SR vs. the facts.
Richard
Q_e = line density of negative charge of the non-primed conductor
Q_e' = line density of negative charge of the primed conductor
Q_p = line density of positive charge of the non-primed conductor
Q_p' = line density of positive charge of the primed conductor
According to SR the length contraction relevant to the calculation of
the magnetic force between the conductors is a function of the
respective velocities of the lines of charge in the non-primed conductor
as viewed from the FOR of the respective lines of charge in the
conductor. Since there are two such lines of charge in each conductor
(positive and negative) then the net force is the vector sum of the four
forces developed between:
Q_e and Q_e'
Q_e and Q_p'
Q_p and Q_e'
Q_p and Q_p'
With the exception of attempting to explain the cause of the increase in
electrostatic force between these lines of charge, this is precisely my
approach, and it is imperative therefore, that regardless of
relativistic framework, it must lead to the same final conclusions that
I derive, assuming that it doesn't encounter a snag in the attempt.
There is such a snag, and a substantial one at that, viz.:
Given that each line of charge consists of particles of charge that were
already in motion relative to one another, then it follows that the
preexisting electrostatic force must either be increased due to this
relative motion of the electrical particles wrt each other or else be
entirely due to relative motion of the charges, the former of which is a
logical absurdity in that the electrostatic force increases itself
without increasing, and the inevitable conclusion that a=a+1 |a=/=0. The
conclusion is that the preexisting force between the charges is itself
derived from the relative motions of the charges, and that the SR
description of the event is untenable, even "impossible". The increase
in force is the simply result of the increase in the preexisting
relative motion of the particles.
This is one blatant contradiction inherent within SR, and it is
therefore quite sufficient to negate the entire theory, unless the rules
of logic have been secretly changed.
Regardless of empirical evidence that "seems" to support the theory, it
is absolutely imperative that another explanation of these phenomenon be
sought.
Richard Perry
Electromagnetism: First Principles (Weber/Gauss on steroids)
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
Robert Kolker
Richard wrote:
>
> This is one blatant contradiction inherent within SR, and it is
> therefore quite sufficient to negate the entire theory, unless the rules
> of logic have been secretly changed.
Actually it is not a contradiction. The magnetic field falls right out
of the Lorentz transform. The entire matter is discussed and explained
in chaper 3 of -Principles of Electrodynamic- by Melvin Schwartz. It is
not a trivial explanation so you will have to read the entire chapter to
see what is going on.
You have overlooked the magnetic field which is always there, although
it is 0 when two charges are stationary in the same f.o.r.
I think that Feynamn also deals with this in Volume 2 of his 3 volume set.
Bob Kolker
Sam Wormley
>
It is a fact that within its domain that all experimental
and observational data are in agreement with the predictions
of SR.
Richard
>
> Richard wrote:
> >
> > This is one blatant contradiction inherent within SR, and it is
> > therefore quite sufficient to negate the entire theory, unless the rules
> > of logic have been secretly changed.
>
> Actually it is not a contradiction.
Actually it "is" a contradiction. a=a+1 |a=/=00 is definitely a
contradiction.
> The magnetic field falls right out
> of the Lorentz transform.
Yep.
> The entire matter is discussed and explained
> in chaper 3 of -Principles of Electrodynamic- by Melvin Schwartz. It is
> not a trivial explanation so you will have to read the entire chapter to
> see what is going on.
No doubt that it must be quite lengthy, rationalizations typically are.
>
> You have overlooked the magnetic field which is always there, although
> it is 0 when two charges are stationary in the same f.o.r.
There is no magnetic field when taking this approach; the very point is
to unify the forces, which SR attempts to do by describing magnetism as
a relativistic increase in the electrostatic interaction between charges
in relative motion.
>
> I think that Feynamn also deals with this in Volume 2 of his 3 volume set.
>
> Bob Kolker
Feynman deals with it all right. He derives an equation for the magnetic
interaction between point charges that is uncannily similar to mine, and
then drops the argument right at that point. Could it be that he also
perceived the contradiction? Surely it occurred to him that this
interaction would lead to a Coulomb-like force between test charges,
each of which contains great numbers of electrons interacting
magnetically with one another.
I would very much like to see how this is explained away, because it
just cannot be done without introducing yet another ad hoc absurdity.
OTOH, here I have presented an undeniable proof that SR is not
internally consistent, and you would gloss over that contradiction. I'm
afraid that I just don't know what to think about that.
Richard
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
Electromagnetism: First Principles (Weber/Guass on steroids)
Richard
As long as you qualify that with "when taking into account the
(literally) thousands of obscure effects that must be introduced into
the theory to make it consistent with the experimental data, otherwise
known as scabbing on patches. The argument is over Sam, SR "does"
contradict itself, empirical evidence or no.
Richard Perry
Herman Trivilino
> OTOH, here I have presented an undeniable proof that SR is not
> internally consistent, and you would gloss over that contradiction.
I deny it. As do many others. Therefore, it is not "undeniable".
> I'm afraid that I just don't know what to think about that.
Isn't it obvious? Your logic is flawed. Here's the way you can see this
for yourself. You have made a claim that your proof is undeniable. People
have denied it. This means that your claim about it being undeniable has
been falsified.
Let me guess. You won't agree.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Frank Wappler
Sam Wormley wrote:
> It is a fact that within its domain that all experimental and
> observational data are in agreement with the predictions of SR.
Not at all.
Instead, it is a fact that the measurement procedures of SR
can be used, and conventionally are being used, in order
to derive experimental results from trial-by-trial observations
in the first place;
by which any individual trial may for instance be characterized
as having belonged to some particular "domain".
SR does not predict any particular experimental results,
but allows to express reproducible thought-experiments
and thus to obtain and to report unambiguous and unprejudiced
experimental results to begin with.
Regards, Frank W ~@) R
Ronald Stepp
news:3D7BF4C9...@yahoo.com...
> No doubt that it must be quite lengthy, rationalizations typically are.
Ah, and your credentials to refute SR would be? Have you had anything
published that contradicts SR and gives the evidence why such is the case?
Or are you just going to rationalize it away here?
Robert Kolker
Herman Trivilino wrote:
>
> Isn't it obvious? Your logic is flawed. Here's the way you can see this
> for yourself. You have made a claim that your proof is undeniable. People
> have denied it. This means that your claim about it being undeniable has
> been falsified.
He raised a legitimate question, based on an error. To be just, his
error must be demonstrated mathematically, something I am working on
now. But your dismisal is not proof.
It is similar to convincing people that the "twin paradox" is reall not
a paradox at all, and the impression it is, is based on an erroneous
assumption, to with that of symmetry between the two travelers.
A similar demonstration of error is called for here.
We know S.R. is correct because the derivation of the electromagnetic
force tensor yields the Maxwell Equation in classical form, which is
known to be correct empirically. However the error this fellow is making
still has to be demonstrated.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Frank Wappler wrote:
> SR does not predict any particular experimental results,
> but allows to express reproducible thought-experiments
> and thus to obtain and to report unambiguous and unprejudiced
> experimental results to begin with.
Am I missing something? S.R. makes a definite prediction on how long a
muon will last based on time dilation and length contraction.
Bob Kolker
Richard
Let's see what Kolker comes up with before we chase this any further:-)
Richard
Jon Bell
Richard <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>> Richard wrote:
>> >
>>
>> It is a fact that within its domain that all experimental
>> and observational data are in agreement with the predictions
>> of SR.
>
>As long as you qualify that with "when taking into account the
>(literally) thousands of obscure effects that must be introduced into
>the theory to make it consistent with the experimental data,
Such as...?
--
Jon Bell <jtbe...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Pmb
> Actually it "is" a contradiction. a=a+1 |a=/=00 is definitely a
> contradiction.
No. There is no contraduiction. Force is a relative quantity in
relativity. How are you relating this to a = a + 1???? I don't see the
correlation
>Could it be that he also
> perceived the contradiction?
That's because there is no contradiction.
Pmb
Frank Wappler
Robert Kolker wrote:
You're apparently missing the distinction between
measuring _whether or not_ the proper lifetimes of two particular muons
had been equal, and
predicting or expecting _that_ the proper lifetimes of two particular
muons were going to be measured equal.
Yes, SR provides definitions and measurement procedures
- for determining whether or not any two (such as, two particular muons)
had belonged together to one and the same frame,
- for determining their (v/c)^2 wrt each other,
or at least separately wrt suitable auxiliaries, and
- for determining proper "equality of" or "ratios between" invidually
observed (time) intervals such as the individually observed
lifetimes of two particular muons; in particular, if the muon
pair had not belonged together to one and the same frame,
then by accounting for mutual time dilation
through the factor sqrt( 1 - (v/c)^2 ).
But SR does not predict:
- the densities of electrons, of muon neutrinos, and/or of
electron anti-neutrinos in the regions
which separately contained these two particular muons, nor
- the temperatures, or any other potential differences in
conditions/fields/influences between the regions
which separately contained these two particular muons, nor
- the masses of (or at least, the mass ratios between)
any particular muon, electron, muon neutrino, and/or
electron anti-neutrino;
in any particular trial, or even in all trials.
Consequently SR _does not_ make a definite prediction
on "how long a muon will last",
but SR allows to measure whether or to which accuracy
any two muons lasted properly equally;
based on the measurement of geometric relations between these muons,
and in particular, based on time dilation.
Richard
I'll explain it to you in detail:
If, and this is a fact, a magnetic interaction occurs between charges in
motion wrt each other, then the relative motions of the charged
particles that compose any two masses must lead to a magnetic
interaction between those particles. The magnetic interaction obeys
Coulombs law of signs, and with which the SR derivation is in agreement.
As a result the Coulomb interaction cannot be explained except as the
net sum of the magnetic interaction of the particles of charge. The only
counter-argument, which has been repeated in this NG previously, is that
the relative speeds of the charges must be c in order produce this
result, and that they are actually only a 100th of that. Ok, now let's
suppose for argument's sake that this is so (we will neglect the
DeBroglie oscillations in order to accommodate the SRists). So now we
have still a substantial portion of the Coulomb interaction produced by
the electrons moving at 100th c wrt each other, enough such that the
electrostatic constant, must be less than it is stated to be. If OTOH we
allow k to retain its value, which the QMists would like to do, then we
get the following:
F_net = F_Coulomb + F_Magnetic
But classically F_net = (k'qq'/d^2) so we have:
(k'qq'/d^2) = F_Coulomb + F_Magnetic, or
(k'qq'/d^2) = (k'qq'/d^2) + F_Magnetic
Let a = (k'qq'/d^2) and let b = F_Magnetic, substitution gives:
a = a + b, where b is greater than 0, unless charged particles are
always completely at rest wrt each other, which is contrary to the the
SRists premise that they are moving around at 100th c. ;-)
If you would like to be pedantic and have me derive the same
relationship that you object to then this is simply a matter of
resetting the scales so that whatever unit we choose gives
b = F_Magnetic = 1, from whence is derived the previous equation:
a = a + 1
Any more questions?
Richard
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
Electromagnetism: First Principles (Weber/Gauss on steroids)
Now mu_o = 4 pi k/c^2 so that
F_net = (k'qq'/d^2) + (k Z 4 pi qq'/c^2 d^2 )]
Since empirically
F_net = kqq/d^2 we have that
kqq/d^2 = (k'qq'/d^2) + (k Z 4 pi qq'/c^2 d^2 )
which reduces to:
k = k' + (Z 4 pi/c^2)
Dirk Van de moortel
"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3D7CE362...@yahoo.com...
[snip]
> F_net = F_Coulomb + F_Magnetic
> But classically F_net = (k'qq'/d^2) so we have:
> (k'qq'/d^2) = F_Coulomb + F_Magnetic, or
> (k'qq'/d^2) = (k'qq'/d^2) + F_Magnetic
> Let a = (k'qq'/d^2) and let b = F_Magnetic, substitution gives:
>
> a = a + b, where b is greater than 0, unless charged particles are
> always completely at rest wrt each other, which is contrary to the the
> SRists premise that they are moving around at 100th c. ;-)
Welcome to the Yellow Zone:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#AAB
Dirk Vdm
Frank Wappler
Robert Kolker wrote:
> [...] We know S.R. is correct because the derivation
> of the electromagnetic force tensor yields
> the Maxwell Equation in classical form,
> which is known to be correct empirically.
How should we know whether or not
Maxwell Equation in classical form had been correct
in any particular trial
without measurements of geometric relations
(e.g. which, is any, pairs of charges belonged together
to one and the same frame; and speeds, accelerations, etc.
of charges wrt each other),
in order to quantify "currents",
and to evaluate differential operators wrt geometric differences ?
How should such geometric relations be defined and measured
to begin with, at least in principle,
if not already based on the measurement procedures of SR ??
Instead, we can define the SR procedures, and identify and select them
as reproducible measurement procedures a priori;
we can use them to obtain measurements of geometric relations
in the first place,
and only then, using these measurements as input constraints in
variational calculations, we can derive corresponding
equations of motion, and predictions.
Bryan Reed
Richard <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>This is one blatant contradiction inherent within SR, and it is
>therefore quite sufficient to negate the entire theory, unless the rules
>of logic have been secretly changed.
>
You simply haven't done the calculation right. Maxwell's equations are
Lorentz-invariant, as is easy to prove. Your calculation (such as it
is--I note a distinct lack of detail) purports to show otherwise, so it's
in error.
If you assume the standard postulates of number theory and prove something
equivalent to 1+1=3, I can tell you you have an error without bothering to
specifically find it. The same thing is happening here.
Of course, you're the type to assume that everyone in the world except you
is making an error, and that 1+1 really is 3.
Bryan
Franz Heymann
[Snip the repetitive bullshit]
> Any more questions?
>
Yes, two :-
(1) Why don't you familiarise yourself with the fact that Maxwell's
equations are Lorentz covariant?
(2) Why don't you take a running jump at yourself?
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
"Frank Wappler" <fwap...@csc.albany.edu> wrote in message
news:s4o4rcz...@acunix1.albany.edu...
>
[snip]
I would love to see Frank Wappler tell a joke in his inimitable style of
speech.
But he should remember to tell us where to laugh, and how we might
ascertain that we are indeed laughing.
Franz Heymann
Bryan Reed
Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> However the error this fellow is making
>still has to be demonstrated.
>
Why? The guy is ineducable. As far as I'm concerned, just proving that
there is an error it enough. The objection just isn't interesting enough
to bother with.
Bryan
Bryan Reed
Richard <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>No doubt that it must be quite lengthy, rationalizations typically are.
>
Translation: I can't understand it, therefore I'll ignore it.
Bryan
Stephen Speicher
And, even more than that, his deluded mentality is such that he
interprets any lack of a detailed refutation to be proof that he
is correct. With a character like Richard, you simply cannot win.
Critique what he does and he is impervious to that; don't waste
time on a critique and to him that shows he is right. He suffers
from pure delusion, plain and simple.
--
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard
Frank, you hit the nail on the head here. However this is just a
restatement of what I've been trying to get across since I arrived here
circa 2 years ago. I just doesn't register with anyone who doesn't
already get it.
Richard
Richard
Translation, "I have no counter argument, therefore I will simply
pretend the argument doesn't exist".
Richard
Richard
You moronic mother fucker. Do you know what the fuck "context" is?
I wasn't stating this to be a valid mathematical argument, but quite the
fucking opposite, I.e. it was directed at you. Maybe you should provide
a link to the thread so more of your fucking lies won't be spread. And
be careful in the future, I "will" sue your ass for libel. In fact
unless you retract that brainfart you just might find that out sooner
than later. Grow a fucking braincell Dick.
Richard
Richard
Exactly Einfuckingstein. There "is" an error, and the error is in the SR
model, which was precisely the point. Moreover what the fuck does
Maxwell have to do with this argument? Where the hell did all of you
morons come from.
Richard
Richard
So you are saying that electrons don't move, is that it?
I just love the counter arguments around here, ad hominem seems to be a
blanket answer to every gedanken.
I corrected the "typo" that you discovered, now go back and find an
error in the math, then come back and show us whether you might, just
might, have a little bit of insight to back your "opinion", and not just
a fucking attitude guiding your every unconscious action.
You don't like me? Fine, I don't give a damn what you think about me,
because you don't even know me you arrogant SOB. Science isn't about
who's kissing whose ass or who likes who, its about the math and the
arguments Stephen, although this is obviously not your stance. What does
that say about you?
Oh I forgot, you don't know how to construct or decipher a logical
argument so you would be able to extract the syllogism that I just
constructed.
Richard
Dirk Van de moortel
"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3D7D12F1...@yahoo.com...
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >
> > "Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3D7CE362...@yahoo.com...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > F_net = F_Coulomb + F_Magnetic
> > > But classically F_net = (k'qq'/d^2) so we have:
> > > (k'qq'/d^2) = F_Coulomb + F_Magnetic, or
> > > (k'qq'/d^2) = (k'qq'/d^2) + F_Magnetic
> > > Let a = (k'qq'/d^2) and let b = F_Magnetic, substitution gives:
> > >
> > > a = a + b, where b is greater than 0, unless charged particles are
> > > always completely at rest wrt each other, which is contrary to the the
> > > SRists premise that they are moving around at 100th c. ;-)
> >
> > Welcome to the Yellow Zone:
> > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#AAB
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> You moronic mother fucker.
My mother passed away in 1983. Since then I have found
my pleasure elsewhere.
> Do you know what the fuck "context" is?
> I wasn't stating this to be a valid mathematical argument, but quite the
> fucking opposite, I.e. it was directed at you. Maybe you should provide
> a link to the thread
You will find the "context" at the bottom of your baby.
Click where it says:
Original post and context: 3D7CE362...@yahoo.com
Then click Google's "View: Complete Thread (x articles)".
The whole thread, including this post will be available for eternity.
Just be patient for a day or so until Google will have archived your post.
> so more of your fucking lies won't be spread. And
> be careful in the future, I "will" sue your ass for libel. In fact
> unless you retract that brainfart you just might find that out sooner
> than later. Grow a fucking braincell Dick.
Thanks for providing instant defence, like you already did
avant la lettre on
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=3D726B0F...@yahoo.com
You are a kind victim.
> Richard
We love you Dick:
http://www.physics.umd.edu/robot/feynm/millik.jpg
Dirk Vdm
Bryan Reed
Richard <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Exactly Einfuckingstein. There "is" an error, and the error is in the SR
>model, which was precisely the point. Moreover what the fuck does
>Maxwell have to do with this argument? Where the hell did all of you
>morons come from.
If you don't understand what Maxwell's equations have to do with
relativistic electrodynamics, then there really is no point arguing with
you on the subject. I have better uses for my time. Your arguments are
too weak to even be wrong in an interesting way.
Bryan
Dirk Van de moortel
"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3D7D14D3...@yahoo.com...
[snip]
> Exactly Einfuckingstein. There "is" an error, and the error is in the SR
> model, which was precisely the point. Moreover what the fuck does
> Maxwell have to do with this argument? Where the hell did all of you
> morons come from.
We all come from First Principles.
Dirk Vdm
Stephen Speicher
That's cute.
Fortunately, I do not see what this character writes unless it is
quoted by someone worth reading. Based on what he wrote above,
wherever us "morons" came from, it was obviously not the gutter
in which he was raised. A sure sign of those who have no real
confidence in their mind, is to resort to filthy language in
order to respond to what they are incapable of understanding.
Richard
I rest my case, and I sincerely hope that your tag isn't a statement
that you are respected representative of your alma mater.
Richard
Bryan,
The relativistic argument may have been spawned by an interpretation of
Maxwell, but his equations are displaced in this argument by
relativistic length contraction, time dilation, and Coulombs Law. Had
you any knowledge of SR this would have been readily apparent to you.
Now suppose you ask those who actually are familiar with the theory
whether this is correct or not before you step into it any deeper.
Richard
josX
True science has no First Principles.
--
jos
josX
>
>Exactly Einfuckingstein. There "is" an error, and the error is in the SR
>model, which was precisely the point. Moreover what the fuck does
>Maxwell have to do with this argument? Where the hell did all of you
>morons come from.
They claim c'=c can be derived from Maxwell's laws, and they claim these
laws already are in their ultimate configuration of truth.
Meanwhile, the speed of light is 7.5 turns around the world per second,
and the spaceshuttle at mach 25 will only go 8 kilometers per second.
--
jos
Bilge
Re: SR vs. the facts. to usenet:
>Bryan Reed wrote:
>>
>> In article <3D7D14D3...@yahoo.com>,
>> Richard <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Exactly Einfuckingstein. There "is" an error, and the error is in the SR
>> >model, which was precisely the point. Moreover what the fuck does
>> >Maxwell have to do with this argument? Where the hell did all of you
>> >morons come from.
>>
>> If you don't understand what Maxwell's equations have to do with
>> relativistic electrodynamics, then there really is no point arguing with
>> you on the subject. I have better uses for my time. Your arguments are
>> too weak to even be wrong in an interesting way.
>>
>> Bryan
>
>Bryan,
>The relativistic argument may have been spawned by an interpretation of
>Maxwell, but his equations are displaced in this argument by
>relativistic length contraction, time dilation, and Coulombs Law.
No, they aren't. A relativitically moving charge has a different
field profile than a static charge:
| \ | /
| \|/
----q---- q
| /|\
| / | \
static moving
Exactly where do you think maxwell's eqns fail to be lorentz covariant?
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:alk5qf$ok7$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
| Richard Perry
| Electromagnetism: First Principles (Weber/Gauss on steroids)
Don't you *ever* look beyond your nose?
Dirk Vdm
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:alk5qf$ok7$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3D7D14D3...@yahoo.com...
>>>[snip]
>>>> Exactly Einfuckingstein. There "is" an error, and the error is in the SR
>>>> model, which was precisely the point. Moreover what the fuck does
>>>> Maxwell have to do with this argument? Where the hell did all of you
>>>> morons come from.
>>>
>>>We all come from First Principles.
>>
>>True science has no First Principles.
>
> | Electromagnetism: First Principles (Weber/Gauss on steroids)
> | http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
>
>Don't you *ever* look beyond your nose?
Ok, i thought you meant something like axioms or postulates.
First Principles sounds a lot like "first postulates".
sorry
--
jos
Franz Heymann
[snip]
> So you are saying that electrons don't move, is that it?
> I just love the counter arguments around here, ad hominem seems to be
a
> blanket answer to every gedanken.
Listen, chum, that was not what your critics have said.
What more than one of us has said is that you don't know a solitary damn
about the fundamentals of electromagnetic theory.
You are not aware that Maxwell's equations, which govern the behaviour
of all classical EM fields are Lorentz covariant.
You are even less aware that you are spouting crap which is not Lorentz
covariant.
You are not aware that that means that what you are trying to promulgate
is in contradiction with Maxwell's equations.
You have made a mistake. You have made a mistake.
Believe us when we say it is unnecessary for any of us to
find your mistake. It is your mistake. You perpetrated it. You find
it.
I presume you will have the integrity to let us know what the mistake
was when you have found it.
In the meantime, quit talking crap. One day you will regret it.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
Us morons have a better knowledge base than you, moron.
Us morons know that Maxwell's equations say *all* there is to say about
*all* magnetic and electric fields in the classical domain.
Us morons know that Maxwell's equations are Lorentz covariant.
Us morons know that your guff is not Lorentz invariant
Us morons know that therefore your guff is incompatible with Maxwell's
equations.
Us morons therefore deduce that you have made a mistake.
Find the bloody thing and shut up till you have done so.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
[snip]
> I rest my case, and I sincerely hope that your tag isn't a statement
> that you are respected representative of your alma mater.
You have no case to rest and you have nothing to rest it upon.
Will you now go and find your mistake, and please may we be rid of you
until you have succeeded?
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
JosX is still missing out on the fact that *every* theory *has* to start
with one or more postulates.
Franz Heymann
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:alk6im$qht$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:alk5qf$ok7$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>>Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>>>"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3D7D14D3...@yahoo.com...
>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>> Exactly Einfuckingstein. There "is" an error, and the error is in the SR
>>>>>> model, which was precisely the point. Moreover what the fuck does
>>>>>> Maxwell have to do with this argument? Where the hell did all of you
>>>>>> morons come from.
>>>>>
>>>>>We all come from First Principles.
>>>>
>>>>True science has no First Principles.
>>>
>>> | Richard Perry
>>> | Electromagnetism: First Principles (Weber/Gauss on steroids)
>>> | http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
>>>
>>>Don't you *ever* look beyond your nose?
>>
>>Ok, i thought you meant something like axioms or postulates.
>>First Principles sounds a lot like "first postulates".
>>sorry
>
>JosX is still missing out on the fact that *every* theory *has* to start
>with one or more postulates.
With what *postulate* starts "the sky is blue at an unclouded
day" ?
With what *postulate* starts "1+1=2"
With what *postulate* starts "a+b=b+a"
With what *postulate* starts "dogs birth live young, not eggs"
With what *postulate* starts "mice are not born from old rags alone"
With what *postulate* starts "Saturn has rings"
With what *postulate* starts "the Sun gives light"
With what *postulate* starts "looking in a telescope without filter to
the sun on an unclouded day destroys a
portion of your vision (also with binocs)"
With what *postulate* starts "the speed of light in vacuum is 300,000km/sec"
So why do you suddenly need postulates for:
"the speed of light is constant to all
inertial observers"
--
jos
Richard
>
> In article <alka8u$7ho$1...@venus.btinternet.com>, "Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> writes:
> >
> >"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:3D7D2883...@yahoo.com...
> >[snip]
> >
> >> I rest my case, and I sincerely hope that your tag isn't a statement
> >> that you are respected representative of your alma mater.
> >
> >You have no case to rest and you have nothing to rest it upon.
> >Will you now go and find your mistake, and please may we be rid of you
> >until you have succeeded?
> >
> You're wasting your time on an idiot. He's not worth the attention.
Proof Mati. Where is it? Anyone who would make such a blanket statement
without so much as a single qualifying premise is not only an idiot but
a pure d asshole to boot. Fuck you Mati Meron. Until you have a
counter-argument you're just another windy mother fucker with an
attitude. This is sci.physics Mati, either talk physics or shut your
fucking trap.
Richard
Patrick Reany
josX wrote:
JosX, the outstanding epistemologist of our
time, tells us about scientific knowledge foundations.
Just how is "true science" supposedly founded, JosX?
Patrick
josX
>josX wrote:
>>Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3D7D14D3...@yahoo.com...
>>>[snip]
>>>> Exactly Einfuckingstein. There "is" an error, and the error is in the SR
>>>> model, which was precisely the point. Moreover what the fuck does
>>>> Maxwell have to do with this argument? Where the hell did all of you
>>>> morons come from.
>>>
>>>We all come from First Principles.
>>
>>True science has no First Principles.
>
>time, tells us about scientific knowledge foundations.
>
>Just how is "true science" supposedly founded, JosX?
Not.
Science doesn't need a foundation. The world is it's foundation.
--
jos
Randy Poe
The science is the explanation. Rayleigh scattering is based on
the postulated equations called Maxwell's Equations. Furthermore
it is postulated that the rules that apply in our laboratory
also apply in the atmosphere.
> With what *postulate* starts "1+1=2"
The Peano Axioms.
> With what *postulate* starts "a+b=b+a"
That IS a postulate. It is the axiom of commutativity of
addition.
> With what *postulate* starts "looking in a telescope without filter to
> the sun on an unclouded day destroys a
> portion of your vision (also with binocs)"
In biology we are farther from the postulates than in
physics. Going into this one is a calculation of the
intensity of light in those situations, observations
on the effects of light on animals and on various tissues
and organs in vitro, and a postulated relationship between
animal and in vitro experiments, and the predicted effects
in vivo on humans.
> With what *postulate* starts "the speed of light in vacuum is 300,000km/sec"
>
> So why do you suddenly need postulates for:
> "the speed of light is constant to all
> inertial observers"
Because this, like all of science, starts from postulates and
then you see where logical deduction takes you.
- Randy
Spaceman
>Because this, like all of science, starts from postulates and
>then you see where logical deduction takes you.
OK?
If you really believe that.
Here are 2 new postulates,
1: The clock malfunctioned.
and
2: (Vacuum) is still full of free electrons until technology increases to a
higher state.
These are the postulates of Spaceman.
they actually null most other postulates if you look closely and
with open mind.
Please prove wrong.
and without the "just because crap" or any insults.
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
josX
So you describe an /experiment/, and you give an /argument/ that is
supposed to make it credible (we assume the air in the laboratory
acts like that of the atmosphere at large, and this i a weakening
element in your theory since it is a postulate).
Do you /notice/ that you start with no postulates ?
You are "just going to find this damn thing out one way or the other".
Then you get your gear. Fine. But you don't base why the sky is blue
on a postulate that defines how it is. If you did, you would try to
chose a credible position based on other experience.
Notice the difference between this and SR ?
SR takes an amazingly uncredible position of light's speed always having
the relative speed 300,000km/sec for every inertial observer. It has
no experiment to show it and no rationale to make it credible.
In fact it's rationale is utterly broken: sound moves at 343 m/sec in
air. Turn that into "the speed of light is constant" and then turn
that into a general physics law, and then postulate "all laws must be
valid for all inertially moving observers", and then you have derived
your relativity theory about light.
It goes *exactly the same* in special relativity, only using light and
vacuum instead of sound and air. But we know it doesn't work like that
for sound. Why?
Soundspeed: 343m/sec, our fastest speed is about Mach-25, 2500% of soundspeed.
Lightspeed: 300,000,000m/sec, our fastest speed is about Mach-25,
0.00002858% of lightspeed.
Do you get what i'm saying?
We are snails compared to light, so we don't notice that our speeds are
affecting the relative speed of light since light is so faaaaaaaaaaaaaaast.
We know because we observed it happen in experiments.
>> With what *postulate* starts "1+1=2"
>
>The Peano Axioms.
Wrong.
We know because we observed it happen.
>> With what *postulate* starts "a+b=b+a"
>
>That IS a postulate. It is the axiom of commutativity of
>addition.
Then why can i prove it experimentally in more ways then one ?
We know because we observed it happen.
>> With what *postulate* starts "looking in a telescope without filter to
>> the sun on an unclouded day destroys a
>> portion of your vision (also with binocs)"
>
>In biology we are farther from the postulates than in
>physics. Going into this one is a calculation of the
>intensity of light in those situations, observations
>on the effects of light on animals and on various tissues
>and organs in vitro, and a postulated relationship between
>animal and in vitro experiments, and the predicted effects
>in vivo on humans.
Sure dude.
BTW, you said "observations", i get the points.
We know because we observed it happen.
>> With what *postulate* starts "the speed of light in vacuum is 300,000km/sec"
>>
>> So why do you suddenly need postulates for:
>> "the speed of light is constant to all
>> inertial observers"
>
>Because this, like all of science, starts from postulates and
>then you see where logical deduction takes you.
Postulates as-fact without a credible rationale, containing paradoxes
are worthless to science.
--
jos
Randy Poe
>
> >From: Randy Poe rp...@atl.lmco.com
>
> >Because this, like all of science, starts from postulates and
> >then you see where logical deduction takes you.
>
> OK?
> If you really believe that.
>
> Here are 2 new postulates,
>
> 1: The clock malfunctioned.
Imprecisely stated. If you're saying there's an effect shared
by both atomic clocks and muons, then it is just a different
interpretation of the same observations: that the twins in
the paradox will be different physical ages at the end of
the experiment.
> 2: (Vacuum) is still full of free electrons until technology increases to a
> higher state.
This is impossible to interpret. What does technology have to
do with the contents of free space? You mean the contents of
intergalactic space will change in relation to what happens
to technology on earth?
In most attempts to state something definite about your
"free electron" theory, the contradictions to observation
are immediate.
> Please prove wrong.
As with any other postulate, the "disproof" is the experimental
results. Space appears to be electrically neutral and lower
pressure than any vacuum we can achieve on earth. Both in
contradiction to what one would predict from your electron-
basketball theories.
- Randy
Randy Poe
>
> Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
> >>With what *postulate* starts "the sky is blue at an unclouded
> >>day" ?
> >
> >The science is the explanation. Rayleigh scattering is based on
> >the postulated equations called Maxwell's Equations. Furthermore
> >it is postulated that the rules that apply in our laboratory
> >also apply in the atmosphere.
>
> So you describe an /experiment/, and you give an /argument/ that is
> supposed to make it credible (we assume the air in the laboratory
> acts like that of the atmosphere at large, and this i a weakening
> element in your theory since it is a postulate).
>
> Do you /notice/ that you start with no postulates ?
Let me make it a little more explicit for you.
Postulates 1a, b, c, d: Maxwell's Equations.
Postulate 2: That Postulates 1a-d are spatially invariant.
That is five postulates by my count.
> You are "just going to find this damn thing out one way or the other".
I have no idea what you are saying here.
> Then you get your gear. Fine. But you don't base why the sky is blue
> on a postulate that defines how it is. If you did, you would try to
> chose a credible position based on other experience.
Your English is usually pretty damned good. In your rant here,
you have left English behind. I have no clue what this means.
- Randy
Spaceman
>Spaceman wrote:
>> Here are 2 new postulates,
>>
>> 1: The clock malfunctioned.
>
>Imprecisely stated.
No it is not.
you are lost if you can not understand three words .
> If you're saying there's an effect shared
>by both atomic clocks and muons, then it is just a different
>interpretation of the same observations: that the twins in
>the paradox will be different physical ages at the end of
>the experiment.
all clocks do not agree,
you lose.
Shove your Muon into your twisty mind.
>> 2: (Vacuum) is still full of free electrons until technology increases to a
>> higher state.
>
>This is impossible to interpret.
Nevermind than,
you might hurt your brain.
<LOL>
josX
>josX wrote:
>>Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
>>>>With what *postulate* starts "the sky is blue at an unclouded
>>>>day" ?
>>>
>>>The science is the explanation. Rayleigh scattering is based on
>>>the postulated equations called Maxwell's Equations. Furthermore
>>>it is postulated that the rules that apply in our laboratory
>>>also apply in the atmosphere.
>>
>>So you describe an /experiment/, and you give an /argument/ that is
>>supposed to make it credible (we assume the air in the laboratory
>>acts like that of the atmosphere at large, and this i a weakening
>>element in your theory since it is a postulate).
>>
>>Do you /notice/ that you start with no postulates ?
>
>Let me make it a little more explicit for you.
>
>Postulates 1a, b, c, d: Maxwell's Equations.
No.
Where did Maxwell get his equations ? From observations. *That* is
your starting point, and it only works to the extend Maxwell did a
proper *and /completel/* job.
>Postulate 2: That Postulates 1a-d are spatially invariant.
If Maxwell did'nt include the obvious c' = c + v tidbit, then you
are going to get completely anal results.
>That is five postulates by my count.
Worse.
>> You are "just going to find this damn thing out one way or the other".
>
>I have no idea what you are saying here.
What someone might say starting without any postulates.
>> Then you get your gear. Fine. But you don't base why the sky is blue
>> on a postulate that defines how it is. If you did, you would try to
>> chose a credible position based on other experience.
>
>Your English is usually pretty damned good.
thanks :)
>Your English is usually pretty damned good. In your rant here,
>you have left English behind. I have no clue what this means.
The point is that you try to find out using observation and experiments
that pertain to the actual effects.
--
jos
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>
>> In article <alka8u$7ho$1...@venus.btinternet.com>, "Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> writes:
>> >
>> >"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3D7D2883...@yahoo.com...
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >> I rest my case, and I sincerely hope that your tag isn't a statement
>> >> that you are respected representative of your alma mater.
>> >
>> >You have no case to rest and you have nothing to rest it upon.
>> >Will you now go and find your mistake, and please may we be rid of you
>> >until you have succeeded?
>> >
>> You're wasting your time on an idiot. He's not worth the attention.
>
>without so much as a single qualifying premise is not only an idiot but
>a pure d asshole to boot. Fuck you Mati Meron. Until you have a
>counter-argument you're just another windy mother fucker with an
>attitude. This is sci.physics Mati, either talk physics or shut your
>fucking trap.
>
Brad McFarlane
>
> >From: Randy Poe rp...@atl.lmco.com
>
> >Spaceman wrote:
> >> Here are 2 new postulates,
> >>
> >> 1: The clock malfunctioned.
> >
> >Imprecisely stated.
>
> No it is not.
Two cesium clocks, left side by side here on Earth, will stay locked
together to (IIRC) within billionths of a second. Put one of those
clocks in orbit around the earth (e.g., in the same orbit as a GPS
satellite), and it will get out of sync with its Earthbound counterpart,
to a degree far greater than billionths of a second.
State, *precisely*, by how much they'll be out of sync, as a function of
orbital speed and how long the orbiting clock stays in orbit. If you
can't state this, *precisely*, then your "The clock malfunctioned"
statement is, quite literally, *imprecise*. (Which is the difference
between Relativity and your statement: Relativity makes precise
predictions about the differences in the two clocks; you don't.)
-Brad
Richard
I don't. But what has Maxwell to do with the distortion of the
particle's field? Now if this pancaking of the field is the result of
lorentz contraction, and if the line density of charge is also increased
due to length contraction, then the contraction will have been doubly
accounted for. Which is it? Do the fields of the particles pancake, or
does the line density increase?
In either case my original argument stands, that the electrostatic force
between test charges is due to the same relativistic influence, e.g.
relative motion of the particles (only), and cannot therefore be a
function of the not yet existant electorstatic field being pancaked,
length contracted, or otherwise. It doesn't exist until there is
relative motion of the particles. How can a field be brought into
existance by a length contraction of itself? I don't think that very
many of you are following this argument, save for Kolker who is
supposedly working on its solution. Feynman couldn't find one, so we may
not see Kolker around here for awhile if he takes the quest seriously.
Richard
Franz Heymann
<me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:4aif9.422$a5.7...@news.uchicago.edu...
> In article <alka8u$7ho$1...@venus.btinternet.com>, "Franz Heymann"
<Franz....@btopenworld.com> writes:
> >
> >"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:3D7D2883...@yahoo.com...
> >[snip]
> >
> >> I rest my case, and I sincerely hope that your tag isn't a
statement
> >> that you are respected representative of your alma mater.
> >
> >You have no case to rest and you have nothing to rest it upon.
> >Will you now go and find your mistake, and please may we be rid of
you
> >until you have succeeded?
> >
> You're wasting your time on an idiot. He's not worth the attention.
It is my earnest desire to catch Mati out one day. But today is not my
luck day. He is, as usual, right
Franz Heymann
Frank Wappler
Richard wrote:
> Frank Wappler wrote:
> > [...] measurements of geometric relations
> > (e.g. which, [if] any, pairs of charges belonged together
> > to one and the same frame; and speeds, accelerations, etc.
> > of charges wrt each other), in order to quantify "currents",
> > and to evaluate differential operators wrt geometric differences ?
> > How should such geometric relations be defined and measured
> > to begin with, at least in principle,
> > if not already based on the measurement procedures of SR ??
> > Instead, we can define the SR procedures, and identify
> > and select them as reproducible measurement procedures a priori;
> > we can use them to obtain measurements of geometric relations
> > in the first place,
> > and only then, using these measurements as input constraints in
> > variational calculations, we can derive corresponding
> > equations of motion, and predictions.
> Frank, you hit the nail on the head here.
> However this is just a restatement of what I've been trying
> to get across since I arrived here circa 2 years ago.
Well -- thanks for pointing that out;
I'm afraid that your initial post in this thread
didn't get these points across to me in turn. For instance ...
. Given two parallel infinitely long conductors:
. Q_e = line density of negative charge of the non-primed conductor
. Q_e' = line density of negative charge of the primed conductor [...]
... do you mean to compare measurements of _proper_ charge densities,
or comparison of instantaneous charge densities, as determined
by, and wrt, some particular frame ?
> [It] just doesn't register with anyone who doesn't already get it.
Too bad, I know. But this shouldn't prevent those who already got
to ask, consider, address, and even anticipate requests to
"Please define how <insert_label_here> is to be measured,
at least in principle!"
from sharing the obtained goods with anyone who registers to get them.
Regards, Frank W ~@) R
Franz Heymann
Judging from the idiocies beow, JosX does not understand that there is a
difference between mathematics and science.
>
> With what *postulate* starts "the sky is blue at an unclouded
> day" ?
> With what *postulate* starts "1+1=2"
Read all about Peano. On second thoughts, don't. You won't understand
him.
> With what *postulate* starts "a+b=b+a"
That is not a theory.
> With what *postulate* starts "dogs birth live young, not eggs"
That is garbage.
> With what *postulate* starts "mice are not born from old rags alone"
That is a postulate which needs experimental proof.
Pasteur had to work bloody hard to disprove the converse postulate.
> With what *postulate* starts "Saturn has rings"
That is an observational fact and not a theory.
> With what *postulate* starts "the Sun gives light"
That is an observational fact and not a theory
> With what *postulate* starts "looking in a telescope without filter to
> the sun on an unclouded day destroys a
> portion of your vision (also with
binocs)"
That is an observational fact and not a theory.
> With what *postulate* starts "the speed of light in vacuum is
300,000km/sec"
That is an observational fact and not a theory.
>
> So why do you suddenly need postulates for:
> "the speed of light is constant to all
> inertial observers"
That is excruciatingly badly worded, but when worded properly, it will
constitute a postulate. It is a valid postulate until, if ever, it, or
a deduction from it, is in contradiction to an observation.
JosX gives the impression that he is now totally deranged. Could it be
that his correspondents in the ng are to blame for this unfortunate
development?
Franz Heymann
Bilge
Re: SR vs. the facts. to usenet:
>>
>> | \|/
>> ----q---- q
>> | /|\
>> | / | \
>>
>> static moving
>>
>> Exactly where do you think maxwell's eqns fail to be lorentz covariant?
>
>I don't. But what has Maxwell to do with the distortion of the
>particle's field?
> Now if this pancaking of the field is the result of lorentz con-
>traction, and if the line density of charge is also increased due to
>length contraction, then the contraction will have been doubly accounted
>for. Which is it? Do the fields of the particles pancake, or does the
>line density increase?
written all over it.
>In either case my original argument stands, that the electrostatic force
>between test charges is due to the same relativistic influence, e.g.
>relative motion of the particles (only), and cannot therefore be a
Well, a field might be called a "relativistic feature" but it has
nothing to do with being non-existent unless relative motion is present.
>function of the not yet existant electorstatic field being pancaked,
>length contracted, or otherwise. It doesn't exist until there is
>relative motion of the particles.
Yes, it does.
> How can a field be brought into
>existance by a length contraction of itself?
Who said it was? Length contraction is what you get by expressing
the same thing in a different coordinate system. It can't "cause"
anything.
> I don't think that very
>many of you are following this argument,
Well, that's probably true if the argument is supposed to make sense.
> save for Kolker who is
>supposedly working on its solution. Feynman couldn't find one, so we may
>not see Kolker around here for awhile if he takes the quest seriously.
Apparently, you haven't bothered to read any of the zillion or so
times I've pointed out how you get the field from local gauge invariance,
of which feynman was well aware as he had a lot to do with developing
those sorts of ideas.
Franz Heymann
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:allgrv$rp0$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
I forgot to add that it is in fact a postulate (the mathematicians call
that an axiom).
Uncle Al
>
> >From: Randy Poe rp...@atl.lmco.com
>
> >Spaceman wrote:
> >> Here are 2 new postulates,
> >>
> >> 1: The clock malfunctioned.
> >
> >Imprecisely stated.
>
> No it is not.
> you are lost if you can not understand three words .
Hey spaceshit, who balances your checkbook?
Hey, spaceshit - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of the 24 GPS satellites
carries either four cesium atomic clocks or three rubidum atomic
clocks in orbit, with full relativistic corrections being applied.
And it works to parts-per-billion accuracy.
http://www.trimble.com/gps/satellites.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Stephen Speicher
This Richard Perry is some piece of work. He gets his physics
from the comic strips, and his language from the gutter. Instead
of a mind and character, what we get is a filthy cartoon.
--
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
josX
And this difference is o magical oracle ...?
>> With what *postulate* starts "the sky is blue at an unclouded
>> day" ?
>> With what *postulate* starts "1+1=2"
>
>Read all about Peano. On second thoughts, don't. You won't understand
>him.
I already proved that it's also experimental, just a little bit less
true to real math then actual bean-counting
[repost]
Here, the Paeno(spelling?) axioms are also empirical, although they don't
exactly model addition, they are real-world-experiments nevertheless,
designed to give the same results as actual bean-counting.
The Paeno experiments go like this
'*' = bean.
Make a row of beans like this:
[]
[*]
[**]
[***]
[****]
[*****]
[******]
[*******]
Now, put i teacup at each row:
{ }[]
{ }[*]
{ }[**]
{ }[***]
{ }[****]
{ }[*****]
{ }[******]
{ }[*******]
Now, instead of putting all the beans you "add" in one cup together,
you put from the top down in each teacup one bean, and then you
get the same number of beans to the right of the cup as is in all
cups together (because of their symmetrical layout: [*]beans + [**]beans
=... (skip the first teacup always):
{ }[]
{*}[*]
{*}[**]
{*}[***] <-- result.
{ }[****]
{ }[*****]
{ }[******]
{ }[*******]
Now, add symbol names to your row:
{ }[] 0
{ }[*] 1
{ }[**] 2
{ }[***] 3
{ }[****] 4
{ }[*****] 5
{ }[******] 6
{ }[*******] 7
Say '+' is "do a bean in every cup from top down in our layout, skipping
the first", say '=' is the result you read off at the right, and you
can proof by experiment that 1+1=2. And from /experiment/ too(!) that
a+b=b+a!
It's all experiments.
[/repost]
>> With what *postulate* starts "a+b=b+a"
>
>That is not a theory.
Then what is "theory" ?
c' = c is theory but c' = c + v is not right ?
"because Franz don't like it"
>> With what *postulate* starts "dogs birth live young, not eggs"
>
>That is garbage.
Don't know how dogs give birth Franz ?
Can't wiggle your way out of this Franz ?
>> With what *postulate* starts "mice are not born from old rags alone"
>
>That is a postulate which needs experimental proof.
>Pasteur had to work bloody hard to disprove the converse postulate.
What is THIS Franz??
"Postulate needs experimental proof???"
Do we hear this clearly ?
1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum
Ring a bell ?
>> With what *postulate* starts "Saturn has rings"
>
>That is an observational fact and not a theory.
It is true too isn't it.
Why Franz ?
>> With what *postulate* starts "the Sun gives light"
>That is an observational fact and not a theory
It is true too isn't it.
Why Franz ?
>> With what *postulate* starts "looking in a telescope without filter to
>> the sun on an unclouded day destroys a
>> portion of your vision (also with
>binocs)"
>
>That is an observational fact and not a theory.
It is true too isn't it.
Why Franz ?
>> With what *postulate* starts "the speed of light in vacuum is
>300,000km/sec"
>
>That is an observational fact and not a theory.
Might *that* be the reason it's true ??
>> So why do you suddenly need postulates for:
>> "the speed of light is constant to all
>> inertial observers"
>
>That is excruciatingly badly worded, but when worded properly, it will
>constitute a postulate. It is a valid postulate until, if ever, it, or
>a deduction from it, is in contradiction to an observation.
Well well well, special rules for special relativity eh?
>JosX gives the impression that he is now totally deranged. Could it be
>that his correspondents in the ng are to blame for this unfortunate
>development?
You've had it Franz, again.
Why again is something said "true" ?
Right! /observation/ /experimental proof/.
So, what is needed to believe in 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-
-constancy-in-a-vacuum ?
Right! /observation/ /experimental proof/.
Not failing and anal logic, but proof and experiment.
--
jos
josX
>"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>news:allgrv$rp0$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>>news:alkbgs$8qb$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>> With what *postulate* starts "a+b=b+a"
>>
>>That is not a theory.
>
>I forgot to add that it is in fact a postulate (the mathematicians call
>that an axiom).
Do you think a+b=b+a because "mathematicians say so" ?
<snip>
--
jos
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>from the comic strips, and his language from the gutter. Instead
>of a mind and character, what we get is a filthy cartoon.
>
at least entertaining. This one fails this test too, however.
AllYou!
"Randy Poe" <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:3D7E140B...@atl.lmco.com...
Actually, you got him so flustered with your calm and unequivocating logic,
that he's beginning to lose it. Notice how he's also starting to substitute
words on you? He now freely interchanges *proof* with evidence hoping to
suck you into the game and then use it to show how your logic is flawed.
josX jumps in and out of definitions as it suits him in order to obfuscate
the discussion.
Richard
Bilge I appreciate the manner of your response, and I understand your
argument, really I do. I just don't think that you are grasping "my"
argument, at all, so I'll try to clarify it.
Imagine that you have two electron beams, equal in magnitude but flowing
opposite in direction to one another. Now place outside those beams a
point charge. It would be difficult to place the point charge "at rest"
with respect to the beams, since no such frame exists for both beams
simultaneously. So no matter the velocity of the point charge wrt an
outside observer, the point charge will always be in motion wrt at least
one of the two beams. It follows from either SR or my equations, that a
force will be exerted upon that test charge that is greater than the "at
rest" Coulomb force between the point charge and the two beams
respectively. That additional component of force is classically a
magnetic force, although both myself and SR define this force as a
function of the velocity of the point charge wrt the beams, where the
force is the vector sum of the force exerted on the charge by each beam
respectively. Maxwell's equations are not a party to this particular
argument, except that the serve as background support for the SR
equations that "are" involved.
Now imagine a single line of electrons, e.g. an electron beam, as viewed
from an FOR at rest wrt the beam. If the beam is broken down into its
constituent quanta, you will find that from this FOR half of the
electrons are moving with a component of velocity in one direction while
the other half have a component of velocity in the other direction.
Although the direction of motion of any particular quanta may change in
a very small fraction of a second, this doesn't change the fact that in
any given instant, form this FOR, the single beam described here is
perfectly equivalent to the two beams discussed in the first argument.
Which is to say, a magnetic component of force must be exerted on a
point charge external to this electron beam, and this result is
independent of its velocity wrt the beam (even though the magnitude of
the force is). The velocity of the point charge wrt an observer that
results in the lowest possible force is the "at" rest FOR of the beam.
The electrostatic force exerted on the charge when occupying this FOR is
just the lowest possible magnetic force.
From all of this, which is empirically verifiable, it follows that the
electrostatic field of a quanta is indeed only apparent when it is in
motion wrt one or more other quanta, and that two quanta at rest wrt
each other will exert no force upon one another. So then relative motion
doesn't "pancake" the electrostatic field of the quanta, because it
doesn't have such a field attached to it. It does have a field, but only
motion through it results in a force, so it is better described as a
magnetic field, although not equivalent to the classical B field. The
field of the quanta can be regarded as just a curvature of space wrt
other quanta, but which cannot influence other quanta until they try to
move through that curved space.
Einstein's conception of curved space-time is a remarkable
interpretation of the curvature of the motion of matter, I only wish to
extend that argument to "charge" rather than mass, and to remove the
dilation of the fourth dimension of time.
Richard
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
Jan Bielawski
> Science doesn't need a foundation. The world is it's foundation.
No. Our perception of the world.
Jan Bielawski
josX
Projections. What definitions do i jump in and out off AllYou, what does
the difference between proof/evidence matter when SR/GR have neither
physical evidence nor credible logical derivation.
--
jos
josX
Of which the world is the source. You are a solipsist like all hardcore
SRists. The world exists Kolker, objectively. And if you don't believe that,
then you can still work with the idea that it does because it works out very
nicely (classical physics), whereas assuming solipsism and SR/GR (which is
philosophy stepping out-of-line since it makes a physical claim that it
cannot do (1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum)) doesn't
work and produces paradoxes. It also fails to show a basis for itself, both
in logic (flawed) and in observables (no basis).
--
jos
Randy Poe
>
> "Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> >I forgot to add that it is in fact a postulate (the mathematicians call
> >that an axiom).
>
> Do you think a+b=b+a because "mathematicians say so" ?
The mathematics involving the "+" operator are defined by
a number of starting postulates, of which this is one. When
you work in the mathematical framework in which this is true,
it is a postulate.
You are free to form other systems where this rule does not
apply, and see where that leads you. Then you have a different
"+" operator.
The mathematicians don't force a particular set of axioms on
anyone. But when you're working in particular mathematical
fields, they come with starting assumptions, of which that
is one. Drop that one and you're studying a different subject,
one that the mathematicians will be happy to discuss with
you.
- Randy
Pmb
> I'll explain it to you in detail:
Let me look this over carefully and get back to you tommorow. But I
suspect that you aren't using the correct expression for the force.
The force in one frame is related to the force in another frame by the
relativistic relations )which you can find on the internet) but I
don't see them used below or on your web page. But since I've gone
over these calculations in the past and foudn them to be perfectly
correct when the correct transformations are used then my guess is,
not that you've found something new and thus show relativity to be
wrong, but that you made an error.
Pmb
> If, and this is a fact, a magnetic interaction occurs between charges in
> motion wrt each other, then the relative motions of the charged
> particles that compose any two masses must lead to a magnetic
> interaction between those particles. The magnetic interaction obeys
> Coulombs law of signs, and with which the SR derivation is in agreement.
> As a result the Coulomb interaction cannot be explained except as the
> net sum of the magnetic interaction of the particles of charge. The only
> counter-argument, which has been repeated in this NG previously, is that
> the relative speeds of the charges must be c in order produce this
> result, and that they are actually only a 100th of that. Ok, now let's
> suppose for argument's sake that this is so (we will neglect the
> DeBroglie oscillations in order to accommodate the SRists). So now we
> have still a substantial portion of the Coulomb interaction produced by
> the electrons moving at 100th c wrt each other, enough such that the
> electrostatic constant, must be less than it is stated to be. If OTOH we
> allow k to retain its value, which the QMists would like to do, then we
> get the following:
>
> F_net = F_Coulomb + F_Magnetic
>
> But classically F_net = (k'qq'/d^2) so we have:
>
> (k'qq'/d^2) = F_Coulomb + F_Magnetic, or
>
> (k'qq'/d^2) = (k'qq'/d^2) + F_Magnetic
>
> Let a = (k'qq'/d^2) and let b = F_Magnetic, substitution gives:
>
> a = a + b, where b is greater than 0, unless charged particles are
> always completely at rest wrt each other, which is contrary to the the
> SRists premise that they are moving around at 100th c. ;-)
>
> If you would like to be pedantic and have me derive the same
> relationship that you object to then this is simply a matter of
> resetting the scales so that whatever unit we choose gives
>
> b = F_Magnetic = 1, from whence is derived the previous equation:
>
> a = a + 1
>
> Any more questions?
>
> Richard
>
> http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
> Electromagnetism: First Principles (Weber/Gauss on steroids)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Now mu_o = 4 pi k/c^2 so that
> F_net = (k'qq'/d^2) + (k Z 4 pi qq'/c^2 d^2 )]
>
> Since empirically
> F_net = kqq/d^2 we have that
>
> kqq/d^2 = (k'qq'/d^2) + (k Z 4 pi qq'/c^2 d^2 )
> which reduces to:
>
> k = k' + (Z 4 pi/c^2)
josX
>josX wrote:
>>"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>I forgot to add that it is in fact a postulate (the mathematicians call
>>>that an axiom).
>>
>>Do you think a+b=b+a because "mathematicians say so" ?
>
>The mathematics involving the "+" operator are defined by
>a number of starting postulates, of which this is one. When
>you work in the mathematical framework in which this is true,
>it is a postulate.
Take 3 beans in your left hand...
>You are free to form other systems where this rule does not
>apply, and see where that leads you. Then you have a different
>"+" operator.
No i am not free, because if i want to do science (note this), then
i must be in accordance with the world/reality.
Beans exist in reality, i cannot "postulate" away with them, i need
to try&look.
>The mathematicians don't force a particular set of axioms on
>anyone.
So you can pass university without bothering about them ?
It is enough to tell the examinars that you disagree for "the following
reasons..." ?
They force it on everyone, and they is the teachers, and they even claim
it is objective scientific knowledge, which should make it of interest
for everyone interested in reality, which is everybody to some degree.
> But when you're working in particular mathematical
>fields, they come with starting assumptions, of which that
>is one. Drop that one and you're studying a different subject,
>one that the mathematicians will be happy to discuss with
>you.
There are no starting assumptions in true physics, and math is physics,
the mathematicians just don realize it.
--
jos
AllYou!
> >Actually, you got him so flustered with your calm and unequivocating
logic,
> >that he's beginning to lose it. Notice how he's also starting to
substitute
> >words on you? He now freely interchanges *proof* with evidence hoping to
> >suck you into the game and then use it to show how your logic is flawed.
> >josX jumps in and out of definitions as it suits him in order to
obfuscate
> >the discussion.
>
> Projections. What definitions do i jump in and out off AllYou, what does
> the difference between proof/evidence matter when SR/GR have neither
> physical evidence nor credible logical derivation.
For one thing, you constantly ignore the definitions of *proof* and
*evidence*. They are different. For another, you constantly misstate the
definition of *science*. That's two examples, and there are many others.
josX
Science -> that which demands evidence and proof.
Religion -> Postulates and sometimes Paradoxes, but always a prophet of
some kind.
--
jos
Pmb
> > I'll explain it to you in detail:
Okay. I see what the problem is now. You're using an incorrect
expression for the electric field. If the source charge is moving then
the force *** is not *** given by F = Kqq'/d^2. That holds *only* when
the source charge is at rest. If the source is moving then you have to
use the relativistic expression
This page seems be be correct.
http://rustam.uwp.edu/202/lec14_15.html
However when the force in the rest frame O of the charge is F = qE
then the force F' in the frame O' moving with respect to O is given by
F' = q(E' + VxB)
where the F's, E's and B's are vector quantities. The important thing
to note here is that F' != qE.
This is done in all its detail in "Special Relativity," A.P. French.
Pmb
AllYou!
> >For one thing, you constantly ignore the definitions of *proof* and
> >*evidence*. They are different. For another, you constantly misstate
the
> >definition of *science*. That's two examples, and there are many others.
>
> Science -> that which demands evidence and proof.
> Religion -> Postulates and sometimes Paradoxes, but always a prophet of
> some kind.
And again, you fail to address the point. The best evidence of a losing
position.
Spaceman
>Two cesium clocks, left side by side here on Earth, will stay locked
>together to (IIRC) within billionths of a second. Put one of those
>clocks in orbit around the earth (e.g., in the same orbit as a GPS
>satellite), and it will get out of sync with its Earthbound counterpart,
>to a degree far greater than billionths of a second.
And I DO NOT Say it would not happen to the clock.
TIME DOES NOT CHANGE!
the clock malfuntioned.
The clock is not a GOD!
WAKE UP!
>State, *precisely*, by how much they'll be out of sync, as a function of
>orbital speed and how long the orbiting clock stays in orbit.
you tell me how much an hourglass would do such inside
a "automatic flipper unit and inside a centrifuge large enough to keep it
"timing"
Until you do,
You have absolutely NO PROOF of time changing.
One clock is far from "the God of time"
Wake up again!
:)
Thanks!
Relativity is "a guess of a single clock malfunction,
not this "time changing crap"
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Spaceman
>Hey spaceshit, who balances your checkbook?
Dear Uncle Al,
who pays your check?
<LOL>
They don't like your language here you know.
At least .
I know most people would not.
and why won't you research a clock?
Affraid?
>Hey, spaceshit - Do you want EVIDENCE?
Again,
insult and parrot the wrong.
Sorry Al,
Clocks malfunction.
You lose.
You have one
to my many clocks.
hourglasses prove you wrong you are so silly and
brainwashed now.
you could be classified as a rock by alien species
and never get a clue.
<LOL>
><snipped Al's spam links>
ooops,
nothing to confirm he gets
The clock malfunctioned yet.
Poor al.
lost in "spacetime"
in other words.
lost in
a "cubicmetersecond"
forever.
<ROFLOL>
Spaceman
>Well well well, special rules for special relativity eh?
Of course Joe!
:)
for the "special needs of the mechanically illiterate"
<ROFLOL>
Special Relativity is an "illusion curtain"
It's one of the "fabric" of the Emporers New Clothes.
:)
It's a "twist" of a clocks malfunction.
and...
wrong in reality about "time".
"but correct about atomic clocks only"
Patrick Reany
josX wrote:
> j...@nostalghia.com (Jan Bielawski) wrote:
> >jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message news:<alkrmg$i40$2...@news1.xs4all.nl>...
> >
> >> Science doesn't need a foundation. The world is it's foundation.
> >
> >No. Our perception of the world.
>
> Of which the world is the source. You are a solipsist like all hardcore
> SRists. The world exists Kolker, objectively.
What does it mean to "exist objectively"?
> And if you don't believe that,
> then you can still work with the idea that it does because it works out very
> nicely (classical physics), whereas assuming solipsism and SR/GR (which is
> philosophy stepping out-of-line since it makes a physical claim that it
> cannot do (1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum)) doesn't
> work and produces paradoxes. It also fails to show a basis for itself, both
> in logic (flawed) and in observables (no basis).
> --
> jos
Patrick
Bilge
>
>opposite in direction to one another. Now place outside those beams a
>point charge. It would be difficult to place the point charge "at rest"
>with respect to the beams, since no such frame exists for both beams
>simultaneously.
>So no matter the velocity of the point charge wrt an outside
>observer, the point charge will always be in motion wrt at least
>one of the two beams.
So what? Also, why do you think a restframe exists for either "beam"?
The beams consist of charged particles. It's not possible for a charged
particle beam to consist of charges which all move at the same velocity
and direction. A charged particle beam is an idealization consisting of
an optical axis which defines the direction of the beam and the phase
space (phase ellipse) which defines the beam envelope in terms of the
longitudinal position and momentum of a reference particle moving along
the optical axis. The phase ellipse consists of parameters specifying
the relative momenta and positions of a group of particles which move
with the reference particle. Particles in particle beams have a finite
spread in size and momentum, even before any consideration of the forces
between the charges themselves.
Without focussing magnets (most commonly quadrupole triplets and
doublets), each beam would diverge. (Why do you think accelerators
have the beamlines surrounded by magnets?) Having two beams adjacent
each other complicates this yet further. If you believe there is some
problem with a test particle near two beams due to some "naivete" in
defining rest frames, then the "naivete" applies to your argument, except
on a much larger scale, for assuming the beam has a rest frame which
applies to all of the particles in it.
>It follows from either SR or my equations, that a force will be exerted
>upon that test charge that is greater than the "at rest" Coulomb force
>between the point charge and the two beams respectively.
So what? Transform the electric fields from each charge in the beam to
the rest frame of the test charge at a time `t' that defines a "snapshot"
of the beam.
>That additional component of force is classically a magnetic force,
>although both myself and SR define this force as a function of the
Special relativity does not define this force. Special relativity
defines a coordinate transformation between inertial frames, not
forces. At most, special relativity can provide the transformation
of a force to a different reference frame.
>velocity of the point charge wrt the beams, where the force is the
>vector sum of the force exerted on the charge by each beam respectively.
>Maxwell's equations are not a party to this particular argument, except
>that the serve as background support for the SR equations that "are"
>involved.
Well, maxwell's equations do matter, but I doubt it would be worth
the effort to try and explain why.
>Now imagine a single line of electrons, e.g. an electron beam, as viewed
>from an FOR at rest wrt the beam. If the beam is broken down into its
>constituent quanta,
While this is rather easy to imagine, I fail to see the point in doing
so. As I noted above, none of the particles in the beam have exactly the
same velocity or even travel in exactly the same direction so attempting
to find fault do to a lack of rigor in defining rest frames applies to
your own argument, since you have defined a rest frame for the beam. Since
you also note that the force is a vector sum of the forces due to the
individual particles in the beam, you haven't gained anything over just
considering two charges between which there is a relative velocity,
except for complexity.
> you will find that from this FOR half of the electrons are moving
>with a component of velocity in one direction while the other half
>have a component of velocity in the other direction.
I'll also find that only applies to the component of the velocity along
the optical axes of the beam, assuming the optical axes are even parallel.
The velocities in the direction transverse to the optical axis will have
no simple relationship, if you want to be completely pedantic. Sorry, but
you don't get to selectively ignore the details you haven't justified as
ignoreable.
>Although the direction of motion of any particular quanta may change in
>a very small fraction of a second, this doesn't change the fact that in
>any given instant, form this FOR, the single beam described here is
>perfectly equivalent to the two beams discussed in the first argument.
>Which is to say, a magnetic component of force must be exerted on a
>point charge external to this electron beam, and this result is
So what? All of this is ancient history. Look up "pinch effect".
[...]
>From all of this, which is empirically verifiable, it follows that the
>electrostatic field of a quanta is indeed only apparent when it is in
>motion wrt one or more other quanta, and that two quanta at rest wrt
Even if you had the details correct, that doesn't follow.
>each other will exert no force upon one another. So then relative motion
>doesn't "pancake" the electrostatic field of the quanta, because it
>doesn't have such a field attached to it. It does have a field, but only
>motion through it results in a force, so it is better described as a
>magnetic field, although not equivalent to the classical B field. The
>field of the quanta can be regarded as just a curvature of space wrt
The so-called "curvature" is known as the field-strength tensor:
F_{uv} == d_{v}A_{u} - d_{u}A_{v} == (1/iq)[D_{v},D_{u}]
with D_{u} == d_{u} - iqA_{u}
A standard exercise is to rewrite maxwell's equations as:
d_{u}F_{uv} = j_{v}
In other words, the fields are not E or B. The field is the
four-potential, A_{u}.
>other quanta, but which cannot influence other quanta until they try to
>move through that curved space.
Thet requires them be clairvoyant. As you seem to think this works,
charges would first have to know whether another charge is moving
_before_ interacting with it. The only way for one charge to know that
is to send and receive a signal from another charge. We call that a
field. If you wish to call it a clairvoyance field, that's your choice.
One way or another, charges have to pass along that information.
>Einstein's conception of curved space-time is a remarkable inter-
>pretation of the curvature of the motion of matter, I only wish to
>extend that argument to "charge" rather than mass, and to remove the
>dilation of the fourth dimension of time.
You can't. Weyl tried to describe electromagnetism as a geometric
effect. It didn't work. At least not as he had intended, which was as
a change of scale. He discovered the gauge (phase) invariance that acted
as the predecessor of modern gauge (yang-mills) theories instead. In
geometric language one refers to fibre bundles. You need more dimensions
than four to describe E&M in geometric terms. That's what string theory
is all about. In any case, you are stuck with time dilation.
josX
I adressed the point AllYou.
--
jos
josX
>josX wrote:
>>j...@nostalghia.com (Jan Bielawski) wrote:
>>>jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message news:<alkrmg$i40$2...@news1.xs4all.nl>...
>>>
>>>> Science doesn't need a foundation. The world is it's foundation.
>>>
>>>No. Our perception of the world.
>>
>>Of which the world is the source. You are a solipsist like all hardcore
>>SRists. The world exists Kolker, objectively.
>
>What does it mean to "exist objectively"?
Do you have a hammer in your home?
Are we talking on usenet or not.
AllYou!
Slam-dunk. Your position is exposed as invalid. More proof that you cannot
defend it.
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:alpoqa$85v$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>>>news:alo1hk$gpl$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>>>For one thing, you constantly ignore the definitions of *proof* and
>>>>>*evidence*. They are different. For another, you constantly misstate the
>>>>>definition of *science*. That's two examples, and there are many others.
>>>>
>>>>Science -> that which demands evidence and proof.
>>>>Religion -> Postulates and sometimes Paradoxes, but always a prophet of
>>>> some kind.
>>>
>>>And again, you fail to address the point. The best evidence of a losing
>>>position.
>>
>>I adressed the point AllYou.
>
>Slam-dunk. Your position is exposed as invalid. More proof that you cannot
>defend it.
Empty talk AllYou.
So, the SRists are finally out of rope.
Meanwhile i still have these questions:
- 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum evidence please!
- c'=c+v, what's wrong with it, what data is against it that can
distinguish c'=c from c'=c+v
- explain the twin-paradox
- why did you push accelerator evidence while you should know that you
cannot push a particle beyond c with electro-magnetic phenomena
Start with this.
Alternatively: accept defeat and accept c'=c+v.
Unconditional surrender is nice, but if you accept c'=c+v, that's ok.
--
jos
AllYou!
> Meanwhile i still have these questions:
> - 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum evidence
please!
> - c'=c+v, what's wrong with it, what data is against it that can
> distinguish c'=c from c'=c+v
> - explain the twin-paradox
> - why did you push accelerator evidence while you should know that you
> cannot push a particle beyond c with electro-magnetic phenomena
you have the questions because you are incapable of learning. All of thses
have been answered for you too many times. As you have admitted, you're a
nut.
> Unconditional surrender is nice, but if you accept c'=c+v, that's ok.
I thought that you said this wasn't a contest. More lies?
Aardvark
To be fair to you, you did. You pointed out that science requires
evidence and proof. So, for example, we can set up an experiment and
compute what the result should be if c'=c, and what it will be if
c'=c+v. Then we do the experiment and see which prediction is right.
This has been done thousands of times and the answer has - with no
exception ever - matched the prediction according to c'=c.
That's why nobody - with the excpetion of a few kooks on Usenet, most
of whom are so incompetent that thay failed to complete their physics
degree and are now unemployed - doubt that relativity is totally
correct within its domain of applicability.
Hope that helps!
josX
>jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message news:<alpoqa$85v$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>...
>> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>>>news:alo1hk$gpl$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>>>For one thing, you constantly ignore the definitions of *proof* and
>>>>>*evidence*. They are different. For another, you constantly misstate the
>>>>>definition of *science*. That's two examples, and there are many others.
>>>>
>>>>Science -> that which demands evidence and proof.
>>>>Religion -> Postulates and sometimes Paradoxes, but always a prophet of
>>>> some kind.
>>>
>>>And again, you fail to address the point. The best evidence of a losing
>>>position.
>>
>> I adressed the point AllYou.
>
>To be fair to you, you did. You pointed out that science requires
>evidence and proof. So, for example, we can set up an experiment and
>compute what the result should be if c'=c
Then we would discover that c'=c is a paradox, that it has no physical
direct evidence, and that we can discard it.
> and what it will be if
>c'=c+v.
Then we would discover that there is no counter evidence, that it
makes sense, and leave it at that until we can measuer 1way-1beam-
-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum.
> Then we do the experiment and see which prediction is right.
Well, everything behaves like V'=V+v, and i argue that this is not
a proporty of any object, but more like a proporty of something more
basic to the world, like how space is etc (flat) and how time is
(absolute, everywhere a simultaneous "now"). Einstein just has it
wrong.
>This has been done thousands of times and the answer has - with no
>exception ever - matched the prediction according to c'=c.
But also the prediction c'=c+v.
>That's why nobody - with the excpetion of a few kooks on Usenet, most
>of whom are so incompetent that thay failed to complete their physics
>degree and are now unemployed - doubt that relativity is totally
>correct within its domain of applicability.
fantasyland
>Hope that helps!
It doesn't!
Why not?
You need a multiobserver experiment to proof
"a soccer ball which has the same speed relative to all players"
or
"a waterwaven which has the same speed relative to all boats"
or
"a electromagnetic wave which has the same speed relative to everything
inertial (and non inertial too, since that follows logically)"
.
--
jos
tj Frazir
Reflect light 186000 times in one second .
Or pay the penelty (( that usuly means I filled your mail untill your
pc had o attach a message and not file it . But cant send it back .
when we both get the message I say message is inclompleat and your pc
proves me wrong.))
YOU cant tell an asshole es wrong. !!
At that time ,,wile the keys to your goodies are proving me wrong ,, I
use the old pencil and wrote it down. I ave an engine to drop your #
into ..I get to view all your shit .
Answer my question or pay my penalties. JOX
LAST WARNING
josX
You go ahead and try to break my mail asshole.
--
jos
tj Frazir
when I get 10 minutes ill lay some Josua B favorites as well. I
mached your other names up with the return code . Te other return codes
that mach that # but dont match names ,,4 people. IC ,,,do you see ?
tj Frazir
tj Frazir
Ask Barry Karr your buddy .
Game over ,,insert quarter .
tj Frazir
Address:http://www.ntskeptics.org/news/news2001-07-19.htm Changed:7:49
PM on Monday, August 12, 2002
Now watch who post what and Ill show your somthing else
Richard
Which is just dandy when considering the trends of large numbers of
quanta, and when Ampere's and Coulomb's Laws are taken as premises, all
of which requires the contraction/dilation of space-time in order to get
these equations up and running.
>
> >other quanta, but which cannot influence other quanta until they try to
> >move through that curved space.
>
> Thet requires them be clairvoyant.
No, it just requires them to be moving through that space, the
alteration is already in place at each point in the particles trajectory
so the particle needs only to communicate with the point in space that
it occupies at any instant. The field moves rigidly with the quanta, and
thus the curvatures also.
> As you seem to think this works,
> charges would first have to know whether another charge is moving
> _before_ interacting with it.
They are overlapping in phase space, always occupying the same volume of
space (all of it), but each progressing to singularities at discrete
points in space wrt each other.
> The only way for one charge to know that
> is to send and receive a signal from another charge.
No signal is necessary, per above.
> We call that a
> field.
So do I.
> If you wish to call it a clairvoyance field, that's your choice.
It is what it is, and I don't understand your difficulty with it.
> One way or another, charges have to pass along that information.
Unraveling the mystery of how particles recognize one another's
existence will be the apex of all human reason.
AFAIK this isn't addressed in any theory thus far formulated. Photons
are only a mathematical treatment, a description of action, not of its
cause. If you want fundamental causes then form another religion, that's
what every else seems to resort to. I OTOH simply don't care to explain
at this point why they recognize on another, I only know that they do
and that only one mathematical description of that interaction can be
correct.
>
> >Einstein's conception of curved space-time is a remarkable inter-
> >pretation of the curvature of the motion of matter, I only wish to
> >extend that argument to "charge" rather than mass, and to remove the
> >dilation of the fourth dimension of time.
>
> You can't. Weyl tried to describe electromagnetism as a geometric
> effect. It didn't work. At least not as he had intended, which was as
> a change of scale. He discovered the gauge (phase) invariance that acted
> as the predecessor of modern gauge (yang-mills) theories instead. In
> geometric language one refers to fibre bundles. You need more dimensions
> than four to describe E&M in geometric terms. That's what string theory
> is all about. In any case, you are stuck with time dilation.
Is so, then so be it, but as of yet my approach doesn't even allow for
time dilation, which if incorporated would lead the equations to
incorrect predictions.
Richard
Richard
>
> <me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
> news:4aif9.422$a5.7...@news.uchicago.edu...
> > In article <alka8u$7ho$1...@venus.btinternet.com>, "Franz Heymann"
> <Franz....@btopenworld.com> writes:
> > >
> > >"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:3D7D2883...@yahoo.com...
> > >[snip]
> > >
> > >> I rest my case, and I sincerely hope that your tag isn't a
> statement
> > >> that you are respected representative of your alma mater.
> > >
> > >You have no case to rest and you have nothing to rest it upon.
> > >Will you now go and find your mistake, and please may we be rid of
> you
> > >until you have succeeded?
> > >
> > You're wasting your time on an idiot. He's not worth the attention.
>
> It is my earnest desire to catch Mati out one day. But today is not my
> luck day. He is, as usual, right
>
> Franz Heymann
You're breaking my heart Franz. A corrected translation of all of your
statements is that you are "of the opinion" that my views are incorrect.
Now this is quite different then the objective form in which your
collective statements are cast. I OTOH harbor the same sentiment
towards you. Now if I make fairly accurate predictions, and you make
fairly accurate predictions, then how are my views perceived objectively
to be inferior? Upon what do you base your sentiments? I don't dispute
that classical predictions have been hammered into a relatively close
conformity with the world, what I dispute is that there is even a shred
of common sense involved in the approach. It is the approach that I
reject, scabbing on of one effect after another in order to account for
the facts. Moreover the classical approach can indeed be led to
contradiction, whereas my own cannot.
Richard