Re: Einstein relativity theory disproven by Electrical Engineer.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Oct 30, 9:46 am, Arend Lammertink wrote:

> Just recently, I have been able to disprove Einstein's relativity
> theory once and for all. It is based on a fundamental thinking error
> when formulating the Maxwell equations. Maxwell assumed the fields to
> be caused by matter, while we know matter and (particular) EM waves
> are one and the same thing. So, how can matter be the cause for the
> fields, if these same fields are causing the matter to exist? When
> you correct for that error, really the floor drops from underneath the
> whole relativity theory...
>
> Read more:http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/Ruins96YearsEinsteinRelativity

Excellent remarks. Thanks.

He thinks Maxwell did not make any mistakes. It was Ampere who made
the mistake, and we should not blame Ampere for that since he did not
know a lot about what we have discovered since his time. That is
another chapter of discussion. <shrug>

[Koobee Wublee]

On Oct 30, 3:58 pm, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:

> "Arend Lammertink" <lam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Just recently, I have been able to disprove Einstein's relativity
> > theory once and for all. It is based on a fundamental thinking error
> > when formulating the Maxwell equations. Maxwell assumed the fields to
> > be caused by matter, while we know matter and (particular) EM waves
> > are one and the same thing. So, how can matter be the cause for the
> > fields, if these same fields are causing the matter to exist? When
> > you correct for that error, really the floor drops from underneath the
> > whole relativity theory...
>

> Maxwell did not make any errors and he correctly modeled EM wave propagation
> including a case where EM waves propagate trough the vacuum of empty space
> for which he assigned artificial constant just to satisfy the math agreement
> with 'c' the speed of light which agrees with speed of radio waves generated
> by normal source like an antenna.

This is not true. Maxwell’s equations predict a medium for light to
propagate through at a constant speed relative to the stationary
background of this medium. In doing so, what is observed as empty
vacuum exists this illusive and still undetected medium that gives the
properties of the permeability and the permittivity in free space.
<shrug>

[admformeto]

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8aa98dc-053e-4f60...@z28g2000pro.googlegroups.com...

In geometry if you claim precise dimension you must have precise reference
points.
And just how does Maxwell manages to find the reference points of such
medium?

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

how about "electrons in various orbitals" in free space?

is there an absolute vacuum,
like Pascal thought, he had discovered?

how can one ascribe permeability & permitivity to "an" aether?

[admformeto]

"1treePetrifiedForestLane" <Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:70134a43-3e4d-4c03...@d37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

You can answer your questions yourself.
They are irrelevant as one cannot reference geometry of space without
matter.

[jim]

On Oct 31, 1:31 am, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message

You don't have to. Since the people who actually know how geometry
actually works, discovered infinite dimensional geometry for the
cranks in physics over a hundred years. Just like the people who
understand
numbers, discovered set theory, topology, Goedel's Theorems, and
Turing Machines.
Rather than just simply rediscovering logarithms forever.

[admformeto]

"jim" <retnu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c006bc6e-f31e-4e99...@f36g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

Are you one of those people?
If so, please explain how does one find reference points in empty space
using higher dimensions.
Better still, please explain how does one measure curved space.

[jim]

On Nov 1, 5:17 am, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:
> "jim" <retnuh2...@gmail.com> wrote in message

That's just the way it is. Since the people who actually
understand
the jerk curved space, discovered Dark Matter, rather than jerk
curved space.

[admformeto]

"jim" <retnu...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:f3911c8c-1fef-422a...@m19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

>> >> > This is not true. Maxwell�s equations predict a medium for light to

Well, I guess then you are not one of them...

[Rock Brentwood]

On Oct 30, 9:31 pm, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> > This is not true.  Maxwell’s equations predict a medium for light to
> > propagate through at a constant speed relative to the stationary
> > background of this medium.  In doing so, what is observed as empty
> > vacuum exists this illusive and still undetected medium that gives the
> > properties of the permeability and the permittivity in free space.
> > <shrug>
>
> In geometry if you claim precise dimension you must have precise reference
> points.
> And just how does Maxwell manages to find the reference points of such
> medium?

Not reference points, but reference velocity. Early on, he introduced
a reference velocity for the "stationary frame". Eventually, by the
time we get to the treatise, it got its own name, G; and generally
appears as the G vector (occasionally written just as v).

Since isotropy is not a boost-invariant property, then in an isotropic
frame one can generally define a unique "stationary" frame as the one
where the constitutive relations are isotropic. There is only one
occasion where the frame of isotropy is not unique -- only one
exception to the rule. That was the case found by Einstein. More on
that below.

The point of the title "on the electrodynamics of *moving bodies*" was
in fact to resolve the question of why every frame of references
appeared to be "stationary" (i.e. one where G = 0). The abstract of
Einstein's 1905 SR paper also makes mention of Maxwell's vector,
though not by name.

This is why the alphabet soup of letters, that Maxwell coined, now has
a gap where G used to be. The other Maxwell letters A, B, C, D, E, F,
G, I and J are still used (though C rarely so -- C was "total current"
= J + D_t; I somewhat rarely, we now use M for magnetization instead
of I).

Maxwell's constitutive law read D = KE. But his equation for E was E =
A_t + grad phi + G x B. Our E, nowadays, is defined by E = A_t + grad
phi. So, what Maxwell did -- when expressed in modern notation -- was
write the constitutive law D = K (E + G x B). His E is our E + G x B.

Maxwell's treatment of B and H was never fully resolved, and was
inconsistent (meaning both that (a) he changed his story from year to
year, from paper to paper and even from section to section in the
treatise and (b) he did the analysis of the transformation properties
wrong). On (b), Thomson corrected Maxwell's mistake on (b) and pointed
out that since H has to transform as H - (Delta v) x D under a change
in frame of reference by velocity Delta v, then the correct
constitutive law would NOT be anything like B = mu H, but B = mu (H -
G x D).

Hence, the Maxwell-Thomson account of the field would be that couched
in the constitutive laws
(1) D = epsilon (E + G x B)
(2) B = mu (H - G x D).
where K is rewritten in modern notation as epsilon.

The velocity G marks the motion of the "isotropic frame" -- the unique
frame of reference where the constitutive law becomes isotropic (D =
epsilon E, B = mu H).

Of necessity, in a Galilean-covariant theory, you have to write the
constitutive laws in this way in terms of a medium, since no in-vacuo
law is possible that produces a finite propagation speed (simply
because no finite speed is Galilei-invariant).

For that reason (and for an entirely separate, but much deeper reason
having to do with the self-force and self-energy problem), Maxwell
expressed doubt as to the existence of any such thing as a true honest-
to-goodness vacuum.

The passage over to Relativity does NOT eliminate G. You STILL have
the notion of an "isotropic frame" in any isotropic medium. Outer
space, it bears mentioning, is one such medium, since not even space
is a complete vacuum. (There is no such thing as an absolute vacuum).

The relativistic version of the Maxwell-Thomson relations are the
Einstein-Laub-Minkowski relations,
(3) D + a G x H = epsilon (E + G x B)
(4) B - a G x E = mu (H - G x D)
where a = (1/c)^2, and c is the invariant speed. In this setting, a
distinction is made between the in-medium speed of light V = 1/root(mu
epsilon) and the invariant speed that is often misnamed "the speed of
light".

You can solve these equations for (D, B) vs. (E, H) or for any of the
other modes; e.g. (E, H) in terms of (D, B); (B, E) in terms of (D, H)
or (D, H) in terms of (E, B).

One mode has a solution that remains regular as |G| -> c(!) ...
actually two of the modes do. One of the modes has a solution that
remains regular even as |G| goes ABOVE c (up to c/V^2). The other mode
is regular only up to |G| -> V.

If you go to a vacuum -- i.e. where mu epsilon = a -- then the vector
G will generally become "superfluous". It will generally be the case
that the equations above will be equivalent to their "stationary" (G =
0) forms:
(5) D = epsilon E
(6) B = mu H.

This can only occur if
* mu epsilon = a
* a > 0.

This is the one case where the frame of isotropy is no longer unique.

But it is also worth underscoring that these conditions are necessary
BUT NOT SUFFICIENT. That is, G does NOT necessarily become superfluous
-- not even for a relativistic vacuum. The one case where a vestige of
G remains is in the limit as |G| -> c and V -> c.

Ironically, that one exception is also the one case that provides the
answer to Einstein's question "what's it like to travel alongside a
light beam?"

[admformeto]

"Rock Brentwood" <federat...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1dd68bb0-2c4a-41fe...@a12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

> On Oct 30, 9:31 pm, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:
>> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > This is not true. Maxwell’s equations predict a medium for light to
>> > propagate through at a constant speed relative to the stationary
>> > background of this medium. In doing so, what is observed as empty
>> > vacuum exists this illusive and still undetected medium that gives the
>> > properties of the permeability and the permittivity in free space.
>> > <shrug>
>>
>> In geometry if you claim precise dimension you must have precise
>> reference
>> points.
>> And just how does Maxwell manages to find the reference points of such
>> medium?
>
> Not reference points, but reference velocity.

Reference velocity still needs reference points and how do you establish
reference points in vacuum?

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

he never answers me, so why should he answer
such a wordy thing?... but, yes, indeedy,
"there ain't no absolute vacuum,
what Pascal assumed he had found."

> Of necessity, in a Galilean-covariant theory, you have to write the
> constitutive laws in this way in terms of a medium, since no in-vacuo
> law is possible that produces a finite propagation speed (simply
> because no finite speed is Galilei-invariant).
>
> For that reason (and for an entirely separate, but much deeper reason
> having to do with the self-force and self-energy problem), Maxwell
> expressed doubt as to the existence of any such thing as a true honest-
> to-goodness vacuum.
>
> The passage over to Relativity does NOT eliminate G. You STILL have
> the notion of an "isotropic frame" in any isotropic medium. Outer
> space, it bears mentioning, is one such medium, since not even space
> is a complete vacuum. (There is no such thing as an absolute vacuum).
>
> The relativistic version of the Maxwell-Thomson relations are the
> Einstein-Laub-Minkowski relations,
> (3) D + a G x H = epsilon (E + G x B)
> (4) B - a G x E = mu (H - G x D)
> where a = (1/c)^2, and c is the invariant speed. In this setting, a
> distinction is made between the in-medium speed of light V = 1/root(mu
> epsilon) and the invariant speed that is often misnamed "the speed of
> light".

> Ironically, that one exception is also the one case that provides the
> answer to Einstein's question "what's it like to travel alongside a
> light beam?"

thus:
given that Sun reaches only about 23.5 degrees over the horizon,
at the poles, what is the angle of total reflection of water?

both Al Gore's, Junior and Senior, careers were funded
by Occidental Petroleum (Armand Hammer). Gore, Jr.,
was responsible for many of the problems of poor Bill Clinton,
partly because of a long-term policy of "co-presidency"
since H-Dubya finagled his way into the Reagan Admin., and
partly because of the *soto voce* organization known
as the Principals Cmte., which is the VP running the Cabinet
with his own "foreign intel" advisor, who was an awful Israeli hawk
under Gore, whenever the President is incapacited,
such as during the impeachment that Gore promoted (that
was when the al-Shifa plant was bombed, or
it was when Clinton was blamed for bombing Iraq,
after some fake story from the Bushwhackers;
see http://tarpley.net for the first edition of _The Unauth. Bio.
of GHWB_).

[jim]

On Nov 1, 8:11 am, Rock Brentwood <federation2...@netzero.com> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 9:31 pm, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:
>
> > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > This is not true.  Maxwell’s equations predict a medium for light to
> > > propagate through at a constant speed relative to the stationary
> > > background of this medium.  In doing so, what is observed as empty
> > > vacuum exists this illusive and still undetected medium that gives the
> > > properties of the permeability and the permittivity in free space.
> > > <shrug>
>
> > In geometry if you claim precise dimension you must have precise reference
> > points.
> > And just how does Maxwell manages to find the reference points of such
> > medium?
>
> Not reference points, but reference velocity. Early on, he introduced
> a reference velocity for the "stationary frame". Eventually, by the
> time we get to the treatise, it got its own name, G; and generally
> appears as the G vector (occasionally written just as v).

Well, since they had to modify Maxwell's equation about 1000 times
to make displacement current make any sense. What many can't still
understand is that by the time they got that done, the people who
know how constitutive things work had already discovered
radioactivity,
DSP, Goedel's Thereoms, Fractals, DNA, integrated circuits, and
Lasers.

[߃-- ¹¹]

This geometric arrangement disproves relativity, and has since the
1930's.

Kits are available, but not for the public, at the present time; but a
talented relativitist probably could construct one, and wonder how it
works.

http://community-2.webtv.net/SkyVessel/Coler/

߃--¹¹