complaining about HAD BEEN to Patrick.
> >(It was Patrick's snipping of Tom's PRIOR context that confused Dinky.)
So
> >Dinky's charge of a "smokescreen" was pure fabrication.
> >
> >> Directly under that, he attributed your name. Why would he include
> >> anything else?
> >
> >To be honest and provide the context of the quote, of course.
> >
> >> He included the headers that pointed to you making the above
> >> remark, which you most certainly did.
> >
> >The remark is indeed taken out of context from my post in reply to Tom
> >Roberts::
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1737000548d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&s
e
> >lm=vf70i7oj6a9kd8%40corp.supernews.com
> >
{Return from UnSNIP!}
> >>
> >> Then, as Dirk so correctly pointed out, you put on your typical
somescreen
> >> tactic of throwing in old, useless remnants that were wisely cut
> >> previously in the conversation in an attempt to completely confuse what
is
> >> being said.
> >
> > They are only "wisely cut" if one's intent is to take something out of
> > context and to misrepresent the statement. Which was, of course, the
intent
> > of Patrick. It also helped bury (smokescreen) the fact that Tom had
> > descended into quibbling and snipping random pieces of posts in order to
> > change the context.
>
> [SNIP!]
{and UNSNIP!}
> >> You don't need the useless context of a conversation to reply to
someone
> >> who notices your weak "wasted bandwidth" complaint. But, that wouldn't
> >> make for an effective smokescreen, now would it?
> >
> >An effective smokescreen is all these posts dedicating to preserving a
> >quibble posted by Mr. Roberts, and diverting from catching Tom changing
the
> >meanings of statements by cutting context. And instead of focusing on
the
> >main issue (Tom's "creative" editing, Patrick's outright elimination of
all
> >but the smallest closing statement. Dinky's outright fabrications), you
now
> >focus on Patrick's ability to actually leave one sentence as an indicator
of
> >my "delusional" state.
> >
> >> In the infamous words of PMB: "Later, chump."
> >
> >Note how completely Tom's errors of physics are smokescreened?
{end of replaced UNSNIP!}
> Look, Patrick wasn't trying to hide anything. He saw that you made a
> "wasted bandwidth" charge against Tom, and he merely poked some fun at you
> because of it. I am reasonably certain he wasn't trying to distract anyone
> from the conversation you may have been having with Tom, but he was just
> letting everyone know how juvenile and useless the "wasted bandwidth"
> charge really is.
You have demonstrated the technique perfectly. In this case, you snipped
the essence of my complaint: Twice. That "Dinky Van Der Mortel stated that
I had thrown in "a reply to the wrong person." And that you later charged
me with being "delusional."
And you have spent an inordiate amount of time quibbling over my use of the
term "wasted bandwidth." But you and Dinky and Tom have used this quibble
to avoid addressing the physics or your slimy tactics.
> But, as usual, instead of recognizing Patrick's comment for what it was,
> you felt the need to add in a bunch of context that had been snipped
> before, and change the way the text is attributed to each author
Nope. I didn't change a thing.
> when you
> re-insert the snipped portions of the conversation, so that it is entirely
> too cumbersome and confusing to read.
Awww, poor baby. It's just "too difficult" to read what was actually
written. It's so much easier to read a snip taken out of context. But I've
made it easy for you in this thread. I've "upgraded" the ">" signs so that
they match up -- since those "=====" identifiers cause you such "pain."
> Just as you will likely do in
> response to this post. That's called smoke-screening (as Dirk already
> explained).
AH! Replacing parts of the thread that have been "creatively" edited is a
"smokescreen."
bye in this thread, quibbler.
greywolf42
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:bddgem$f...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
Quite incorrect, Tom. Many physical properties do not need for coordinate
transforms wherin every element has an inverse. Fluid theory, for a very
appropriate example.
So, reality is quite the inverse of your claim. The "physical sense" of the
real world requires non-symmetric aspects of theory.
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vfrlt15...@corp.supernews.com...
>
[gnurp]
> > Just as you will likely do in
> > response to this post. That's called smoke-screening (as Dirk already
> > explained).
>
> AH! Replacing parts of the thread that have been "creatively" edited is a
> "smokescreen."
>
> bye in this thread, quibbler.
This one is catalogued as smokescreen #4.
So we have
#1 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vemlos4...@corp.supernews.com
#2 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfem054...@corp.supernews.com
#3 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfgtonn...@corp.supernews.com
#4 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfrlt15...@corp.supernews.com
and counting...
When you get to 10, I *will* start seriously thinking about
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalSmokeScreens.html
Keep it up!
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
I suppose there's a first time for everything. Including you thinking.
(Still not taking those bets, coward?)
greywolf42
> >>greywolf42 wrote:
{invisible snip made by Mr. Roberts replaced}
===============================================
You're slipping, Tom. You're now borrowing the slimy tactics of Semon,
Speicher and Van der Mortel -- snipping defining context without notice (and
in violation of N.G. guidelines). You're usually more honest and
professional (if not always correct).
===============================================
> > Here is statement to which I was replying:
> >>This post will first address those who accuse Einstein of being a
> >>plagiarist, on the basis of certain results of SR being predicted by
> >>other scientists (for example Fitzgerald suggesting length
> >>contraction).
> >>
> >>Here's the difference...every scientist that came before Einstein in
> >>this field simply introduced empirically derived transforms to explain
> >>experimental anomalies.
> >
> > We see that the subject at hand is whether Lorentz just "introduced
> > empirically derived transforms to explain experimental anomalies." To
> > which my response was:
> >
> >>>Both Lorentz and Poincare (at least) provided
> >>>detailed derivations of the "Lorentz transform".
> >
> > And your response is now:
> >
> >>Oh? I understand Poincare' here, but not Lorentz. Where did he do this?
> >>Certainly he did not do it in his 1904 paper....
> >
> > Now you are well aware that Lorentz did not just "introduce empirically
> > derived transforms to explain experimental anomalies." in his 1904
paper.
> > Are you not?
>
> Yes. He did NOT introduce "empirically derived transforms" in his 1904
> paper, he introduced a transform WITH NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER.
Well, at least it seems you've finally broken down and actually READ
Lorentz' 1904 paper -- even if you haven't fully understood it yet. This is
a great improvement over your prior several years of pontificating on
"LET" -- without bothering to read the defining paper of Lorentz
Electrodynamic Theory!
However, here you are explicitly incorrect. See Lorentz' section 2, section
3, and section 8.
> That
> is, he simply "further transform[ed] these formulae by a change of
> variables [...]" [Lorentz, "Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving
> With Any Velocity Less than that of Light", proc. Acad. Sci. Am., 6,
> 1904; start of section 4]
In section 2, Lorentz discusses the method that Poincare used -- and states
that "the introduction of a new hypothesis has been required (by Poincare),
and that the same necessity may occur each time new facts will be brought to
light. Surely this course of inventing special hypotheses for each new
experimental result is somewhat artificial."
In section 3, Lorentz began with the "fundamental equations of the theories
of electrons," and sets up thereby a system of magnetic force (H) and
dielectric displacement (D). These are combined with Maxwell's equations --
prior to section 4 -- to result in 11 equations describing the system.
In section 4, Lorentz DOES use an algebraic change of variables. But this
is a physically null action. As it always is -- ever since Algebra 1. His
"transform" is just the definition of beta: c^2 / (c^2-v^2) = beta^2.
The equations are already set. His use of beta simply shortens the
equations. Further, Lorentz introduces the parameter "l" -- which defines
the efficiency of the deformation of the assumed spherical electron charge
distribution.
> > Did you perhaps notice the quotes I placed around the term "Lorentz
> > transform"? Lorentz DID provide a detailed derivation of HIS version of
the
> > "Lorentz transform"
{invisible snip made by Tom, again. Finishing the sentence that Tom
snipped}
===============================================
-- though HIS version included the motion relative to the field. It is not
the same as Einstein's version.
===============================================
> As I asked before: WHERE?
Equation 5 -- as I have provided to you innumerable times before.
> As I said before: Certainly he did not do it in his 1904 paper....
>
> Note: I believe he had used this transform in some papers
> earlier than 1904. I don't have them. This is a simple request
> for a reference backing up your claims.
But you constantly make this "simple request" -- and then simply ignore my
responses.
See, for example, my response to you of Aug 8, 2001 (Anti-SR Test by GPS
high altitude anomolies) -- which itself was a repeat of a review of your
earlier works (and again provided at your request).
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1563413459d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=Judc7.2941%247g6.431195%40nntp1.onemain.com
Here's an excerpt of what I have repeatedly provided to you:
"But now you claim 'all theories in this class' can, likewise, be derived
from the LT. This is not correct. Again, these theories may be described
as INCLUDING the Lorentz transform (for Round-Trip or One-Way), but the
OTHER equations (non-LT) may be quite different."
"So let's look, for example at Lorentz' Electrodynamic Theory (LET) - 1904.
This is the theory that you claim to be mathematically equivalent to SR.
(Although you admit that you haven't read it). Let's look at "local times"
in both SR and LET."
"SR gives t' = t / beta."
"LET gives t' = t / beta - beta v x / c^2 (equation 5, 1904)."
"What's the difference? LET allows for a single isotropic frame (aether
rest frame). SR has no single isotropic frame. They are not
'mathematically equivalent', for here is an equation that differs between
the two."
"Can we easily measure the difference? No. Not if the earth (and our
instruments) are moving relatively slowly wrt the aether. For the second
term of LET would drop out."
--- So I guess you know that "Lorentz did this" in his 1904 paper after all.
However -- although you frequently disparaged Lorentz' "LET" in those
days -- you had admitted that you had never read Lorentz' work. I presume
that you've since remedied that situation.
Now if you could just get out of that mathematical rut and see that an
algebraic change of variables is not a physical assumption, you might learn
something.
John Schoenfeld
> absolute velocity. If there is no way to measure absolute velocity,
> there can be no absolute reference frame, and all inertial frames must
> be equivalent. If they weren't, then a system would evolve in
> different ways depending on who/what 'looked' at it. This is an absurd
> notion. To paraphrase Hawking (I think it was in A Brief History Of
> Time), 'Any passing sub-atomic particle could cause entire star
> systems to collapse.'
Absolute velocity does not disallow equivalent intertial reference
frames. Furthermore, Newton's first law is WRONG. To say that bodies
have default linear motion is in total contradiction with observation.
Not to mention the fact that Newtons third law is a logical fallacy. A
forces opposing force cannot be itself and it cannot be not itself.
Otherwise the notion of cause is totally lost or the cause ends up
creating an infinity of separate opposing forces of equal magnitude
which would make no sense either.
> Enough said of the first postulate.
>
> The second postulate, that the speed of light is constant in all such
> frames:
>
> This is actually an extension of the first postulate, as the speed of
> light is determined by the laws of physics. First, remember the
> process by which light was realised to be electromagnetic in nature.
Speed of light has been observed to vary. So transistively, relativity
is wrong.
> Maxwell, from his equations of electromagnetism, realised that a
> combination of an electric and magnetic field could propagate through
> space without a conductor or a magnet present. If you do the maths, it
> turns out that this disturbance MUST propagate at the speed of light,
> or it wouldn't 'work'. Because the speed of light was fairly well
> known, and agreed with Maxwell's predictions of electromagnetic waves,
> it was suggested that light WAS these waves. Subsequent experiments
> proved it.
Maxwell got it wrong. Delbruck scattering is well known and even a 12
year old can infer that for a particle to move in a discontinuous path
then it must have changed velocity magnitude at that point.
> So, with all inertial frames being equivalent, and light only being
> ABLE to propagate at c, SR is the only possible answer. The fact that
> a century of experiments have agreed again and again with relativity
> only confirms this.
I can confirm anything when all discrepencies in theory result in the
"discovery" of fantastical new entities (i.e. dark matter).
> Regards to all
>
> P.S. Note that GR came about from (sort of) applying SR to
> accelerating reference frames, and must consequently also be correct.
Starblade Darksquall
> > This is directly implied by Newton's First Law, which does away with
> > absolute velocity. If there is no way to measure absolute velocity,
> > there can be no absolute reference frame, and all inertial frames must
> > be equivalent. If they weren't, then a system would evolve in
> > different ways depending on who/what 'looked' at it. This is an absurd
> > notion. To paraphrase Hawking (I think it was in A Brief History Of
> > Time), 'Any passing sub-atomic particle could cause entire star
> > systems to collapse.'
>
> Absolute velocity does not disallow equivalent intertial reference
> frames. Furthermore, Newton's first law is WRONG. To say that bodies
> have default linear motion is in total contradiction with observation.
> Not to mention the fact that Newtons third law is a logical fallacy. A
> forces opposing force cannot be itself and it cannot be not itself.
> Otherwise the notion of cause is totally lost or the cause ends up
> creating an infinity of separate opposing forces of equal magnitude
> which would make no sense either.
>
You make no sense. The total amount of force is conserved. Then two
opposite forces are then spread to each of the two interacting
systems. So this does not cause any infinities whatsoever.
>
> > Enough said of the first postulate.
> >
> > The second postulate, that the speed of light is constant in all such
> > frames:
> >
> > This is actually an extension of the first postulate, as the speed of
> > light is determined by the laws of physics. First, remember the
> > process by which light was realised to be electromagnetic in nature.
>
> Speed of light has been observed to vary. So transistively, relativity
> is wrong.
>
I disagree. The oscillation frequency should vary, or at least be not
precicely determinable, just as is its position. Its VELOCITY may also
vary, but all this requires is a change in angle. The SPEED, however,
is constant. The speed is the magnitude of its velocity.
> > Maxwell, from his equations of electromagnetism, realised that a
> > combination of an electric and magnetic field could propagate through
> > space without a conductor or a magnet present. If you do the maths, it
> > turns out that this disturbance MUST propagate at the speed of light,
> > or it wouldn't 'work'. Because the speed of light was fairly well
> > known, and agreed with Maxwell's predictions of electromagnetic waves,
> > it was suggested that light WAS these waves. Subsequent experiments
> > proved it.
>
> Maxwell got it wrong. Delbruck scattering is well known and even a 12
> year old can infer that for a particle to move in a discontinuous path
> then it must have changed velocity magnitude at that point.
>
Or something got in its way. Or it turned real fast. Also, infants
don't understand vector mathematics. Light never changes velocity
magnitude, even though it may change in velocity angle, which it must
do due to the heisenburg uncertainty principle.
> > So, with all inertial frames being equivalent, and light only being
> > ABLE to propagate at c, SR is the only possible answer. The fact that
> > a century of experiments have agreed again and again with relativity
> > only confirms this.
>
> I can confirm anything when all discrepencies in theory result in the
> "discovery" of fantastical new entities (i.e. dark matter).
>
And this may very well happen. Just as it may very well not happen.
Just keep trying. Maybe you'll eventually get it.
> > Regards to all
> >
> > P.S. Note that GR came about from (sort of) applying SR to
> > accelerating reference frames, and must consequently also be correct.
As it should.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
John Schoenfeld
> > frames. Furthermore, Newton's first law is WRONG. To say that bodies
> > have default linear motion is in total contradiction with observation.
> > Not to mention the fact that Newtons third law is a logical fallacy. A
> > forces opposing force cannot be itself and it cannot be not itself.
> > Otherwise the notion of cause is totally lost or the cause ends up
> > creating an infinity of separate opposing forces of equal magnitude
> > which would make no sense either.
> >
>
> You make no sense. The total amount of force is conserved. Then two
> opposite forces are then spread to each of the two interacting
> systems. So this does not cause any infinities whatsoever.
If you say that the acceleration caused two forces - opposing each
other - then then Newtons 3rd law contradicts Newtons 1st law which
explicitly states that the cause of acceleration IS a force.
So, if a force F1 causes acceleration A which causes a counter-force
F2, then what is the counter-force of F2? If you say "It's F1" then F2
must be of a fundamentally different type of force of which newtons
3rd law doesn't apply. Otherwise, F2 causes an opposing force F3 which
causes F4 which in turn causes an infinity of forces. Either, way
Newtons laws as defined are inadequate or incomplete at best as
causuality information is lost.
> >
> > > Enough said of the first postulate.
> > >
> > > The second postulate, that the speed of light is constant in all such
> > > frames:
> > >
> > > This is actually an extension of the first postulate, as the speed of
> > > light is determined by the laws of physics. First, remember the
> > > process by which light was realised to be electromagnetic in nature.
> >
> > Speed of light has been observed to vary. So transistively, relativity
> > is wrong.
> >
>
> I disagree. The oscillation frequency should vary, or at least be not
> precicely determinable, just as is its position. Its VELOCITY may also
> vary, but all this requires is a change in angle. The SPEED, however,
> is constant. The speed is the magnitude of its velocity.
The suggestion that the speed of light can change is based on data
collected by UNSW astronomer John Webb, who posed a conundrum when he
found that light from a distant quasar, had absorbed the wrong type of
photons from interstellar clouds on its 12 billion year journey to
earth.
The discrepancy could only be explained if either the electron charge,
or the speed of light, had changed. Either way, I'd say most of
physics is wrong.
> > > Maxwell, from his equations of electromagnetism, realised that a
> > > combination of an electric and magnetic field could propagate through
> > > space without a conductor or a magnet present. If you do the maths, it
> > > turns out that this disturbance MUST propagate at the speed of light,
> > > or it wouldn't 'work'. Because the speed of light was fairly well
> > > known, and agreed with Maxwell's predictions of electromagnetic waves,
> > > it was suggested that light WAS these waves. Subsequent experiments
> > > proved it.
> >
> > Maxwell got it wrong. Delbruck scattering is well known and even a 12
> > year old can infer that for a particle to move in a discontinuous path
> > then it must have changed velocity magnitude at that point.
> >
>
> Or something got in its way. Or it turned real fast. Also, infants
> don't understand vector mathematics. Light never changes velocity
> magnitude, even though it may change in velocity angle, which it must
> do due to the heisenburg uncertainty principle.
Not to mention the fact that light is a wave and a particle. What an
interesting system of logic that is being employed here. How can
something be in two places at once? How can an atomic (in its true
sense) entity be of two fundamentally different types? I'd say the
"wave-particle duality" is one of the most blatent signs that
something has gone wrong in modern physics. Face it, its just one of
the many adhoc patch jobs required to fit these theories onto an
increasingly reluctant reality.
> > > So, with all inertial frames being equivalent, and light only being
> > > ABLE to propagate at c, SR is the only possible answer. The fact that
> > > a century of experiments have agreed again and again with relativity
> > > only confirms this.
> >
> > I can confirm anything when all discrepencies in theory result in the
> > "discovery" of fantastical new entities (i.e. dark matter).
> >
>
> And this may very well happen. Just as it may very well not happen.
>
> Just keep trying. Maybe you'll eventually get it.
I'd say most of physics needs to be rewritten, starting from Newtons
1st law.
Rev. 11D Meow!
"John Schoenfeld" <j.scho...@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.03070...@posting.google.com...
> Either, way Newtons laws as defined are inadequate or incomplete at best
as
> causuality information is lost.
Newton got US to the moon and back on many occasions, dint it?
David McAnally
>> > Absolute velocity does not disallow equivalent intertial reference
>> > frames. Furthermore, Newton's first law is WRONG. To say that bodies
>> > have default linear motion is in total contradiction with observation.
In which there are quantities like friction. It is virtually impossible
to observe motion on the Earth in the complete absence of force.
>> > Not to mention the fact that Newtons third law is a logical fallacy. A
>> > forces opposing force cannot be itself and it cannot be not itself.
>> > Otherwise the notion of cause is totally lost or the cause ends up
>> > creating an infinity of separate opposing forces of equal magnitude
>> > which would make no sense either.
>> >
>>
>> You make no sense. The total amount of force is conserved. Then two
>> opposite forces are then spread to each of the two interacting
>> systems. So this does not cause any infinities whatsoever.
>If you say that the acceleration caused two forces - opposing each
>other - then then Newtons 3rd law contradicts Newtons 1st law which
>explicitly states that the cause of acceleration IS a force.
>So, if a force F1 causes acceleration A which causes a counter-force
>F2, then what is the counter-force of F2? If you say "It's F1" then F2
>must be of a fundamentally different type of force of which newtons
>3rd law doesn't apply.
Newton's Third Law is the statement that all forces can be paired in such
a manner that each force in a pair is a reaction to the other. If F2 is
the counter-force to F1, then F1 and F2 make up one of these pairs, and so
the counter-force to F2 is the other force in the pair, i.e. F1. This
means that Newton's Third Law does apply: it is just the guarantee that
every force can be paired with another force. F1's mate in its pair is
F2. F2's mate in its pair is F1.
The concept that counter-force is caused by acceleration is wrong. The fact
is that Newton's Third Law tells us that forces always come in pairs. If
the "counter-force" had been caused by acceleration alone, then what
accounts for that a body which experiences a number of different forces
simultaneously also exerts a number of forces simultaneously? They can't all
be caused by acceleration. If all the forces on a body balance, then the body
undergoes no acceleration but it still exerts a reaction to each force on it.
Since the body is not accelerating in that case, then it has no acceleration
which can be used to cause these "counter-forces", and yet it still manages to
exert the "counter-forces". In short, the interpretation that the
counter-force is caused by acceleration is wrong. Instead, forces are caused
in such a manner that both action and reaction come into being simultaneously
and are caused by the same mechanism, not by each other.
And as a reminder, if the force F1 is exerted on the body B by the body A,
then the paired force F2 is exerted on the body A by the body B. That is,
for each pair of forces, the body experiencing one of the forces is exerting
the other, and vice versa.
>Otherwise, F2 causes an opposing force F3 which
>causes F4 which in turn causes an infinity of forces. Either, way
>Newtons laws as defined are inadequate or incomplete at best as
>causuality information is lost.
That is true if you make the wrong interpretation that reaction is caused by
acceleration (an interpretation which is untenable as shown above). If you
make the interpretation that both an action and its reaction are caused by the
same mechanism, then there is no logical problem. So now we have the
situation where any mechanical mechanism casues forces in pairs, and the
forces in a pair are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. The
mechanism causes both forces, and neither force causes the other.
<snip>
>Either way, I'd say most of
>physics is wrong.
This from the person who claimed that Maxwell only introduced the displacement
current term into the equation for curl H in order to make the equations
more symmetric, rather than in order to make the equations consistent
with conservation of charge, which was the real reason why the displacement
current term was introduced, i.e. to make the theory mathematically
consistent. Without the displacement current term, the theory was
inconsistent (the equations could not hold simultaneously with conservation
of charge), so the term was necessary for consistency.
<snip other attacks on the framework of physics>
David McAnally
--------------
Jeff Relf
" The second postulate ,
that the speed of light is constant in all such frames :
This is actually an extension of the first postulate ,
as the speed of light is determined by the laws of physics .
to be electromagnetic in nature . ... "
What a clear and informative post ... Thank you !
Einstein was the first to explain the theory and the math
behind the MMX and other Observations of light .
For example , He was the first to say : E = M * C^2 .
How could the Local speed of light be
different in different inertial frames ?!
How could anyone ( Henry Wilson ? ) defend such a notion ?!
And after knowing SR , GR , with it's free fall frames ,
is almost a foregone conclusion .
Mathew Orman
"Jeff Relf" <____Je...@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news:Xns93AC35A...@130.133.1.4...
For hard evidence of Einstein-Lorentz fallacy see:
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
greywolf42
Jeff Relf <____Je...@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news:Xns93AC35A...@130.133.1.4...
> " The second postulate ,
> that the speed of light is constant in all such frames :
> This is actually an extension of the first postulate ,
> as the speed of light is determined by the laws of physics .
> First , remember the process by which light was realized
> to be electromagnetic in nature . ... "
Maxwell was the first to "realize" this, in 1861, in his "On Physical Lines
of Force." And he used a physical, corpuscular fluid aether to derive "his"
equations. And first determined that the speed of transverse electric and
magnetic waves in said medium matched the measured speed of light. These
are the "laws of physics" that determine the speed of light.
Maxwell made a simplifying assumption in his derivation and assumed the
"principle of relativity."
> What a clear and informative post ... Thank you !
>
> Einstein was the first to explain the theory and the math
> behind the MMX and other Observations of light .
Another error. Fitzgerald was the first with the math on the MMX, Lorentz
was the first with the complete theory, Poincare a close second, and
Einstein third.
> For example , He was the first to say : E = M * C^2 .
Another error. Heaviside was first. Several papers had been published
arguing the constant in front of the M, should it be 1/2, 2/3 or 1 (as I
recall).
> How could the Local speed of light be
> different in different inertial frames ?!
Quite simple. Different inertial frames "move" through the local aether at
different speeds. Since light has an istotropic speed only at rest w.r.t.
the aether (just like sound), then light speed measurements will vary --
unless, of course, one first applies the Einstein synchronization procedure.
(Try it with sound and see.)
> How could anyone ( Henry Wilson ? ) defend such a notion ?!
>
> And after knowing SR , GR , with it's free fall frames ,
> is almost a foregone conclusion .
You contradict Einstein.
FrediFizzx
news:a98beaaa.03070...@posting.google.com...
| Not to mention the fact that light is a wave and a particle. What an
| interesting system of logic that is being employed here. How can
| something be in two places at once?
Ditch time. A line between points A and B is just a point that has no time.
One point is existing in an infinite number of places at the same time.
Quantum objects are most likely wavy string-like objects.
FrediFizzx
Jeff Relf
" Since light has an isotropic speed only at rest w.r.t.
the aether ( just like sound ) ,
So you think that Minkowski's space-time is not real then ?
You don't think that time is the fourth dimension ?
You don't think that time is local ?
You think the Local laws of physics , including light ,
vary from inertial frame to inertial frame ?
Too bad the data ( Not to mention common sense . )
doesn't agree with you .