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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #476046 > unrolled thread

E=mc2

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

Contents

  E=mc2 Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 14:43 -0700
    Re: E=mc2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 22:55 +0000
    E=mc2 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-01 16:04 -0700
      Re: E=mc2 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-02 09:21 -0700
        Re: E=mc2 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-02 09:52 -0700
          Re: E=mc2 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-02 15:28 -0700
    Re: E=mc2 Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 17:53 -0700
      Re: E=mc2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 01:02 +0000
      Re: E=mc2 Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-02 18:43 +0100
        Re: E=mc2 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-02 11:21 -0700
    Re: E=mc2 Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-11-02 13:35 +1100
      Re: E=mc2 mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-01 21:43 -0700
      Re: E=mc2 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-11-01 23:09 -0700
      Re: E=mc2 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-02 01:33 -0700
      Re: E=mc2 Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> - 2018-11-04 12:34 +0000
        Re: E=mc2 Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-04 14:20 +0100
          Re: E=mc2 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-04 05:51 -0800
          Re: E=mc2 Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> - 2018-11-05 20:51 +0000
            Re: E=mc2 Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-11-06 10:57 +1100
              Re: E=mc2 Ntowicz Usarczyk <iswso@wioioksi.io> - 2018-11-06 20:21 +0000
                Re: E=mc2 Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-11-07 08:57 +1100
                  Re: E=mc2 Ntowicz Usarczyk <iswso@wioioksi.io> - 2018-11-07 19:35 +0000
                    Re: E=mc2 Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-11-08 09:32 +1100
                      Re: E=mc2 Gaston Castaneda <agn@j2awdos.nc> - 2018-11-08 21:13 +0000
                        Re: E=mc2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-08 22:26 +0100
                          Re: E=mc2 Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@j2adosw.nv> - 2018-11-09 19:46 +0000
                            Re: E=mc2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-10 02:47 +0100
                Re: E=mc2 Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-07 00:13 +0100
                  Re: E=mc2 Ntowicz Usarczyk <iswso@wioioksi.io> - 2018-11-07 19:38 +0000
        Re: E=mc2 benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 13:17 -0500
          Re: E=mc2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-04 20:01 +0100
            Re: E=mc2 benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 14:38 -0500
              Re: E=mc2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-04 20:53 +0100
                Re: E=mc2 benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 18:01 -0500
                  Re: E=mc2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-05 01:58 +0100
                    Re: E=mc2 benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 22:59 -0500
                      Re: E=mc2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-05 05:39 +0100
                    Re: E=mc2 Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-05 07:54 +0100
                      Re: E=mc2 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-05 22:33 -0600
                        Re: E=mc2 Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-06 06:27 +0100
                        Re: E=mc2 Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-06 06:28 +0100
                    Re: E=mc2 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-04 23:28 -0800
              Re: E=mc2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 22:14 +0000
                Re: E=mc2 benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 18:05 -0500
                  Re: E=mc2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-05 02:02 +0100
                    Re: E=mc2 benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 22:59 -0500
                      Re: E=mc2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-05 05:51 +0100
                  Re: E=mc2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 03:00 +0000
                    Re: E=mc2 benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 23:15 -0500
                      Re: E=mc2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 12:59 +0000
            Re: E=mc2 Buck Dehner <uktea@yswdoiz.cp> - 2018-11-05 21:00 +0000
              Re: E=mc2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-13 15:38 +0100
                Re: E=mc2 Gaston Castaneda <uucp@jav4ow.nq> - 2018-11-13 20:22 +0000
                  Re: E=mc2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-13 23:09 +0100
                    Re: E=mc2 Shon Wible <shwn@shouwe.wh> - 2018-11-14 15:53 +0000
          Re: E=mc2 Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> - 2018-11-05 20:54 +0000
          Re: E=mc2 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 22:35 -0800
          Re: E=mc2 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 22:44 -0800
            Re: E=mc2 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-08 06:34 -0800
        Re: E=mc2 Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-11-05 12:21 +1100
          Re: E=mc2 benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 23:12 -0500
            Re: E=mc2 Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-11-05 16:30 +1100
    Re: E=mc2 Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 16:48 -0700
      Re: E=mc2 mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-02 19:07 -0700
      Re: E=mc2 Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-08 08:48 +0100

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

#476449

On 7/11/2018 7:21 am, Ntowicz Usarczyk wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 10:57:46 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
>> On 6/11/2018 7:51 am, Buck Dehner wrote:
>>> Libor Striz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> Wrote in message:
>>>>> Negative. E=mc² is invalid from head to tail. Based entirely on
>>>>> circular reasoning and assumed assertions. When you can prove that
>>>>> E=/=mc³ or that E=/=mc^1.6 wake me up.
>>>>
>>>> Simple dimensional analysis tells the exponent 2 is the  only one
>>>>    possible. As only mc^2 has dimension of energy.
>>>
>>> The issue is rather quantitative, please reread, my polish friend. You
>>> can put anything there squared, including c which is no more than a
>>> constant.
>>
>> But this only works if the exponent of c is two. For any other exponent,
>> the outcome will depend on whether we convert the inputs to the
>> equation, or convert the result.
> 
> Come on, and that thing must be true because it only works with a power of
> two down there. Du you think we are stupid? That's why the "energy" is
> still ill defined, right now as we speech.
> 

You dishonestly snipped this part:

In summary, a dimensionally consistent equation is not necessarily 
right, but a dimensionally inconsistent equation is definitely wrong.

The equation with an exponent of two is not necessarily right - it still 
has to be verified by experiment. But the equation with any other 
exponent is definitely wrong, and attempts at experimental verification 
are doomed to failure.

Sylvia.

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

#476513

On Wed, 07 Nov 2018 08:57:17 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

>>> But this only works if the exponent of c is two. For any other
>>> exponent,
>>> the outcome will depend on whether we convert the inputs to the
>>> equation, or convert the result.
>> 
>> Come on, and that thing must be true because it only works with a power
>> of two down there. Du you think we are stupid? That's why the "energy"
>> is still ill defined, right now as we speech.
>> 
>> 
> You dishonestly snipped this part: 
> In summary, a dimensionally consistent equation is not necessarily
> right, but a dimensionally inconsistent equation is definitely wrong.

Not me. You are the one not addressing the issue. You can put anything 
squared inthere, since it is this what you want. Even the speed of a 
turtle. But as said by Dr. Buck, the question is rather quantitative.

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

#476524

On 8/11/2018 6:35 am, Ntowicz Usarczyk wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2018 08:57:17 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
>>>> But this only works if the exponent of c is two. For any other
>>>> exponent,
>>>> the outcome will depend on whether we convert the inputs to the
>>>> equation, or convert the result.
>>>
>>> Come on, and that thing must be true because it only works with a power
>>> of two down there. Du you think we are stupid? That's why the "energy"
>>> is still ill defined, right now as we speech.
>>>
>>>
>> You dishonestly snipped this part:
>> In summary, a dimensionally consistent equation is not necessarily
>> right, but a dimensionally inconsistent equation is definitely wrong.
> 
> Not me. You are the one not addressing the issue. You can put anything
> squared inthere, since it is this what you want. Even the speed of a
> turtle. But as said by Dr. Buck, the question is rather quantitative.
> 

Anything else squared won't produce results that fit observations, which 
is the required test.

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

#476593

Sylvia Else wrote:

> On 8/11/2018 6:35 am, Ntowicz Usarczyk wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2018 08:57:17 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> 
>>>>> But this only works if the exponent of c is two. For any other
>>>>> exponent,
>>>>> the outcome will depend on whether we convert the inputs to the
>>>>> equation, or convert the result.
>>>>
>>>> Come on, and that thing must be true because it only works with a
>>>> power of two down there. Du you think we are stupid? That's why the
>>>> "energy"
>>>> is still ill defined, right now as we speech.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You dishonestly snipped this part:
>>> In summary, a dimensionally consistent equation is not necessarily
>>> right, but a dimensionally inconsistent equation is definitely wrong.
>> 
>> Not me. You are the one not addressing the issue. You can put anything
>> squared inthere, since it is this what you want. Even the speed of a
>> turtle. But as said by Dr. Buck, the question is rather quantitative.
>
> Anything else squared won't produce results that fit observations, which
> is the required test.

Nonsense, there are no such observations nor instruments.

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

#476594

The ’nym-shifting troll demonstrated their ignorance as "Gaston Castaneda"
<agn@j2awdos.nc> (invalid second-level domain):

> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> [The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as] "Ntowicz Usarczyk" […]:
>>> Not me. You are the one not addressing the issue. You can put anything
>>> squared inthere, since it is this what you want. Even the speed of a
>>> turtle. But as said by Dr. Buck, the question is rather quantitative.
>>
>> Anything else squared won't produce results that fit observations, which
>> is the required test.
>  
> Nonsense, there are no such observations nor instruments.

Real-world examples where E₀ = m c² applies (nuclear fission and fusion,
where the latter is well-confirmed to happen in the Sun and, unfortunately,
also makes the ’nym-shifting troll’s existence possible) have already been
been mentioned.

The ’nym-shifting troll does not know anything and cannot read to fix that
problem of theirs.  Hopeless case.

*PLONK*

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#476665

the memory system alterable Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> Nonsense, there are no such observations nor instruments.
> 
> Real-world examples where E₀ = m c² applies (nuclear fission and fusion,
> where the latter is well-confirmed to happen in the Sun and,
> unfortunately, also makes the ’nym-shifting troll’s existence possible)
> have already been been mentioned.
> The ’nym-shifting troll does not know anything and cannot read to fix
> that problem of theirs.  Hopeless case. *PLONK*

Only an idiot would reply to the posts he pretends not reading.

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

#476687

The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Gaston Castaneda" <ucpp@j2adosw.nv>
                                                                    ^^
(different "address", invalid TLD):

> the memory system alterable Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Nonsense, there are no such observations nor instruments.
>>
>> Real-world examples where E₀ = m c² applies (nuclear fission and fusion,
>> where the latter is well-confirmed to happen in the Sun and,
>> unfortunately, also makes the ’nym-shifting troll’s existence possible)
>> have already been been mentioned.
>> The ’nym-shifting troll does not know anything and cannot read to fix
>> that problem of theirs.  Hopeless case. *PLONK*
> 
> Only an idiot would reply to the posts he pretends not reading.

The ’nym-shifting troll has just provided an accurate assessment of themselves.

*PLONK*

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#476454

Ntowicz Usarczyk <iswso@wioioksi.io> Wrote in message:
> Come on, and that thing must be true because it only works with a power of two down there. Du you think we are stupid? That's why the "energy" is still ill defined, right now as we speech.

Your nymshifting trolling patterns
became boring long time ago...

Get yourself a real life.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#476514

On Wed, 07 Nov 2018 00:13:32 +0100, Libor Striz wrote:

> Ntowicz Usarczyk <iswso@wioioksi.io> Wrote in message:
>> Come on, and that thing must be true because it only works with a power
>> of two down there. Du you think we are stupid? That's why the "energy"
>> is still ill defined, right now as we speech.
> 
> Your nymshifting trolling patterns became boring long time ago...
> Get yourself a real life.

You are a rude and terrible person, having an obsession with that 
"nymshifting trolling patterns". I don't even know what it is. We are 
talking physics inhere. Go away, troll.

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

#476232

On 11/4/2018 7:34 AM, Buck Dehner wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
>> On 2/11/2018 8:43 am, Omar Shabsigh wrote:
>>>    I was not convinced by the derivation of this formula whether by
>>>    Einstein or others. HELP!!!!!!
>>>
>>>
>> You haven't provided much information. You might have an issue with the
>> postulates or with the algebra. Or you might just have a philosophical
>> objection that is incapable of being addressed by any kind of argument.
>> It is generally accepted that the algebra is correct, and the resulting
>> formula fits experimental results.
> 
> Negative. E=mc² is invalid from head to tail. Based entirely on circular
> reasoning and assumed assertions. When you can prove that E=/=mc³ or that
> E=/=mc^1.6 wake me up.
> 
Wake up dumbass. You can prove E=mc² from Maxwell's equations. Exponent 
is squared.

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

#476236

benj wrote:

> Wake up dumbass. You can prove E=mc² from Maxwell's equations.

No, but you can be _deduced_ from that, assuming that the special principle
of relativity holds.  That is precisely what Einstein did in his second
(“annus mirabilis”) 1905 paper on what became special relativity, “Does the
Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?”:

<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/186>

Later, in 1929, Paul Dirac showed that it – and more generally, the
energy–momentum relation – can be derived from the properties of flat
spacetime alone:

With

    p⃗    = γ m v⃗ = γ m (v_x, v_y, v_z)
    P⃗    = (E/c, p⃗) = γ m (c, v⃗)
  ||P⃗||² = (E/c)² − p⃗² = m²c²

one finds

  E² = m²c⁴ + p⃗²c²

which gives for the *rest* energy (when v⃗ = 0)

  E₀ = m c².

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation>

> Exponent is squared.

Correct.

However, previously you have claimed the opposite of what follows from
Maxwell’s equations, namely that the isotropy of the speed of light would
merely be an assumption (instead of an experimental fact).

While it follows from Maxwell’s equations that which is an experimental
fact, namely that the speed of light c is isotropic as it only depends on
the electromagnetic properties of the medium through which (Maxwell’s)
electromagnetic waves, such as light, travel:

  c = 1/√(ε₀ ε_r µ₀ µ_r).

So, are you retracting that claim?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#476239

On 11/4/2018 2:01 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> benj wrote:
> 
>> Wake up dumbass. You can prove E=mc² from Maxwell's equations.
> 
> No, but you can be _deduced_ from that, assuming that the special principle
> of relativity holds.  That is precisely what Einstein did in his second
> (“annus mirabilis”) 1905 paper on what became special relativity, “Does the
> Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?”:
> 
> <https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/186>
> 
> Later, in 1929, Paul Dirac showed that it – and more generally, the
> energy–momentum relation – can be derived from the properties of flat
> spacetime alone:
> 
> With
> 
>      p⃗    = γ m v⃗ = γ m (v_x, v_y, v_z)
>      P⃗    = (E/c, p⃗) = γ m (c, v⃗)
>    ||P⃗||² = (E/c)² − p⃗² = m²c²
> 
> one finds
> 
>    E² = m²c⁴ + p⃗²c²
> 
> which gives for the *rest* energy (when v⃗ = 0)
> 
>    E₀ = m c².
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation>
> 
>> Exponent is squared.
> 
> Correct.
> 
> However, previously you have claimed the opposite of what follows from
> Maxwell’s equations, namely that the isotropy of the speed of light would
> merely be an assumption (instead of an experimental fact).

The Constancy of the speed of light was an assumption made by Einstein 
to develop special relativity.

> While it follows from Maxwell’s equations that which is an experimental
> fact, namely that the speed of light c is isotropic as it only depends on
> the electromagnetic properties of the medium through which (Maxwell’s)
> electromagnetic waves, such as light, travel:
> 
>    c = 1/√(ε₀ ε_r µ₀ µ_r).
> 
> So, are you retracting that claim?

However "[one can] develop relativistic electromagnetism solely on the 
basis of electromagnetic retardation and the principle of [Galilean] 
relativity without any additional postulates, hypotheses, or conjectures."

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

#476242

benj wrote:
> The Constancy of the speed of light was an assumption made by Einstein 
> to develop special relativity.

No, it was not.

>> While it follows from Maxwell’s equations that which is an experimental
>> fact, namely that the speed of light c is isotropic as it only depends on
>> the electromagnetic properties of the medium through which (Maxwell’s)
>> electromagnetic waves, such as light, travel:
>>
>>    c = 1/√(ε₀ ε_r µ₀ µ_r).
>>
>> So, are you retracting that claim?

Typically, you have evaded answering the question.

> However "[one can] develop relativistic electromagnetism solely on the 
> basis of electromagnetic retardation and the principle of [Galilean] 
> relativity without any additional postulates, hypotheses, or conjectures."

Simply wrong.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#476253

On 11/4/2018 2:53 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> benj wrote:
>> The Constancy of the speed of light was an assumption made by Einstein
>> to develop special relativity.
> 
> No, it was not.
> 
>>> While it follows from Maxwell’s equations that which is an experimental
>>> fact, namely that the speed of light c is isotropic as it only depends on
>>> the electromagnetic properties of the medium through which (Maxwell’s)
>>> electromagnetic waves, such as light, travel:
>>>
>>>     c = 1/√(ε₀ ε_r µ₀ µ_r).
>>>
>>> So, are you retracting that claim?
> 
> Typically, you have evaded answering the question.
> 
>> However "[one can] develop relativistic electromagnetism solely on the
>> basis of electromagnetic retardation and the principle of [Galilean]
>> relativity without any additional postulates, hypotheses, or conjectures."
> 
> Simply wrong.
> 
Proof by assertion again! Well that sure means there is no further 
discussion of this one. You win.

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

#476259

benj wrote:
> On 11/4/2018 2:53 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> benj wrote:
>>> The Constancy of the speed of light was an assumption made by Einstein
>>> to develop special relativity.
>>
>> No, it was not.

Learn to *read*.

>>>> While it follows from Maxwell’s equations that which is an experimental
>>>> fact, namely that the speed of light c is isotropic as it only depends on
>>>> the electromagnetic properties of the medium through which (Maxwell’s)
>>>> electromagnetic waves, such as light, travel:
>>>>
>>>>     c = 1/√(ε₀ ε_r µ₀ µ_r).
>>>>
>>>> So, are you retracting that claim?
>>
>> Typically, you have evaded answering the question.

And evaded that again.

>>> However "[one can] develop relativistic electromagnetism solely on the
>>> basis of electromagnetic retardation and the principle of [Galilean]
>>> relativity without any additional postulates, hypotheses, or conjectures."
>>
>> Simply wrong.
>>
> Proof by assertion again!

Proof by *experiment* and *history*.  *That* the Galilean transformation
(there is no “Galilean relativity”) does NOT suffice to explain the observed
electromagnetic phenomena, including light, was one thing that prompted
Einstein to write “On the *Electrodynamics* of Moving Bodies”, now known as
the first paper on special relativity, in the first place.

He says so in the introduction of the paper.  So we have determined now that
you have not even read it, yet you claim to be able to make informed
statements about it.  Ridiculous.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#476274

On 11/4/2018 7:58 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> benj wrote:
>> On 11/4/2018 2:53 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> benj wrote:
>>>> The Constancy of the speed of light was an assumption made by Einstein
>>>> to develop special relativity.
>>>
>>> No, it was not.
> 
> Learn to *read*.

Read Einstein. Idiot.

>>>>> While it follows from Maxwell’s equations that which is an experimental
>>>>> fact, namely that the speed of light c is isotropic as it only depends on
>>>>> the electromagnetic properties of the medium through which (Maxwell’s)
>>>>> electromagnetic waves, such as light, travel:
>>>>>
>>>>>      c = 1/√(ε₀ ε_r µ₀ µ_r).
>>>>>
>>>>> So, are you retracting that claim?
>>>
>>> Typically, you have evaded answering the question.
> 
> And evaded that again.

Have not. Wake up you are dreaming again.

>>>> However "[one can] develop relativistic electromagnetism solely on the
>>>> basis of electromagnetic retardation and the principle of [Galilean]
>>>> relativity without any additional postulates, hypotheses, or conjectures."
>>>
>>> Simply wrong.
>>>
>> Proof by assertion again!
> 
> Proof by *experiment* and *history*.  *That* the Galilean transformation
> (there is no “Galilean relativity”) does NOT suffice to explain the observed
> electromagnetic phenomena, including light, was one thing that prompted
> Einstein to write “On the *Electrodynamics* of Moving Bodies”, now known as
> the first paper on special relativity, in the first place.

You are ignorant. Especially of history. Principal of Relativity: 
Galileo 1632, Mr Vulcan.

> He says so in the introduction of the paper.  So we have determined now that
> you have not even read it, yet you claim to be able to make informed
> statements about it.  Ridiculous.

When a person is ignorant, their "proof by assertion" is worthless.
(That means you, bub)

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

#476281

benj wrote:
> On 11/4/2018 7:58 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> benj wrote:
>>> On 11/4/2018 2:53 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> benj wrote:
>>>>> The Constancy of the speed of light was an assumption made by Einstein
>>>>> to develop special relativity.
>>>> No, it was not.
>> Learn to *read*.
> 
> Read Einstein.

BTDT.  I have also studied the subject.  You have not.

> Idiot.

Yes you are.

>>>>>> While it follows from Maxwell’s equations that which is an experimental
>>>>>> fact, namely that the speed of light c is isotropic as it only depends on
>>>>>> the electromagnetic properties of the medium through which (Maxwell’s)
>>>>>> electromagnetic waves, such as light, travel:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      c = 1/√(ε₀ ε_r µ₀ µ_r).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, are you retracting that claim?
>>>> Typically, you have evaded answering the question.
>> And evaded that again.
> 
> Have not.

Yes, you have.  And again.  There is no answer to that question to be found
in your postings so far.

> Wake up you are dreaming again.

You are looking into a mirror.

>>>>> However "[one can] develop relativistic electromagnetism solely on the
>>>>> basis of electromagnetic retardation and the principle of [Galilean]
>>>>> relativity without any additional postulates, hypotheses, or conjectures."
>>>> Simply wrong.
>>> Proof by assertion again!
>> Proof by *experiment* and *history*.  *That* the Galilean transformation
>> (there is no “Galilean relativity”) does NOT suffice to explain the observed
>> electromagnetic phenomena, including light, was one thing that prompted
>> Einstein to write “On the *Electrodynamics* of Moving Bodies”, now known as
>> the first paper on special relativity, in the first place.
> 
> You are ignorant. Especially of history. Principal of Relativity: 
> Galileo 1632, Mr Vulcan.

LOL.

The (constant) speed of light was calculated, based on theories and
measurements by Cassini and Rømer, by Huygens in 1690.

The aberration of light was discovered by Bradley in 1727.

Maxwell’s equations that introduced the concept of electromagnetism, and
light as an electromagnetic wave, are from 1848.

Fizeau measured the speed of light more exactly in 1849.

The Fizeau experiment (which seemingly confirmed partial aether dragging,
which was inconsistent with stellar aberration; but in hindsight only
confirmed special relativity) was performed in 1851, the Michelson–Morley
experiment (which found no aether drag, which was inconsistent with stellar
aberration *and* the result of the Fizeau experiment) in 1887.

Special relativity was first formulated in 1905 based on the results of
*all* previous experiments, and not only solved all these apparent
contradictions, but also made predictions that explained other observations,
too.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism#Classical_electrodynamics>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#476286

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> 
Wrote in message:> 

 *That* the Galilean transformation(there is no “Galilean
 relativity”) ...

Is not Galilean relativity in current wording formulated as 
"Laws of mechanics are the same in  all inertial  frames." ?

With SR just adding EM and other phenomena but gravity ?

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#476377

On 11/5/18 12:54 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
> Wrote in message:>
> 
>   *That* the Galilean transformation(there is no “Galilean
>   relativity”) ...
> 
> Is not Galilean relativity in current wording formulated as
> "Laws of mechanics are the same in  all inertial  frames." ?

I believe he means that Galileo never wrote down a complete theory. But 
long after his death many physicists have found it convenient to 
formulate a theory which we call "Galilean relativity" -- it corresponds 
to SR, but uses the Galilean transforms.

> With SR just adding EM and other phenomena but gravity ?

SR is MUCH more than "just adding EM and other phenomena", it is a major 
revision of how we think about space and time.

Tom Roberts

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

#476382

Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> Wrote in message:

> I believe he means that Galileo never wrote down a complete theory. But long after his death many physicists have found it convenient to formulate a theory which we call "Galilean relativity" -- it corresponds to SR, but uses the Galilean transforms.

Thank you. This is what I more or less had in mind.
--------

> With SR just adding EM and other phenomena but gravity ?

> SR is MUCH more than "just adding EM and other phenomena", it is a major revision of how we think about space and time.Tom Roberts

I do agree it is much more,
I have used perhaps misleading formulation.
I had in mind just the aspect of the broadening  the principle of
 relativity. 

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[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