The first relativistic theory in physics
Uncle Ben
that what they are denying about relativity theory includes physics
that everybody knows and believes in and that they certainly cannot
deny without appearing foolish.
One can consider SR to be a meta-theory that suggests conditions on
other theories if they are to be valid in the realm of matter at high
velocities. Today we have relativistic mechanics that improves on
Newtonian mechanics, relativistic quantum mechanics that won the Nobel
Prize for Feynman and others, and relativistic gravitation (GR) that
improves on Newtonian gravity theory, all of which have been supported
by experiment and application and all of which have elicited
skepticism and ridicule by the deniers.
But what was the very first relativistic theory in physics? The answer
is -- (wait for it) -- Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. But,
you may say, that came before relativity. Exactly so, and it was what
let Einstein to the discovery of SR. The title of his first SR paper
was "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies." In this paper he
generalized the observation of Lorentz and Poincare that Maxwell's
theory holds under the Lorentz transformation.
So EM was the first theory in physics to be consistent with SR. Do the
deniers want to contest the validity of Maxwell's theory, once it was
shown experimentally that no ether is required for it to work? A
considerable industry has obviously grown up that relies on Maxwell to
work.
Uncle Ben
Dono.
>
> But what was the very first relativistic theory in physics? The answer
> is -- (wait for it) -- Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. But,
> you may say, that came before relativity. Exactly so, and it was what
> let Einstein to the discovery of SR. The title of his first SR paper
> was "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies." In this paper he
> generalized the observation of Lorentz and Poincare that Maxwell's
> theory holds under the Lorentz transformation.
>
> So EM was the first theory in physics to be consistent with SR. Do the
> deniers want to contest the validity of Maxwell's theory, once it was
> shown experimentally that no ether is required for it to work? A
> considerable industry has obviously grown up that relies on Maxwell to
> work.
>
> Uncle Ben
Actually this is incorrect. Maxwell and his contemporaries had a heck
of a time reconciling the em equations with Galilei's transforms since
the latter did not leave the former invariant. So, they had to wait
for Lorentz to recast Galilei relativity in the form of the transforms
that bear his name.
The first theory of relativity belonged to Galilei, the next valid one
to Lorentz 9and Poicaire) and the current one to Einstein, there is no
place for Maxwell.
Androcles
"Uncle Ben" <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4355b39b-26bb-462d...@q5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
| The deniers we know so well in this newsgroup are probably unaware
| that what they are denying about relativity theory includes physics
| that everybody knows and believes in and that they certainly cannot
| deny without appearing foolish.
|
The reason there is no length dilation is the ruler is at rest in its own
frame of reference!
-- signed Bonehead Green, babbling Doctor of Phrenology and American
Redneck of Science.
Everything is at rest in its own frame of reference, shithead!
mpc755
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
Dono.
>
>
> "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
> unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
STFU
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dono, what you say about Galileo is correct, I agree.
What I said was that Maxwell's theory is relativistically correct. I
didn't say that Maxwell understood that; he thought there was a
problem with his theory. It took Einstein to understand that Maxwell's
theory is relativistic; it was Galilean relativity that needed to be
upgraded to Lorentz .
Daryl McCullough
>The first theory of relativity belonged to Galilei, the next valid one
>to Lorentz 9and Poicaire) and the current one to Einstein, there is no
>place for Maxwell.
I don't think Ben was talking about theories of relativity, he was
talking about relativistic theories (that is, a theory whose form is
unchanged by a Lorentz transformation).
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Dono.
If you re-phrase it as in the above, it is correct. But this is not
how you phrased it initially, you need to be careful when you say
things like :
Uncle Ben
You can write what you want, but sign your own name to it.
You have no authority here. You claim to have a doctorate in
mathematics, and yet you exhibit ignorance of the most basic facts of
mathematics, such as, for example, that there is no smallest real
number greater than zero. This brands you as a liar.
Uncle Ben
Dono.
wrote:
If this is what he meant (and he just clarified it in his next post),
then it was improperly phrased. It is also incorrect, Newton's F=dp/dt
is just as unchanged by the Lorentz transforms. So are a lot of other
theories that preceded Maxwell. So, Maxwell's theory is neither the
first theory of relativity, nor the first relativistic (more
correctly, covariant) theory.
Androcles
Uncle Ben
===========================================
You have no authority. You claim to have a doctorate in physics, and
yet you exhibit ignorance of the most basic facts of physics, such as,
for example, that there is no definition of the "time" for light to go from
A to B equals the "time" it takes to go from B to A.
This brands you as an insane fuckwit.
I, on the other hand, am entitled to define h as the smallest non-zero
indivisible quantity as a mathematical entity and not a physical one.
xxein
> The deniers we know so well in this newsgroup are probably unaware
> that what they are denying about relativity theory includes physics
> that everybody knows and believes in and that they certainly cannot
> deny without appearing foolish.
>
> Uncle Ben
xxein: Stop right there.
We are not a comunity of lemmings. Why don't you leap off the cliff
and tell us where it got you?
kenseto
Maxwell's theory works well with the ether. In fact Maxwell himself derive his theory based on the existence of an ether.
>
> Uncle Ben
Vilas Tamhane
You must understand that we humans have only one institution that does
not tolerate skepticism. And that institution is religion. In what way
do you think a critical opinion in science is foolish? It is not
foolish even if it is wrong. In fact more the criticism better it is
for the theory.
Koobee Wublee
> The deniers we know so well in this newsgroup are probably unaware
> that what they are denying about relativity theory includes physics
> that everybody knows and believes in and that they certainly cannot
> deny without appearing foolish.
It is like a protestant among Catholics. To the Catholics, the
protestant is just foolish. <shrug>
> One can consider SR to be a meta-theory that suggests conditions on
> other theories if they are to be valid in the realm of matter at high
> velocities.
SR is based on the Lorentz transform which is purely mathematical in
nature. The Lorentz transform is a mathematical absurdity where it
actually does not agree with any experimentations. <shrug>
> Today we have relativistic mechanics that improves on
> Newtonian mechanics, relativistic quantum mechanics that won the Nobel
> Prize for Feynman and others, and relativistic gravitation (GR) that
> improves on Newtonian gravity theory, all of which have been supported
> by experiment and application and all of which have elicited
> skepticism and ridicule by the deniers.
The only claim to relativity is the observation of high-speed
particles relative to a laboratory frame. It is in fact
indistinguishable when the high-speed particles travel at a high speed
relative to the absolute frame of reference, and the laboratory
environment moves at a much lower speed relative to the same absolute
frame of reference. So, claiming relativity triumphant is just
jumping into conclusions. It is not science at all. It is all voodoo
shit. <shrug>
> But what was the very first relativistic theory in physics? The answer
> is -- (wait for it) -- Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. But,
> you may say, that came before relativity. Exactly so, and it was what
> let Einstein to the discovery of SR. The title of his first SR paper
> was "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies." In this paper he
> generalized the observation of Lorentz and Poincare that Maxwell's
> theory holds under the Lorentz transformation.
Your understanding of physics is totally fucked up to the maximum.
Maxwell’s equations clearly specify that light must propagate at a
unique and specific speed relative to the stationary background of a
medium identified as the Aether. <shrug>
> So EM was the first theory in physics to be consistent with SR. Do the
> deniers want to contest the validity of Maxwell's theory, once it was
> shown experimentally that no ether is required for it to work? A
> considerable industry has obviously grown up that relies on Maxwell to
> work.
Uncle Ben needs to go back to his comfortable cesspool of fermented
diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. The
moron can only then find comfort among nonsense and stupidities.
<shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> On Jul 9, 8:50 am, Uncle Ben wrote:
> > But what was the very first relativistic theory in physics? The answer
> > is -- (wait for it) -- Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. But,
> > you may say, that came before relativity. Exactly so, and it was what
> > let Einstein to the discovery of SR. The title of his first SR paper
> > was "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies." In this paper he
> > generalized the observation of Lorentz and Poincare that Maxwell's
> > theory holds under the Lorentz transformation.
>
> > So EM was the first theory in physics to be consistent with SR. Do the
> > deniers want to contest the validity of Maxwell's theory, once it was
> > shown experimentally that no ether is required for it to work? A
> > considerable industry has obviously grown up that relies on Maxwell to
> > work.
>
> Actually this is incorrect. Maxwell and his contemporaries had a heck
> of a time reconciling the em equations with Galilei's transforms since
> the latter did not leave the former invariant.
Yes, what the heck is going on? Why is a known Einstein Dingleberry
all of a sudden able to understand reality? <shrug>
> So, they had to wait
> for Lorentz to recast Galilei relativity in the form of the transforms
> that bear his name.
They did not wait. They knew very confidently that the Aether must
exist, and they stood by their convictions. That was what prompted
the MMX to prove so once and for all. Unfortunately, the Aether
proves to be more elusive than when the Galilean transform is applied
to the interpretations of the null results, and this is where the
confusion resides that is shared among the self-styled physicists in
the past 100 years. <shrug>
> The first theory of relativity belonged to Galilei,
Once again, this is absolutely correct. Galileo was the father of the
principle of relativity not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and
the liar. <shrug>
> the next valid one to Lorentz 9and Poicaire)
By turning Larmor’s transform (which supports the absolute frame of
reference) into the Lorentz transform (which supports the principle of
relativity) was exactly what Poincare had done. It was his mistake.
The mathematics in a more subtle sense becomes ever so self-
inconsistent. This does not mean all the transforms that satisfy the
null results of the MMX are self-consistent. <shrug>
> and the current one to Einstein,
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar had no place in the
development of relativity, for the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar was nothing but a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
> there is no place for Maxwell.
This statement is totally wrong, for Maxwell’s model of
electromagnetism whether it is valid or not is still capable of
explaining everything observed including high-speed particles.
<shrug>
Androcles
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:90654675-8b87-49fd...@p29g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 9, 6:50 am, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> The deniers we know so well in this newsgroup are probably unaware
> that what they are denying about relativity theory includes physics
> that everybody knows and believes in and that they certainly cannot
> deny without appearing foolish.
It is like a protestant among Catholics. To the Catholics, the
protestant is just foolish. <shrug>
============================
Agreed. But both protestants and catholics believe in the same
only one speed of light allowed and both are fucking idiots.
> One can consider SR to be a meta-theory that suggests conditions on
> other theories if they are to be valid in the realm of matter at high
> velocities.
SR is based on the Lorentz transform which is purely mathematical in
nature. The Lorentz transform is a mathematical absurdity where it
actually does not agree with any experimentations. <shrug>
===================================
Agreed.
> Today we have relativistic mechanics that improves on
> Newtonian mechanics, relativistic quantum mechanics that won the Nobel
> Prize for Feynman and others, and relativistic gravitation (GR) that
> improves on Newtonian gravity theory, all of which have been supported
> by experiment and application and all of which have elicited
> skepticism and ridicule by the deniers.
The only claim to relativity is the observation of high-speed
particles relative to a laboratory frame.
=========================================
That DISPROVES relativity.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Muons/Muons.htm
It is in fact
indistinguishable when the high-speed particles travel at a high speed
relative to the absolute frame of reference, and the laboratory
environment moves at a much lower speed relative to the same absolute
frame of reference. So, claiming relativity triumphant is just
jumping into conclusions. It is not science at all. It is all voodoo
shit. <shrug>
=============================================
Agreed.
> But what was the very first relativistic theory in physics? The answer
> is -- (wait for it) -- Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. But,
> you may say, that came before relativity. Exactly so, and it was what
> let Einstein to the discovery of SR. The title of his first SR paper
> was "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies." In this paper he
> generalized the observation of Lorentz and Poincare that Maxwell's
> theory holds under the Lorentz transformation.
Your understanding of physics is totally fucked up to the maximum.
Maxwell’s equations clearly specify that light must propagate at a
unique and specific speed relative to the stationary background of a
medium identified as the Aether. <shrug>
============================================
Which MMX shows is fucking nonsense. <shrug>
> So EM was the first theory in physics to be consistent with SR. Do the
> deniers want to contest the validity of Maxwell's theory, once it was
> shown experimentally that no ether is required for it to work? A
> considerable industry has obviously grown up that relies on Maxwell to
> work.
Uncle Ben needs to go back to his comfortable cesspool of fermented
diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. The
moron can only then find comfort among nonsense and stupidities.
<shrug>
============================================
Kinky Wobbly needs to go back to his comfortable cesspool of
fermented diarrhea of Maxwell the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar;
protestants and catholics are both fucking stupid.
Androcles
=============================================
Kinky Wobbly the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar had no place in the
development of electromagnetism, for the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar is nothing but a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
Inertial
news:86b51b0d-a455-447a...@r27g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
>
>You must understand that we humans have only one institution that does
>not tolerate skepticism. And that institution is religion. In what way
>do you think a critical opinion in science is foolish? It is not
>foolish even if it is wrong. In fact more the criticism better it is
>for the theory.
There is a difference between critical opinion and ignorance. You are
posting the latter.
Vilas Tamhane
Nice to learn it from you. Now will you please bestow on this ignorant
person the undeserved honor of reading your criticism of SR?
Inertial
Why do I need to criticise something that is self-consistent and consistent
with experiment/observation. SR is as good a theory as we have in physics.
If you have a valid criticism, please post it, and it will be read and
almost certainly refuted.
Vilas Tamhane
> "Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message
>
> news:e8cb361b-1e7c-48b4...@h38g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 10, 11:12 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message
>
> >>news:86b51b0d-a455-447a...@r27g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >You must understand that we humans have only one institution that does
> >> >not tolerate skepticism. And that institution is religion. In what way
> >> >do you think a critical opinion in science is foolish? It is not
> >> >foolish even if it is wrong. In fact more the criticism better it is
> >> >for the theory.
>
> >> There is a difference between critical opinion and ignorance. You are
> >> posting the latter.
>
> >Nice to learn it from you. Now will you please bestow on this ignorant
> >person the undeserved honor of reading your criticism of SR?
>
> Why do I need to criticise something that is self-consistent and consistent
> with experiment/observation. SR is as good a theory as we have in physics.
>
> If you have a valid criticism, please post it, and it will be read and
>
> - Show quoted text -
I know it will be refuted, the way advocate refutes the argument.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
to be greater than one?
I know; travelling "in" time.
Inertial
>On Jul 11, 5:01 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> > If you have a valid criticism, please post it, and it will be read and
> > almost certainly refuted.
Yes .. by logic and reason. That's how you refute something that is wrong.
So why do you persist, when you know you are wrong?
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, he did, and it was Einstein, Poincare and Lorentz that showed
that the ether was unnecessary.
Uncle Ben
Androcles
Yes, he did, and it was Einstein, Poincare and Lorentz that showed
that the ether was unnecessary.
Uncle Ben
==========================================
"Lorentz showed the aether was unnecessary" -- Lying Ignorant Bastard
Bonehead Green.