Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #664370 > unrolled thread

The first postulate is a truism.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-19 17:37 +0000
    Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-20 12:06 +0300
      Re: The first postulate is a truism. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-20 11:43 +0200
      Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-20 18:55 +0000
        Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-21 13:19 +0300
          Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-21 21:14 +0000
            Re: The first postulate is a truism. Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-06-21 22:31 +0000
              Re: The first postulate is a truism. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-22 00:11 +0000
              Re: The first postulate is a truism. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-22 11:45 +0200
              Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 00:09 +0000
                Re: The first postulate is a truism. Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-06-23 13:47 +0000
            Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-22 12:43 +0300
              Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 21:25 +0000
                Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-24 12:36 +0300
          Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-22 13:25 +0200
            Re: The first postulate is a truism. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-22 13:50 +0000
            Re: The first postulate is a truism. Jerald Warszawski <raw@eazreizs.pl> - 2025-06-22 14:03 +0000
            Re: The first postulate is a truism. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-22 16:46 +0200
              Re: The first postulate is a truism. Walid Paradjanov <awload@wlv.ru> - 2025-06-22 16:07 +0000
            Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 03:21 +0000
              Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-23 11:13 +0300
              Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-23 19:20 +0200
                Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 21:52 +0000
                  Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-24 09:27 +0200
                  Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-24 12:38 +0300
            Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 21:09 +0000
              Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-24 12:42 +0300
                Re: The first postulate is a truism. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-24 19:59 +0200
              Re: The first postulate is a truism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-27 07:17 +0200
                Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-27 10:54 +0300
                  Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-27 12:51 +0200
                  Re: The first postulate is a truism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-28 18:22 +0200
                    Re: The first postulate is a truism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-28 19:18 +0200
                      Re: The first postulate is a truism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-29 06:20 +0200
                        Re: The first postulate is a truism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-29 10:03 +0200
                          Re: The first postulate is a truism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-30 14:15 +0200
                            Re: The first postulate is a truism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-30 17:31 +0200
                              Re: The first postulate is a truism. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-06-30 23:11 +0200
                                Re: The first postulate is a truism. Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-06-30 22:18 +0000
                              Re: The first postulate is a truism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-01 07:20 +0200
                              Re: The first postulate is a truism. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-01 09:39 +0000
                      Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-29 10:34 +0200
                        Re: The first postulate is a truism. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-01 09:42 +0000
                    Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-29 13:46 +0300
      Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-20 18:59 +0000
      Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-21 01:28 +0000
        Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-21 13:22 +0300
          Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-21 21:11 +0000
            Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-22 12:45 +0300
          Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 21:29 +0000
            Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-24 12:45 +0300
      Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-22 13:25 +0200
        Re: The first postulate is a truism. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-22 16:47 +0200
        Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 03:36 +0000
        Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 03:48 +0000
        Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 03:54 +0000
        Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-23 11:43 +0300
          Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 21:16 +0000
            Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-24 12:47 +0300
        Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 13:32 +0000
          Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-24 09:27 +0200
            Re: The first postulate is a truism. Jefforey Yoshimatsu <rymaoeo@msyhua.jp> - 2025-06-24 10:02 +0000
            Re: The first postulate is a truism. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-06-24 13:07 +0200
              Re: The first postulate is a truism. Otte Baigushev <aa@bigtghsoev.ru> - 2025-06-24 17:41 +0000
              Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-25 12:08 +0200
            Re: The first postulate is a truism. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-24 20:03 +0200
          Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-24 12:54 +0300
    Re: The first postulate is a truism. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-20 10:18 +0000

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#664492

On 2025-06-23 03:21:39 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

> On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Perplexity:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Statement of the First Postulate
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle
>>>>>> of relativity, states:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
>>>>>> reference."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "truism
>>>>>> /?tr?iz?m/  n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
>>>>>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
>>>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
>>>>> world.
>>> 
>>>> Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new
>>>> that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
>>> 
>>> I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
>>> 
>>> If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed
>>> otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
>>> common.
>> 
>> Indeed.
>> In particular Maxwell's equations were generally believed before 1905
>> to hold only in one prefered frame. (the rest frame of the aether)
>> 
>> Einstein's postulate applied to electromagnetism
>> was new and revolutionary, and seen as such at the time,
>> (by those who mattered)
>> 
>> Jan
> Jan, thank you for a steel man of the first postulate.
> 
> Was Einstein qualified to declare this for all of physics, or was he
> mainly acquainted with electromagnetism?

Einstein's "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" was specifically
about electromagnetism. The first postulate was already thought to
apply to all other physics known at the time. Much of what we know
now has been discovered later.

-- 
Mikko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664507

LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> > Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Perplexity:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Statement of the First Postulate
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle
> >>>>> of relativity, states:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
> >>>>> reference."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "truism
> >>>>> /?tr?iz?m/  n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
> >>>>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
> >>>>
> >>>> The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
> >>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
> >>>> world.
> >>
> >>> Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new
> >>> that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
> >>
> >> I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
> >>
> >> If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed
> >> otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
> >> common.
> >
> > Indeed.
> > In particular Maxwell's equations were generally believed before 1905
> > to hold only in one prefered frame. (the rest frame of the aether)
> >
> > Einstein's postulate applied to electromagnetism
> > was new and revolutionary, and seen as such at the time,
> > (by those who mattered)
> >
> > Jan
> Jan, thank you for a steel man of the first postulate.
> 
> Was Einstein qualified to declare this for all of physics, or was he
> mainly acquainted with electromagnetism?

Einstein was a generalist.

> So, before Einstein, electromagnetism was the only field of physics
> believed to not apply to all frames?

In 1900 there was Newtonian mechanics, and electromagnetism.
What other fields of theoretical physics do you see?

> Is there no other equation expressing a law of physics that is not true
> in every frame of reference?
> 
> The law of free fall (v=gt) is for one frame, and Newton's gravity
> formula (F= MG/r^2) for another.
> 
> Wouldn't the aether include all reference frames?

Certainly, but the aether was supposed to define a preferred frame.
(its rest frame, in which Maxwell's equations were valid)
So the problem was how to modify Maxwell's equations
to predict phenomena in other frames.
Different frames required different modifications,
with mutually contradictory views on 'aether dragging'.

Einstein solved all that once and for all,
by making electromagnetism frame-independent too,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664517

On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 17:20:59 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perplexity:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Statement of the First Postulate
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle
>>>>>>> of relativity, states:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
>>>>>>> reference."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "truism
>>>>>>> /?tr?iz?m/  n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
>>>>>>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
>>>>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
>>>>>> world.
>>>>
>>>>> Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new
>>>>> that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
>>>>
>>>> I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
>>>>
>>>> If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed
>>>> otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
>>>> common.
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>> In particular Maxwell's equations were generally believed before 1905
>>> to hold only in one prefered frame. (the rest frame of the aether)
>>>
>>> Einstein's postulate applied to electromagnetism
>>> was new and revolutionary, and seen as such at the time,
>>> (by those who mattered)
>>>
>>> Jan
>> Jan, thank you for a steel man of the first postulate.
>>
>> Was Einstein qualified to declare this for all of physics, or was he
>> mainly acquainted with electromagnetism?
>
> Einstein was a generalist.
>
>> So, before Einstein, electromagnetism was the only field of physics
>> believed to not apply to all frames?
>
> In 1900 there was Newtonian mechanics, and electromagnetism.
> What other fields of theoretical physics do you see?
>
>> Is there no other equation expressing a law of physics that is not true
>> in every frame of reference?
>>
>> The law of free fall (v=gt) is for one frame, and Newton's gravity
>> formula (F= MG/r^2) for another.
>>
>> Wouldn't the aether include all reference frames?
>
> Certainly, but the aether was supposed to define a preferred frame.
> (its rest frame, in which Maxwell's equations were valid)
> So the problem was how to modify Maxwell's equations
> to predict phenomena in other frames.
> Different frames required different modifications,
> with mutually contradictory views on 'aether dragging'.
>
> Einstein solved all that once and for all,
> by making electromagnetism frame-independent too,
>
> Jan
Then relativity still modifies equations of physics using different ones
for different irfs, making it frame-dependent.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664528

LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 17:20:59 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> > LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>
> >>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Perplexity:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Statement of the First Postulate
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle
> >>>>>>> of relativity, states:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
> >>>>>>> reference."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "truism
> >>>>>>> /?tr?iz?m/  n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
> >>>>>>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
> >>>>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
> >>>>>> world.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new
> >>>>> that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
> >>>>
> >>>> I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
> >>>>
> >>>> If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed
> >>>> otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
> >>>> common.
> >>>
> >>> Indeed.
> >>> In particular Maxwell's equations were generally believed before 1905
> >>> to hold only in one prefered frame. (the rest frame of the aether)
> >>>
> >>> Einstein's postulate applied to electromagnetism
> >>> was new and revolutionary, and seen as such at the time,
> >>> (by those who mattered)
> >>>
> >>> Jan
> >> Jan, thank you for a steel man of the first postulate.
> >>
> >> Was Einstein qualified to declare this for all of physics, or was he
> >> mainly acquainted with electromagnetism?
> >
> > Einstein was a generalist.
> >
> >> So, before Einstein, electromagnetism was the only field of physics
> >> believed to not apply to all frames?
> >
> > In 1900 there was Newtonian mechanics, and electromagnetism.
> > What other fields of theoretical physics do you see?
> >
> >> Is there no other equation expressing a law of physics that is not true
> >> in every frame of reference?
> >>
> >> The law of free fall (v=gt) is for one frame, and Newton's gravity
> >> formula (F= MG/r^2) for another.
> >>
> >> Wouldn't the aether include all reference frames?
> >
> > Certainly, but the aether was supposed to define a preferred frame.
> > (its rest frame, in which Maxwell's equations were valid)
> > So the problem was how to modify Maxwell's equations
> > to predict phenomena in other frames.
> > Different frames required different modifications,
> > with mutually contradictory views on 'aether dragging'.
> >
> > Einstein solved all that once and for all,
> > by making electromagnetism frame-independent too,
> >
> > Jan
> Then relativity still modifies equations of physics using different ones
> for different irfs, making it frame-dependent.

???

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664532

On 2025-06-23 21:52:05 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

> On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 17:20:59 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
>> LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Perplexity:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Statement of the First Postulate
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle
>>>>>>>> of relativity, states:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
>>>>>>>> reference."
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "truism
>>>>>>>> /?tr?iz?m/  n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
>>>>>>>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
>>>>>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
>>>>>>> world.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new
>>>>>> that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed
>>>>> otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
>>>>> common.
>>>> 
>>>> Indeed.
>>>> In particular Maxwell's equations were generally believed before 1905
>>>> to hold only in one prefered frame. (the rest frame of the aether)
>>>> 
>>>> Einstein's postulate applied to electromagnetism
>>>> was new and revolutionary, and seen as such at the time,
>>>> (by those who mattered)
>>>> 
>>>> Jan
>>> Jan, thank you for a steel man of the first postulate.
>>> 
>>> Was Einstein qualified to declare this for all of physics, or was he
>>> mainly acquainted with electromagnetism?
>> 
>> Einstein was a generalist.
>> 
>>> So, before Einstein, electromagnetism was the only field of physics
>>> believed to not apply to all frames?
>> 
>> In 1900 there was Newtonian mechanics, and electromagnetism.
>> What other fields of theoretical physics do you see?
>> 
>>> Is there no other equation expressing a law of physics that is not true
>>> in every frame of reference?
>>> 
>>> The law of free fall (v=gt) is for one frame, and Newton's gravity
>>> formula (F= MG/r^2) for another.
>>> 
>>> Wouldn't the aether include all reference frames?
>> 
>> Certainly, but the aether was supposed to define a preferred frame.
>> (its rest frame, in which Maxwell's equations were valid)
>> So the problem was how to modify Maxwell's equations
>> to predict phenomena in other frames.
>> Different frames required different modifications,
>> with mutually contradictory views on 'aether dragging'.
>> 
>> Einstein solved all that once and for all,
>> by making electromagnetism frame-independent too,
>> 
>> Jan

> Then relativity still modifies equations of physics using different ones
> for different irfs, making it frame-dependent.

That is strictly false.

-- 
Mikko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664513

On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
>
>> On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
>>>>
>>>>> Perplexity:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity
>>>>>
>>>>> Statement of the First Postulate
>>>>>
>>>>> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle
>>>>> of relativity, states:
>>>>>
>>>>> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
>>>>> reference."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "truism
>>>>> /?tr?iz?m/  n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
>>>>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
>>>>
>>>> The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
>>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
>>>> world.
>>
>>> Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new
>>> that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
>>
>> I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
>>
>> If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed
>> otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
>> common.
>
> Indeed.
> In particular Maxwell's equations were generally believed before 1905
> to hold only in one prefered frame. (the rest frame of the aether)
>
> Einstein's postulate applied to electromagnetism
> was new and revolutionary, and seen as such at the time,
> (by those who mattered)
>
> Jan
The laws of electromagnetism apply to all IRFs.
Maxwell's equations do not.
Therefore, Maxwell's equations are not laws of physics.

"AI Overview
Maxwell's Equations in Electromagnetism - GeeksforGeeks
Yes, Maxwell's equations are considered laws of physics. They are a set
of four fundamental equations that describe the behavior of electric and
magnetic fields, and how they are generated and influenced by charges
and currents. These equations are foundational to classical
electromagnetism and are used in various technologies like power
generation, electric motors, and wireless communication."



"How School Destroys Your Mind from the Very Beginning | Schopenhauer
Nietzsche Illich Gatto"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BMD5RZFFgs&list=WL&index=1&t=219s

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664533

On 2025-06-23 21:09:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

> On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Perplexity:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Statement of the First Postulate
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle
>>>>>> of relativity, states:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
>>>>>> reference."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "truism
>>>>>> /?tr?iz?m/  n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
>>>>>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
>>>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
>>>>> world.
>>> 
>>>> Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new
>>>> that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
>>> 
>>> I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
>>> 
>>> If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed
>>> otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
>>> common.
>> 
>> Indeed.
>> In particular Maxwell's equations were generally believed before 1905
>> to hold only in one prefered frame. (the rest frame of the aether)
>> 
>> Einstein's postulate applied to electromagnetism
>> was new and revolutionary, and seen as such at the time,
>> (by those who mattered)
>> 
>> Jan

> The laws of electromagnetism apply to all IRFs.
> Maxwell's equations do not.

Maxwell's equations apply equally to all inertial frames that are
related to each other with transformations of Poincaré group.

-- 
Mikko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664549

On 6/24/2025 11:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-06-23 21:09:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
> 
>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perplexity:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Statement of the First Postulate
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the 
>>>>>>> principle
>>>>>>> of relativity, states:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
>>>>>>> reference."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "truism
>>>>>>> /?tr?iz?m/  n. a statement that is obviously true and says 
>>>>>>> nothing new
>>>>>>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a 
>>>>>> world
>>>>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
>>>>>> world.
>>>>
>>>>> Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and 
>>>>> nothing new
>>>>> that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
>>>>
>>>> I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
>>>>
>>>> If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed
>>>> otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
>>>> common.
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>> In particular Maxwell's equations were generally believed before 1905
>>> to hold only in one prefered frame. (the rest frame of the aether)
>>>
>>> Einstein's postulate applied to electromagnetism
>>> was new and revolutionary, and seen as such at the time,
>>> (by those who mattered)
>>>
>>> Jan
> 
>> The laws of electromagnetism apply to all IRFs.
>> Maxwell's equations do not.
> 
> Maxwell's equations apply equally to all inertial frames that are

Sure, sure, they apply equally to all 0
inertial frames.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664580

Am Montag000023, 23.06.2025 um 23:09 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:
...
>> Jan
> The laws of electromagnetism apply to all IRFs.
> Maxwell's equations do not.
> Therefore, Maxwell's equations are not laws of physics.
> 
> "AI Overview
> Maxwell's Equations in Electromagnetism - GeeksforGeeks
> Yes, Maxwell's equations are considered laws of physics. They are a set
> of four fundamental equations that describe the behavior of electric and
> magnetic fields, and how they are generated and influenced by charges
> and currents. These equations are foundational to classical
> electromagnetism and are used in various technologies like power
> generation, electric motors, and wireless communication."
> 

Actually this isn't true, because those four equations didn't stem from 
Maxwell, but from Oliver Heaviside.

It is really important, that Maxwell himself was an 'aetherist' and 
wanted to use quaternions.

Maxwell himself wrote 20 quaternion equations, which were crippled to 
the current four equations by Gibbs and Heaviside.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664595

On 2025-06-27 05:17:14 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am Montag000023, 23.06.2025 um 23:09 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:
> ...
>>> Jan
>> The laws of electromagnetism apply to all IRFs.
>> Maxwell's equations do not.
>> Therefore, Maxwell's equations are not laws of physics.
>> 
>> "AI Overview
>> Maxwell's Equations in Electromagnetism - GeeksforGeeks
>> Yes, Maxwell's equations are considered laws of physics. They are a set
>> of four fundamental equations that describe the behavior of electric and
>> magnetic fields, and how they are generated and influenced by charges
>> and currents. These equations are foundational to classical
>> electromagnetism and are used in various technologies like power
>> generation, electric motors, and wireless communication."
> 
> Actually this isn't true, because those four equations didn't stem from 
> Maxwell, but from Oliver Heaviside.

It is true. Regardless of the origin, "Maxwell's equations" is the
Common Language name of that set of equations.

Heaviside got the equations from Maxwell. Heaviside just identified the
most important equations among all that Maxwell had presented. In addition
Heaviside invented vectors and demonstrated that using vectors those (and
other) equations could be written in a simpler form.

> It is really important, that Maxwell himself was an 'aetherist' and 
> wanted to use quaternions.

Hamilton's quaternions had a vector part and a scalar part. But Haviside
found that the vector part alone is useful, and that vectors and scalars
can be used together without combining them into quaternions.

> Maxwell himself wrote 20 quaternion equations, which were crippled to 
> the current four equations by Gibbs and Heaviside.

Much of the rest of 20 quaternion equations are still used. They just
are written and organized differently, and are not considered as fundamental
as those known as Maxwell's equations.

-- 
Mikko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664598

Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

> On 2025-06-27 05:17:14 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
> 
> > Am Montag000023, 23.06.2025 um 23:09 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:
> > ...
> >>> Jan
> >> The laws of electromagnetism apply to all IRFs.
> >> Maxwell's equations do not.
> >> Therefore, Maxwell's equations are not laws of physics.
> >> 
> >> "AI Overview
> >> Maxwell's Equations in Electromagnetism - GeeksforGeeks
> >> Yes, Maxwell's equations are considered laws of physics. They are a set
> >> of four fundamental equations that describe the behavior of electric and
> >> magnetic fields, and how they are generated and influenced by charges
> >> and currents. These equations are foundational to classical
> >> electromagnetism and are used in various technologies like power
> >> generation, electric motors, and wireless communication."
> > 
> > Actually this isn't true, because those four equations didn't stem from
> > Maxwell, but from Oliver Heaviside.
> 
> It is true. Regardless of the origin, "Maxwell's equations" is the
> Common Language name of that set of equations.

Yes, whatever form they are written in.

> Heaviside got the equations from Maxwell. Heaviside just identified the
> most important equations among all that Maxwell had presented. In addition
> Heaviside invented vectors and demonstrated that using vectors those (and
> other) equations could be written in a simpler form.

And with Lorentz, also the best system of units for them,
to give them the simplest possible form.
(generally known as Heaviside-Lorentz units)
Apart from naturally setting c equal to one also.

> > It is really important, that Maxwell himself was an 'aetherist' and
> > wanted to use quaternions.
> 
> Hamilton's quaternions had a vector part and a scalar part. But Haviside
> found that the vector part alone is useful, and that vectors and scalars
> can be used together without combining them into quaternions.

Indeed, it is 4-scalars, 4-vectors and tensors that we need,
not scalar parts of quaternions.

> > Maxwell himself wrote 20 quaternion equations, which were crippled to
> > the current four equations by Gibbs and Heaviside.
> 
> Much of the rest of 20 quaternion equations are still used. They just
> are written and organized differently, and are not considered as fundamental
> as those known as Maxwell's equations.

Only Maxwell's equations in vacuum are fundamental.
If matter is present its behaviour in the fields
should be derived from first principles, not postulated,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664637

Am Freitag000027, 27.06.2025 um 09:54 schrieb Mikko:

>>> The laws of electromagnetism apply to all IRFs.
>>> Maxwell's equations do not.
>>> Therefore, Maxwell's equations are not laws of physics.
>>>
>>> "AI Overview
>>> Maxwell's Equations in Electromagnetism - GeeksforGeeks
>>> Yes, Maxwell's equations are considered laws of physics. They are a set
>>> of four fundamental equations that describe the behavior of electric and
>>> magnetic fields, and how they are generated and influenced by charges
>>> and currents. These equations are foundational to classical
>>> electromagnetism and are used in various technologies like power
>>> generation, electric motors, and wireless communication."
>>
>> Actually this isn't true, because those four equations didn't stem 
>> from Maxwell, but from Oliver Heaviside.
> 
> It is true. Regardless of the origin, "Maxwell's equations" is the
> Common Language name of that set of equations.
> 
> Heaviside got the equations from Maxwell. Heaviside just identified the
> most important equations among all that Maxwell had presented. In addition
> Heaviside invented vectors and demonstrated that using vectors those (and
> other) equations could be written in a simpler form.

Well, that's what you think.

For me it seems, that Heaviside and Gibbs were 'con-artists' and wanted 
to divert physics from true science.
...


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664645

On 2025-06-28 16:22:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> 
> [ … ]

> 
> Well, that's what you think.
> 
> For me it seems, that Heaviside and Gibbs were 'con-artists' and wanted 
> to divert physics from true science.
> ...

I don't know enough about Heaviside to comment on what you say about 
him (though my guess is that it's complete bollocks to rival the 
complete bollocks that you write on other subjects). For Gibbs, 
however, it's clear that you don't know the first thing about Gibbs's 
character. A good place to start would be the Wikiparticle on Gibbs, 
but there is plenty to be learned from other sources.


-- 
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664666

Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 19:18 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> On 2025-06-28 16:22:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
> 
>>
>> [ … ]
> 
>>
>> Well, that's what you think.
>>
>> For me it seems, that Heaviside and Gibbs were 'con-artists' and 
>> wanted to divert physics from true science.
>> ...
> 
> I don't know enough about Heaviside to comment on what you say about him 
> (though my guess is that it's complete bollocks to rival the complete 
> bollocks that you write on other subjects). For Gibbs, however, it's 
> clear that you don't know the first thing about Gibbs's character. A 
> good place to start would be the Wikiparticle on Gibbs, but there is 
> plenty to be learned from other sources.
> 

My guess was, that Gibbs and Heaviside cooperated in the attempt to 
eliminate quaternions.

My guess was, that they knew, that nature would require something like 
quaternions and complex numbers, but wanted to divert mankind from good 
science.

Iow: they knew better science than what they told to the general public, 
but didn't want that general public to interfere with their hidden 
knowledge.

So the extremely stupid concept of additive connections between 'forces' 
was introduced and that was meant to eliminate ideas about 'ether', too.

People like Tait and Hertz rejected this concept, but were simply 
overrun by the vector hype, which is still the dominant paradigm.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664675

On 2025-06-29 04:20:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 19:18 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>> On 2025-06-28 16:22:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>> 
>>> 
>>> [ … ]
>> 
>>> 
>>> Well, that's what you think.
>>> 
>>> For me it seems, that Heaviside and Gibbs were 'con-artists' and wanted 
>>> to divert physics from true science.
>>> ...
>> 
>> I don't know enough about Heaviside to comment on what you say about 
>> him (though my guess is that it's complete bollocks to rival the 
>> complete bollocks that you write on other subjects). For Gibbs, 
>> however, it's clear that you don't know the first thing about Gibbs's 
>> character. A good place to start would be the Wikiparticle on Gibbs, 
>> but there is plenty to be learned from other sources.
>> 
> 
> My guess was, that Gibbs and Heaviside cooperated in the attempt to 
> eliminate quaternions.

Instead of guessing, why not try to find out?
> 
> My guess was, that they knew, that nature would require something like 
> quaternions and complex numbers, but wanted to divert mankind from good 
> science.

Instead of guessing, why not try to find out?
> 
> Iow: they knew better science than what they told to the general 
> public, but didn't want that general public to interfere with their 
> hidden knowledge.

Gibbs didn't address the general public.
> 
> So the extremely stupid concept of additive connections between 
> 'forces' was introduced and that was meant to eliminate ideas about 
> 'ether', too.
> 
> People like Tait and Hertz rejected this concept, but were simply 
> overrun by the vector hype, which is still the dominant paradigm.
> 
> 
> TH


-- 
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 38 years; mainly 
in England until 1987.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664707

Am Sonntag000029, 29.06.2025 um 10:03 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> On 2025-06-29 04:20:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
> 
>> Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 19:18 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>> On 2025-06-28 16:22:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> [ … ]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, that's what you think.
>>>>
>>>> For me it seems, that Heaviside and Gibbs were 'con-artists' and 
>>>> wanted to divert physics from true science.
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> I don't know enough about Heaviside to comment on what you say about 
>>> him (though my guess is that it's complete bollocks to rival the 
>>> complete bollocks that you write on other subjects). For Gibbs, 
>>> however, it's clear that you don't know the first thing about Gibbs's 
>>> character. A good place to start would be the Wikiparticle on Gibbs, 
>>> but there is plenty to be learned from other sources.
>>>
>>
>> My guess was, that Gibbs and Heaviside cooperated in the attempt to 
>> eliminate quaternions.
> 
> Instead of guessing, why not try to find out?

Conspiracies are necessarily a secret.

So you cannot evaluate your guesses that easily.

But in my case I was also hindered by 'late birth'.
...


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664713

On 2025-06-30 12:15:05 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am Sonntag000029, 29.06.2025 um 10:03 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>> On 2025-06-29 04:20:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>> 
>>> Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 19:18 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>>> On 2025-06-28 16:22:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> [ … ]
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well, that's what you think.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For me it seems, that Heaviside and Gibbs were 'con-artists' and wanted 
>>>>> to divert physics from true science.
>>>>> ...
>>>> 
>>>> I don't know enough about Heaviside to comment on what you say about 
>>>> him (though my guess is that it's complete bollocks to rival the 
>>>> complete bollocks that you write on other subjects). For Gibbs, 
>>>> however, it's clear that you don't know the first thing about Gibbs's 
>>>> character. A good place to start would be the Wikiparticle on Gibbs, 
>>>> but there is plenty to be learned from other sources.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> My guess was, that Gibbs and Heaviside cooperated in the attempt to 
>>> eliminate quaternions.
>> 
>> Instead of guessing, why not try to find out?
> 
> Conspiracies are necessarily a secret.
> 
> So you cannot evaluate your guesses that easily.
> 
> But in my case I was also hindered by 'late birth'.
> ...

My guess is that "Thomas Heger" is a made-up name for someone working 
for Vladimir Putin to gather information about people posting to this 
group. My evidence for this? None whatsoever, but what does that matter?



-- 
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 38 years; mainly 
in England until 1987.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664720

On 30/06/2025 17:31, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2025-06-30 12:15:05 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
> 
> My guess is that "Thomas Heger" is a made-up name for someone working 
> for Vladimir Putin to gather information about people posting to this 
> group. My evidence for this? None whatsoever, but what does that matter?

Spammers and co-spammers: it's indeed time you too go fuck yourself.

*Plonk*

-Julio

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664721

Le 30/06/2025 à 23:11, Julio Di Egidio a écrit :
..
> *Plonk*

You still don't get wht "plonk" means, stronzo ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664736

Am Montag000030, 30.06.2025 um 17:31 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> On 2025-06-30 12:15:05 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
> 
>> Am Sonntag000029, 29.06.2025 um 10:03 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>> On 2025-06-29 04:20:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>
>>>> Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 19:18 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>>>> On 2025-06-28 16:22:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ … ]
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, that's what you think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For me it seems, that Heaviside and Gibbs were 'con-artists' and 
>>>>>> wanted to divert physics from true science.
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know enough about Heaviside to comment on what you say 
>>>>> about him (though my guess is that it's complete bollocks to rival 
>>>>> the complete bollocks that you write on other subjects). For Gibbs, 
>>>>> however, it's clear that you don't know the first thing about 
>>>>> Gibbs's character. A good place to start would be the Wikiparticle 
>>>>> on Gibbs, but there is plenty to be learned from other sources.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My guess was, that Gibbs and Heaviside cooperated in the attempt to 
>>>> eliminate quaternions.
>>>
>>> Instead of guessing, why not try to find out?
>>
>> Conspiracies are necessarily a secret.
>>
>> So you cannot evaluate your guesses that easily.
>>
>> But in my case I was also hindered by 'late birth'.
>> ...
> 
> My guess is that "Thomas Heger" is a made-up name for someone working 
> for Vladimir Putin to gather information about people posting to this 
> group. My evidence for this? None whatsoever, but what does that matter?
> 

I could easily prove, that my real name is really 'Thomas Heger' and 
that I live in Berlin, Germany and do not work for Putin or Russia in 
any way.

I'm actually participating in UseNet discussions much langer than Putin 
is president of Russia, but mainly in other topics than physics.

But somehow I don't want to provide any proof about my identity, because 
real names in UseNet-groups are already rare.

Therefore, you may think whatever you like, but should take my word, 
that I'm not a Russian agent.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web