Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #479229 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-12-07 11:15 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-12-15 10:32 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 101 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
"Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 11:15 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-08 11:51 +1100
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 08:26 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-09 13:11 +1100
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 07:08 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-10 00:45 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 10:50 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-10 13:08 +0000
"A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 11:54 +0000
Re: "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 04:13 -0800
Re: "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 13:17 +0000
Re: "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 23:22 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 07:51 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 04:21 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 20:49 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 12:55 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-11 12:59 +1100
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 09:55 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-11 22:33 +1100
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 17:29 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-11 21:14 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 07:45 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-12 03:53 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 16:27 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-12 08:40 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 18:24 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-12 13:47 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-13 00:13 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 06:10 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-13 08:18 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 23:01 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 16:46 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-13 18:55 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 14:41 +0000
Have you ever read Einstein's foundation paper of Special Relativity Henry Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 15:59 +0000
Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-14 08:11 -0800
Re: the first 4 equations Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 18:19 +0000
Re: the first 4 equations Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-14 13:28 -0800
Re: the first 4 equations JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 14:45 -0800
Re: the first 4 equations Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-14 15:04 -0800
Re: the first 4 equations Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 02:13 +0000
Re: the first 4 equations JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 19:16 -0800
Re: the first 4 equations Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-14 19:22 -0800
Re: the first 4 equations Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 06:30 +0000
Re: the first 4 equations Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 08:38 +0000
Re: the first 4 equations Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-15 07:58 -0800
Re: three INCOMPATABLE equations Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 17:11 +0000
Re: three INCOMPATABLE equations "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-15 09:15 -0800
Re: three INCOMPATABLE equations Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-15 14:45 -0800
Re: three INCOMPATABLE equations Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-16 00:59 +0000
Re: then there were .......Just 3 equations eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 12:10 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 10:13 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-15 06:49 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 15:47 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-15 08:00 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 17:25 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-15 15:04 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 01:19 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 01:41 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-15 18:57 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 07:12 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-16 05:45 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 14:34 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-16 15:42 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-16 07:54 -0800
Re: pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 17:56 +0000
Re: pathologcal imbecile replies "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-16 10:07 -0800
Re: pathologcal imbecile replies Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-16 18:57 +0000
Re: pathologcal imbecile replies "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-16 11:34 -0800
Re: pathologcal imbecile replies "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-16 11:50 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-16 13:34 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 22:13 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 01:30 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-15 18:54 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 19:01 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile continues to be alying piece of shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-16 11:56 -0800
Re: Have you ever read Einstein's foundation paper of Special Relativity Henry JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 14:20 -0800
Re: Have you ever read Einstein's foundation paper of Special Relativity Henry Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 09:44 +0000
Re: Have you ever read Einstein's foundation paper of Special Relativity Henry JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 14:07 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-14 08:54 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 18:11 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 09:57 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 17:08 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 08:37 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 01:38 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 18:47 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 19:17 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 12:51 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 12:54 -0800
"keith stein, Imbecile "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-10 06:44 -0800
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 16:27 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 16:41 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 21:41 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 05:37 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-11 05:43 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 08:56 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 13:28 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 16:30 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 19:28 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 19:56 +0000
Re: "keith stein, Imbecile replied: Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 10:32 +0000
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 11:15 +0000 |
| Subject | "Einstein's Bad" |
| Message-ID | <dDsOD.327812$lKb.172892@fx15.am4> |
> 30 listopada 2018 00:18:29 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
>> Here are some reasons Einstein started with in 1905:
>>
>> 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt but Maxwell's
>> equation aren't.
That's "Einstein's Bad", if he said that, because Maxwell's Eauations
are just as invariant as Newton's under x' = x - vt.
Tell me this Einstein:
- "Are Sound Waves invariant under x' = x - vt ?"
because Maxwell's Waves obey EXACT;Y the same law as Sound Waves
only faster. In fact it was only because Maxwell recognized the
Sound Wave Equation that he 'discovered' his electromagnetic waves.
keith stein
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 11:51 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <g70isnFlb45U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #479229 |
On 7/12/2018 10:15 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > > > 30 listopada 2018 00:18:29 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > >> Here are some reasons Einstein started with in 1905: > >> > >> 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt but Maxwell's > >> equation aren't. > > That's "Einstein's Bad", if he said that, because Maxwell's Eauations > are just as invariant as Newton's under x' = x - vt. > > > Tell me this Einstein: > > - "Are Sound Waves invariant under x' = x - vt ?" What do you think that statement means? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 08:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <MeLOD.9248$Xv2.466@fx01.am4> |
| In reply to | #479295 |
On 08/12/2018 00:51, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 7/12/2018 10:15 pm, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> > 30 listopada 2018 00:18:29 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
>>
>> >> Here are some reasons Einstein started with in 1905:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt but Maxwell's
>> >> equation aren't.
>>
>> That's "Einstein's Bad", if he said that, because Maxwell's Eauations
>> are just as invariant as Newton's under x' = x - vt.
>>
>>
>> Tell me this Einstein:
>>
>> - "Are Sound Waves invariant under x' = x - vt ?"
>
> What do you think that statement means?
Good question. I mean that there is a universal time which is the same
in all frames of reference and that "laws of motion are the same in all
inertial frames".
Thus if a car, or an acoustic pressure wave, or an electromagnetic
wave, travel from point A to point B in T seconds in any one frame
of reference, then they must also take exactly T seconds to travel
from A to B in every other frame of reference.
This does not of course imply that velocities are the same in all frames
of reference, but it does mean that velocity relative to point A, or
point B, or any defined point, is the same in all frames of reference.
Maxwell's equations, as written by Maxwell, in which he insisted
"A MEDIUM NECESSARY", are just as 'invariant', imho, as is the
equation for acoustic pressure waves.
So what do you think Sylvia:
1. Are Sound Waves invariant under x' = x - vt ?
2. Are Maxwell's e-m waves invariant under x' = x - vt ?
because Maxwell's Waves obey EXACTLY the same partial differential
equation as Sound Waves, only faster. In fact it was only because
Maxwell recognized the Sound Wave Equation that he 'discovered' his
electromagnetic waves in the first place.
keith stein
> Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 13:11 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <g73btqF9feaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #479309 |
On 8/12/2018 7:26 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > On 08/12/2018 00:51, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 7/12/2018 10:15 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>> >>> > 30 listopada 2018 00:18:29 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: >>> >>> >> Here are some reasons Einstein started with in 1905: >>> >> >>> >> 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt but Maxwell's >>> >> equation aren't. >>> >>> That's "Einstein's Bad", if he said that, because Maxwell's Eauations >>> are just as invariant as Newton's under x' = x - vt. >>> >>> >>> Tell me this Einstein: >>> >>> - "Are Sound Waves invariant under x' = x - vt ?" >> >> What do you think that statement means? > > Good question. I mean that there is a universal time which is the same > in all frames of reference and that "laws of motion are the same in all > inertial frames". So you're assuming a particular model of space-time. > > Thus if a car, or an acoustic pressure wave, or an electromagnetic > wave, travel from point A to point B in T seconds in any one frame > of reference, then they must also take exactly T seconds to travel > from A to B in every other frame of reference. > > This does not of course imply that velocities are the same in all frames > of reference, but it does mean that velocity relative to point A, or > point B, or any defined point, is the same in all frames of reference. > > Maxwell's equations, as written by Maxwell, in which he insisted > "A MEDIUM NECESSARY", are just as 'invariant', imho, as is the > equation for acoustic pressure waves. Maxwell was a man of his time. One issue that became apparent with is equations is that they give a velocity for electromagnetic waves, but do not indicate what that velocity is relative to. Special Relativity tells us that there's a good reason for that, but prior to Special Relativity, it would have seemed that there had to be a medium which the equations somehow failed to mention. But in your assumed model of space time, that issue will remain. > > > So what do you think Sylvia: > > 1. Are Sound Waves invariant under x' = x - vt ? > 2. Are Maxwell's e-m waves invariant under x' = x - vt ? Yes, but only under your assumed model of space time. Since your model yields predictions that don't match experimental results, it is worthless. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 07:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Jb3PD.293951$el1.208051@fx34.am4> |
| In reply to | #479416 |
On 09/12/2018 02:11, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 8/12/2018 7:26 pm, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 08/12/2018 00:51, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 7/12/2018 10:15 pm, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > 30 listopada 2018 00:18:29 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
>>>>
>>>> >> Here are some reasons Einstein started with in 1905:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt but Maxwell's
>>>> >> equation aren't.
>>>>
>>>> That's "Einstein's Bad", if he said that, because Maxwell's Eauations
>>>> are just as invariant as Newton's under x' = x - vt.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tell me this Einstein:
>>>>
>>>> - "Are Sound Waves invariant under x' = x - vt ?"
>>>
>>> What do you think that statement means?
>>
>> Good question. I mean that there is a universal time which is the same
>> in all frames of reference and that "laws of motion are the same in
>> all inertial frames".
>
> So you're assuming a particular model of space-time.
I am assuming the model which every physicist prior to 1905
assumed, and indeed the same model which Einstein was assuming
when he made his incorrect claim which we were talking about:
" 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt
but Maxwell's equation aren't."
Which is simple not true eh!
>> Thus if a car, or an acoustic pressure wave, or an electromagnetic
>> wave, travel from point A to point B in T seconds in any one frame
>> of reference, then they must also take exactly T seconds to travel
>> from A to B in every other frame of reference.
>>
>> This does not of course imply that velocities are the same in all frames
>> of reference, but it does mean that velocity relative to point A, or
>> point B, or any defined point, is the same in all frames of reference.
>>
>> Maxwell's equations, as written by Maxwell, in which he insisted
>> "A MEDIUM NECESSARY", are just as 'invariant', imho, as is the
>> equation for acoustic pressure waves.
>
> Maxwell was a man of his time. One issue that became apparent with is
> equations is that they give a velocity for electromagnetic waves, but do
> not indicate what that velocity is relative to.
Why do you think Maxwell insisted "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" ?
Maxwell was in no doubt that his electromagnetic waves travel
relative to the medium/matter which they travel through,
as indeed do all waves which obey the wave equation eh!
> Special Relativity tells
> us that there's a good reason for that,
How can there be a good reason for something which is not true ?
Maxwell's electromagnetic waves travel RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM.
> but prior to Special Relativity,
> it would have seemed that there had to be a medium which the equations
> somehow failed to mention.
>
In Maxwell's theory it is the permeability and permitivity OF THE
MEDIUM, which determine the velocity of electromagnetic waves
RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM.
> But in your assumed model of space time, that issue will remain.
>>
>>
>> So what do you think Sylvia:
>>
>> 1. Are Sound Waves invariant under x' = x - vt ?
>> 2. Are Maxwell's e-m waves invariant under x' = x - vt ?
>
> Yes, but only under your assumed model of space time.
My assumed model, as you call it, was certainly the same as
that assumed by Einstein when he wrote:
" 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt
but Maxwell's equation aren't." (note no t' here eh!)
and i thank you for the acknowledgement that Einstein is wrong,
about this, at least.
> Since your model
> yields predictions that don't match experimental results, it is worthless.
Well the null result of the Michelson Morley experiment is certainly
exactly what would be expected from my (actually Maxwell's) model,
and without invoking any damn fool length contractions or time
dilations eh! Indeed i know of no experimental result which makes me
doubt that electromagnetic waves do indeed travel relative to the
medium, just as originally suggested by Maxwell some 150 years ago.
keith stein
> Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 00:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pukd07$ght$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #479441 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >On 09/12/2018 02:11, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 8/12/2018 7:26 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 08/12/2018 00:51, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> What do you think that statement means? >>> >>> Good question. I mean that there is a universal time which is the same >>> in all frames of reference and that "laws of motion are the same in >>> all inertial frames". >> >> So you're assuming a particular model of space-time. >I am assuming the model which every physicist prior to 1905 >assumed, and indeed the same model which Einstein was assuming Einstein knew that was wrong, which is the whole reason he worked on the SR problem in the first place! >when he made his incorrect claim which we were talking about: >" 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt > but Maxwell's equation aren't." >Which is simple not true eh! No it is true, and it was a big puzzle of the time why mechanics obeyed the Galilean transform relationships yet Maxwell's equations did not. They figured they should, since ordinary mechanical relationships on a macroscopic scale are nothing more than electromagnetic relationships at a small (interatomic) scale. Yet Maxwell's equations did not! >>> Maxwell's equations, as written by Maxwell, in which he insisted >>> "A MEDIUM NECESSARY", are just as 'invariant', imho, as is the >>> equation for acoustic pressure waves. >> >> Maxwell was a man of his time. One issue that became apparent with is >> equations is that they give a velocity for electromagnetic waves, but do >> not indicate what that velocity is relative to. >Why do you think Maxwell insisted "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" ? That sentence no verb. As stated, Maxwell was a man of his time and everyone back then believed in an aether, so likely so did he. Also by itself that title doesn't mean anything, there is no verb. What if the omitted verb was "isn't"? >Maxwell was in no doubt that his electromagnetic waves travel >relative to the medium/matter which they travel through, Again, everyone believed in an aether. You can't fault Maxwell for not knowing any better! > as indeed do all waves which obey the wave equation eh! No, the wave equations do not require a medium. >> but prior to Special Relativity, >> it would have seemed that there had to be a medium which the equations >> somehow failed to mention. >> >In Maxwell's theory it is the permeability and permitivity OF THE >MEDIUM, which determine the velocity of electromagnetic waves >RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM. No. Maxwell's equations come up with a speed of light, but the equations don't come up with it relative to *anything*. It is just a speed, and Maxwell couldn't figure out what it meant. For example, there is no math in Maxwell's equations that has the derived speed change if "the medium" happened to move at a certain speed. >My assumed model, as you call it, was certainly the same as >that assumed by Einstein when he wrote: >" 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt > but Maxwell's equation aren't." (note no t' here eh!) >and i thank you for the acknowledgement that Einstein is wrong, >about this, at least. Don't accuse Einstein of believing in something he didn't. Why would he work on SR if he ignored math and claimed Maxwell's equations obeyed Galilean invariance?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 10:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <iyrPD.474247$1C7.405723@fx38.am4> |
| In reply to | #479510 |
On 10/12/2018 00:45, Michael Moroney wrote: > Keith Stein writes: >> " 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt >> but Maxwell's equation aren't." Einstein >> .... not true eh! > No it is true, and it was a big puzzle of the time why mechanics obeyed > the Galilean transform relationships yet Maxwell's equations did not. > They figured they should, since ordinary mechanical relationships on a > macroscopic scale are nothing more than electromagnetic relationships at > a small (interatomic) scale. Yet Maxwell's equations did not! It is true that Maxwell's equations, as written by Einstein, DO NOT "obey the Galilean transform relationships", yet Maxwell's equations, as written by Maxwell, DO "obey the Galilean transform relationships". Maxwell insisted "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" and he derived an equation which gives the velocity of electromagnetic waves RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM. Einstein, on the other hand, omits the medium from Maxwell's equations, and obtains an equation which gives the velocity of electromagnetic waves RELATIVE TO "NOTHING", which is why Einstein had a "big puzzle". >> Why do you think Maxwell insisted "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" ? > .. that title doesn't mean anything, It means A MEDIUM NECESSARY eh! > there is no verb. > What if the omitted verb was "isn't"? :-) >> Maxwell was in no doubt that his electromagnetic waves travel >> relative to the medium/matter which they travel through, > Again, everyone believed in an aether. You can't fault Maxwell for not > knowing any better! In his long "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" Maxwell makes no mention of "aether". His primary example of a medium is "air", and his only other specific example is "paraffin wax". >> In Maxwell's theory it is the permeability and permitivity OF THE >> MEDIUM, which determine the velocity of electromagnetic waves >> RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM. > > No. Maxwell's equations come up with a speed of light, but the equations > don't come up with it relative to *anything*. It is just a speed, and > Maxwell couldn't figure out what it meant. Maxwell never had this problem. He knew perfectly well that the speed of light which he derived was RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM. > For example, there is no math > in Maxwell's equations that has the derived speed change if "the medium" > happened to move at a certain speed. Maxwell certainly knew the answer to this too. If the speed of the wave relative to the medium is w, and the speed of the medium to you is v, then the speed of the wave relative to you is the vector addition of w and v. >> My assumed model, as you call it, was certainly the same as >> that assumed by Einstein when he wrote: > >> " 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt >> but Maxwell's equation aren't." (note no t' here eh!) > >> and i thank you [Sylvia] for the acknowledgement that Einstein >> is wrong, about this, at least. > Don't accuse Einstein of believing in something he didn't. Why would he > work on SR if he ignored math and claimed Maxwell's equations obeyed > Galilean invariance? Of course Einstein did not claim that Maxwell's equations obeyed Galilean invariance, but that was because he ignored "the medium", not because he ignored "the math" eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 13:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pulogj$vd2$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #479518 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >On 10/12/2018 00:45, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Keith Stein writes: >>> " 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt >>> but Maxwell's equation aren't." Einstein >>> .... not true eh! >> No it is true, and it was a big puzzle of the time why mechanics obeyed >> the Galilean transform relationships yet Maxwell's equations did not. >> They figured they should, since ordinary mechanical relationships on a >> macroscopic scale are nothing more than electromagnetic relationships at >> a small (interatomic) scale. Yet Maxwell's equations did not! >It is true that Maxwell's equations, as written by Einstein, DO NOT >"obey the Galilean transform relationships", And it is true that Maxwell's equations, as written by Maxwell, do not obey the Galilean transform relationships. >Maxwell insisted "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" and he derived an equation which >gives the velocity of electromagnetic waves RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM. Relative to nothing. It was a speed. Change the frame of reference of the location, so any "NECESSARY MEDIUM", if relevant, would be moving at a different speed and show its effect, and the computed speed was unchanged. Still relative to nothing. (Besides, Fizeau already showed an extremely thin medium is practically irrelevant. We can now calculate it as the diameter of a virus over the earth-sun distance difference!) >Einstein, on the other hand, omits the medium from Maxwell's equations, As did Maxwell. >and obtains an equation which gives the velocity of electromagnetic >waves RELATIVE TO "NOTHING", which is why Einstein had a "big puzzle". Maxwell's puzzle not solved until Einstein when he came up with SR and assumed invariant c as a postulate. >>> Maxwell was in no doubt that his electromagnetic waves travel >>> relative to the medium/matter which they travel through, >> Again, everyone believed in an aether. You can't fault Maxwell for not >> knowing any better! >In his long "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" Maxwell makes >no mention of "aether". His primary example of a medium is "air", >and his only other specific example is "paraffin wax". So you admit that Maxwell didn't actually refer to any generic medium. >> No. Maxwell's equations come up with a speed of light, but the equations >> don't come up with it relative to *anything*. It is just a speed, and >> Maxwell couldn't figure out what it meant. >Maxwell never had this problem. He knew perfectly well that >the speed of light which he derived was RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM. He may have assumed it, but he was puzzled how his derived speed was relative to nothing. Just a speed. >> For example, there is no math >> in Maxwell's equations that has the derived speed change if "the medium" >> happened to move at a certain speed. >Maxwell certainly knew the answer to this too. Any of Maxwell's assumptions were just that, assumptions, and not part of his actual science. Any assumptions of his don't appear in his equations, he left it as this mysterious speed of light not relative to anything. > If the speed of >the wave relative to the medium is w, Not relevant to Maxwell's equations, its only speed is not relative to anything. > and the speed of the medium >to you is v, then the speed of the wave relative to you is the >vector addition of w and v. Later disproven by Einstein, explaining then-confusing results by Fizeau and Fresnell. >> Don't accuse Einstein of believing in something he didn't. Why would he >> work on SR if he ignored math and claimed Maxwell's equations obeyed >> Galilean invariance? >Of course Einstein did not claim that Maxwell's equations obeyed >Galilean invariance, but that was because he ignored "the medium", As did Maxwell.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-15 11:54 +0000 |
| Subject | "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" |
| Message-ID | <zX5RD.3271$eM.1741@fx29.am4> |
| In reply to | #479519 |
On 10/12/2018 13:08, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Of course Einstein did not claim that Maxwell's equations obeyed
>> Galilean invariance, but that was because he ignored "the medium",
> As did Maxwell.
the final chapter
of his famous "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism"
is called:
"A MEDIUM NECESSARY"
and providing one includes "A MEDIUM",
(as Maxwell correctly stipulated was "NECESSARY")
then Maxwell's equations DO
obey Galilean Invariance,
as do Newtons.
Vector Addition of Velocities
applies to both
Maxwell and Newton.
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-15 04:13 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" |
| Message-ID | <76e1f114-a204-4e8b-912d-859710b445d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479856 |
On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 3:54:09 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > On 10/12/2018 13:08, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >> Of course Einstein did not claim that Maxwell's equations obeyed > >> Galilean invariance, but that was because he ignored "the medium", > > > As did Maxwell. > > the final chapter > of his famous "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" > is called: > > "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" > > and providing one includes "A MEDIUM", > (as Maxwell correctly stipulated was "NECESSARY") > then Maxwell's equations DO > obey Galilean Invariance, No, that's false. > as do Newtons. > Vector Addition of Velocities > applies to both > Maxwell and Newton. No, sorry. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-15 13:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" |
| Message-ID | <P97RD.24232$krL1.18432@fx15.am4> |
| In reply to | #479858 |
On 15/12/2018 12:13, JanPB wrote: > On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 3:54:09 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 10/12/2018 13:08, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >>>> Of course Einstein did not claim that Maxwell's equations obeyed >>>> Galilean invariance, but that was because he ignored "the medium", >> >>> As did Maxwell. >> >> the final chapter >> of his famous "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" >> is called: >> >> "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" >> >> and providing one includes "A MEDIUM", >> (as Maxwell correctly stipulated was "NECESSARY") >> then Maxwell's equations DO >> obey Galilean Invariance, > No, that's false. >> as do Newtons. >> Vector Addition of Velocities >> applies to both >> Maxwell and Newton. > No, sorry. According to Maxwell's Theory light has a velocity of say 'cm' relative to the medium, Now if that medium has a velocity 'v' relative to you,Jan, then according to Maxwell/s theory the velocity of that light relative to you, Jan, is the Vector addition of 'cm' and 'v'. That IS Maxwell's Theory, and it is compatible with Galilean Invariance, "VECTOR ADDITION OF VELOCITIES ",as i said eh! keith stein > -- > Jan >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-15 23:22 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" |
| Message-ID | <0e65992b-45cb-4ef9-ba6d-cece5b83007b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479862 |
On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 5:17:37 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > On 15/12/2018 12:13, JanPB wrote: > > On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 3:54:09 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > >> On 10/12/2018 13:08, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> > >>>> Of course Einstein did not claim that Maxwell's equations obeyed > >>>> Galilean invariance, but that was because he ignored "the medium", > >> > >>> As did Maxwell. > >> > >> the final chapter > >> of his famous "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" > >> is called: > >> > >> "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" > >> > >> and providing one includes "A MEDIUM", > >> (as Maxwell correctly stipulated was "NECESSARY") > >> then Maxwell's equations DO > >> obey Galilean Invariance, > > > No, that's false. > > >> as do Newtons. > >> Vector Addition of Velocities > >> applies to both > >> Maxwell and Newton. > > > No, sorry. > > > According to Maxwell's Theory > light has a velocity of say 'cm' relative to the medium, > > Now if that medium has a velocity 'v' relative to you,Jan, > then according to Maxwell/s theory the velocity of that light > relative to you, Jan, is the Vector addition of 'cm' and 'v'. > > That IS Maxwell's Theory, No. You are probably thinking that I'm saying Maxwell's theory cannot be used in Galilean-transformed coordinates. That's NOT what I'm saying. The theory works just fine, the problem is the FORM of Maxwell's equations CHANGES in such coordinates. It's akin to the FORM of Newton's "F=ma" CHANGING in _accelerated_ coordinates. The equation and the theory remains valid, obviously, but the equation changes FORM which means they model a PHYSICAL change of some sort. That's why a medium is necessary in this interpretation. OTOH Maxwell's equations do NOT CHANGE FORM in Lorentz-transformed coordinates. (Analogous to Newton's "F=ma" not changing its FORM in Galilean- transformed coordinates.) This means there is no desperate need for including a medium in the model which is what SR does. (There may reappear some sort of medium in a future theory, of course. But SR happens not to use it so it's simply left out of the picture.) > and it is compatible with Galilean Invariance, > "VECTOR ADDITION OF VELOCITIES ",as i said eh! No. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 07:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c955677d-d371-42de-a7de-815b26993128@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479518 |
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 2:50:57 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > On 10/12/2018 00:45, Michael Moroney wrote: > > Keith Stein writes: > > > >> " 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt > >> but Maxwell's equation aren't." Einstein > > >> .... not true eh! > > > No it is true, and it was a big puzzle of the time why mechanics obeyed > > the Galilean transform relationships yet Maxwell's equations did not. > They figured they should, since ordinary mechanical relationships on a > > macroscopic scale are nothing more than electromagnetic relationships at > > a small (interatomic) scale. Yet Maxwell's equations did not! > > It is true that Maxwell's equations, as written by Einstein, DO NOT > "obey the Galilean transform relationships", yet Maxwell's equations, > as written by Maxwell, DO "obey the Galilean transform relationships". No, that's false. Also, Maxwell's equations "as written by Einstein" were written by Heaviside who tidied up Maxwell's original organisation (which was rather messy in comparison). None of the formulations are Galilean-invariant. This was well-known, that's why Lorentz in his paper "Electromagnetic phenomena..." (p. 11 of the Dover book) does not use the Galilean transform but the Lorentz one (be careful, it's written, confusingly, as a two-part transformation in that paper). > Maxwell insisted "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Sure but this leaves all the problems I listed: (1) no viable theory of aether forbidding longitudinal components of EM waves, (2) aether must be both dragged and not dragged, (3) aether must be both infinitely (FAPP) rigid and infinitely (FAPP) permeable, etc. > and he derived an equation which > gives the velocity of electromagnetic waves RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM. Sure. And this equation is NOT Galilean invariant, which of course the presence of the medium "complements" nicely because it provides a physical basis for the lack of invariance. That's not a problem and we're in agreement on that part. The problem is that aether was in virtually every single other aspect an added tuning knob designed solely to "solve" the problem. And as such, it was necessarily invested with borderline contradictory physical properties whose only reason for existence was to patch up the gaps in the theory. > Einstein, on the other hand, omits the medium from Maxwell's equations, > and obtains an equation which gives the velocity of electromagnetic > waves RELATIVE TO "NOTHING", which is why Einstein had a "big puzzle". It's not "relative to nothing", the theory uses inertial systems as referents. There is nothing wrong with it except some may find it philosophically objectionable. Believe it or not, I am one of them. But I also know that relativity is no exception in that department, as most theories in physics were like this in the earlier stages: Consider: 1. the notion of field momentum in Maxwell's electrodynamics - clearly just a number assigned to the setup in order to save the conservation of momentum principle. It was not until QFD where this number was endowed with a "physical meaning", 2. people were even bothered in the past by the notion of potential energy which can also be seen as a "stopgap" to save the energy conservation. People have tried (I forget the name, it's in Dugas' book on the history of mechanics) to model it in terms of some "hidden kinetic energy", etc. That's simply how things are in the early stages of theories, it's common to have abstract models without a "basis". Relativity is no exception, it may only seem that way to amateurs "thanks" to their very narrow expertise, ignoring pretty much the rest of the science in question. Relativity is still an "early-stage" theory, it's classical, and all that. > Maxwell never had this problem. He knew perfectly well that > the speed of light which he derived was RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM. Sure, but this does not change the lack of the Galilean invariance of his equations. In fact, without relativity, the medium is necessary to keep his theory physically meaningful. That was one reason for the increasing frustration with aether toward the end of the 19th century, as aether was obviously both necessary and getting physically more and more bizarre every day. > Of course Einstein did not claim that Maxwell's equations obeyed > Galilean invariance, but that was because he ignored "the medium", > not because he ignored "the math" eh! Again, you got it exactly backwards. The equation are not Galilean invariant and the medium makes it physically acceptable as a theory. The medium per se does not influence the equations' (lack of) this invariance. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 04:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <BXGPD.929344$xE.815477@fx22.am4> |
| In reply to | #479531 |
It is really very simple Jan. Stand and look at a train. The velocity relative to you of EVERYTHING on that train is equal to the vector addition of its velocity on the train with the velocity of the train. That IS Galilean Relativity, and according to Maxwell's theory, as written by Maxwell, it is just as true for the velocity of light as it is for the velocity of sound, or indeed for the velocity of the ticket collector eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 20:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <183f6d78-2ee1-4c58-ac26-46801675b253@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479593 |
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:21:55 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > It is really very simple Jan. Stand and look at a train. > The velocity relative to you of EVERYTHING on that train is > equal to the vector addition of its velocity on the train > with the velocity of the train. That presumes absolute time though. Or maybe even something else we haven't discovered yet. Regardless, it's just an assumption you find attractive. Nothing more to it. > That IS Galilean Relativity, and according to Maxwell's > theory, as written by Maxwell, No, as written by Maxwell his equations are not Galilean invariant. Pretty much the only way to maintain the theory physically sensible under those circumstances is to have a medium as the physical agent distinguishing observers for whom Maxwell's equations are true from the observers for whom Maxwell's equations are false. Problem was: such medium had to have some incredibly bizarre properties cooked up in every case just to explain away the relevant experiment-du-jour. The aether understood in this fashion is simply not tenable. > it is just as true for the > velocity of light as it is for the velocity of sound, > or indeed for the velocity of the ticket collector eh! No, it's false, I have already told you why. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 12:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puoc49$9h6$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479593 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It is really very simple Jan. Stand and look at a train. > The velocity relative to you of EVERYTHING on that train is > equal to the vector addition of its velocity on the train > with the velocity of the train. No it’s not. Experimentally. Close but not accurate. > > That IS Galilean Relativity, and according to Maxwell's > theory, as written by Maxwell, it is just as true for the > velocity of light as it is for the velocity of sound, > or indeed for the velocity of the ticket collector eh! > > > keith stein > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 12:59 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <g78k08FeeqnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #479441 |
On 9/12/2018 6:08 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > On 09/12/2018 02:11, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 8/12/2018 7:26 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 08/12/2018 00:51, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 7/12/2018 10:15 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > 30 listopada 2018 00:18:29 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: >>>>> >>>>> >> Here are some reasons Einstein started with in 1905: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt but >>>>> Maxwell's >>>>> >> equation aren't. >>>>> >>>>> That's "Einstein's Bad", if he said that, because Maxwell's Eauations >>>>> are just as invariant as Newton's under x' = x - vt. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Tell me this Einstein: >>>>> >>>>> - "Are Sound Waves invariant under x' = x - vt ?" >>>> >>>> What do you think that statement means? >>> >>> Good question. I mean that there is a universal time which is the >>> same in all frames of reference and that "laws of motion are the same >>> in all inertial frames". >> >> So you're assuming a particular model of space-time. > > I am assuming the model which every physicist prior to 1905 > assumed, and indeed the same model which Einstein was assuming > when he made his incorrect claim which we were talking about: > > " 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt > but Maxwell's equation aren't." > > Which is simple not true eh! > >>> Thus if a car, or an acoustic pressure wave, or an electromagnetic >>> wave, travel from point A to point B in T seconds in any one frame >>> of reference, then they must also take exactly T seconds to travel >>> from A to B in every other frame of reference. >>> >>> This does not of course imply that velocities are the same in all frames >>> of reference, but it does mean that velocity relative to point A, or >>> point B, or any defined point, is the same in all frames of reference. >>> >>> Maxwell's equations, as written by Maxwell, in which he insisted >>> "A MEDIUM NECESSARY", are just as 'invariant', imho, as is the >>> equation for acoustic pressure waves. >> >> Maxwell was a man of his time. One issue that became apparent with is >> equations is that they give a velocity for electromagnetic waves, but >> do not indicate what that velocity is relative to. > > Why do you think Maxwell insisted "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" ? > Maxwell was in no doubt that his electromagnetic waves travel > relative to the medium/matter which they travel through, > as indeed do all waves which obey the wave equation eh! Why do you keep harping on about what scientists believed over a hundred years ago? It has no relevance except for a historian. They got it wrong. Phlogiston wasn't real either. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 09:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XPLPD.269978$Z%1.39177@fx16.am4> |
| In reply to | #479591 |
On 11/12/2018 01:59, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 9/12/2018 6:08 pm, Keith Stein wrote:
>> Why do you think Maxwell insisted "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" ?
>> Maxwell was in no doubt that his electromagnetic waves travel
>> relative to the medium/matter which they travel through,
>> as indeed do all waves which obey the wave equation eh!
>
> Why do you keep harping on about what scientists believed over a
> hundred years ago? It has no relevance except for a historian.
> They got it wrong. Phlogiston wasn't real either.
>
> Sylvia.
I think that question was already answered in the bit you
snipped from my previous post Sylvia, so i'll put it back eh!
>> So what do you think Sylvia:
>>
>> 1. Are Sound Waves invariant under x' = x - vt ?
>> 2. Are Maxwell's e-m waves invariant under x' = x - vt ?
>
> Yes, but only under your assumed model of space time.
My assumed model, as you call it, was certainly the same as
that assumed by Einstein when he wrote:
" 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt
but Maxwell's equation aren't." (note no t' here eh!)
and i thank you for the acknowledgement that Einstein is wrong,
about this, at least.
> Since your model yields predictions that don't match experimental
> results, it is worthless.
Well the null result of the Michelson Morley experiment is certainly
exactly what would be expected from my (actually Maxwell's) model,
and without invoking any damn fool length contractions or time
dilations eh! Indeed i know of no experimental result which makes me
doubt that electromagnetic waves do indeed travel relative to
the medium, just as originally suggested by Maxwell some 150 years ago.
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 22:33 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <g79lkqFlc5rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #479598 |
On 11/12/2018 8:55 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > On 11/12/2018 01:59, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 9/12/2018 6:08 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > > >> Why do you think Maxwell insisted "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" ? > >> Maxwell was in no doubt that his electromagnetic waves travel > >> relative to the medium/matter which they travel through, > >> as indeed do all waves which obey the wave equation eh! > > > > Why do you keep harping on about what scientists believed over a > > hundred years ago? It has no relevance except for a historian. > > They got it wrong. Phlogiston wasn't real either. > > > > Sylvia. > > I think that question was already answered in the bit you > snipped from my previous post Sylvia, so i'll put it back eh! > > >>> So what do you think Sylvia: >>> >>> 1. Are Sound Waves invariant under x' = x - vt ? >>> 2. Are Maxwell's e-m waves invariant under x' = x - vt ? >> >> Yes, but only under your assumed model of space time. > > My assumed model, as you call it, was certainly the same as > that assumed by Einstein when he wrote: > > " 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt > but Maxwell's equation aren't." (note no t' here eh!) > > and i thank you for the acknowledgement that Einstein is wrong, > about this, at least. Newton's equations are wrong, so what of it? > Well the null result of the Michelson Morley experiment is certainly > exactly what would be expected from my (actually Maxwell's) model, > and without invoking any damn fool length contractions or time > dilations eh! Indeed i know of no experimental result which makes me > doubt that electromagnetic waves do indeed travel relative to > the medium, just as originally suggested by Maxwell some 150 years ago. If Maxwell's equations are interpreted as meaning that the waves have velocity c relative to some medium, the Aether, then the null results from the Michelson Morley experiment is certainly not what would be expected. We now understand that the covariant nature of Maxwell's equations predict the null result, but that's with the benefit if the hindsight provided by special relativity. If your position has any merit, you should be able to justify it without making claims about what various people, long dead, said. Sylvia. > > keith stein > > > > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 17:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0uSPD.475250$kh6.122501@fx32.am4> |
| In reply to | #479599 |
On 11/12/2018 11:33, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 11/12/2018 8:55 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 11/12/2018 01:59, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 9/12/2018 6:08 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >> >> >> Why do you think Maxwell insisted "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" ? >> >> Maxwell was in no doubt that his electromagnetic waves travel >> >> relative to the medium/matter which they travel through, >> >> as indeed do all waves which obey the wave equation eh! >> > >> > Why do you keep harping on about what scientists believed over a >> > hundred years ago? It has no relevance except for a historian. >> > They got it wrong. Phlogiston wasn't real either. >> > >> > Sylvia. >> >> I think that question was already answered in the bit you >> snipped from my previous post Sylvia, so i'll put it back eh! >> >> >>>> So what do you think Sylvia: >>>> >>>> 1. Are Sound Waves invariant under x' = x - vt ? >>>> 2. Are Maxwell's e-m waves invariant under x' = x - vt ? >>> >>> Yes, but only under your assumed model of space time. >> >> My assumed model, as you call it, was certainly the same as >> that assumed by Einstein when he wrote: >> >> " 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt >> but Maxwell's equation aren't." (note no t' here eh!) >> >> and i thank you for the acknowledgement that Einstein is wrong, >> about this, at least. > > Newton's equations are wrong, so what of it? > >> Well the null result of the Michelson Morley experiment is certainly >> exactly what would be expected from my (actually Maxwell's) model, >> and without invoking any damn fool length contractions or time >> dilations eh! Indeed i know of no experimental result which makes me >> doubt that electromagnetic waves do indeed travel relative to >> the medium, just as originally suggested by Maxwell some 150 years ago. > > If Maxwell's equations are interpreted as meaning that the waves have > velocity c relative to some medium, the Aether, then the null results > from the Michelson Morley experiment is certainly not what would be > expected. Forget this damn "aether" Sylvia. Maxwell never mentions "aether" in his "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism", not "ether" either eh! Maxwell's primary example of a medium for his electromagnetic waves was "air" Sylvia. On the first occasion when Michelson performed this experiment the medium was most certainly "air" because it was just done open to the laboratory air. He really can not possibly have read Maxwell's Treatise, or he would surely have know he was wasting his time eh! You should also note Sylvia that it makes no difference in principle if one encloses the space between the mirrors and utilises a vacuum pump because whatever the medium it will be contained within the "ENCLOSURE", so one would be daft to expect the fringes to shift eh! > We now understand that the covariant nature of Maxwell's equations > predict the null result, but that's with the benefit if the hindsight > provided by special relativity. Well I understand the null result in the same way Maxwell would, because there is no reason on Earth why the fringes should shift eh! > If your position has any merit, you should be able to justify it without > making claims about what various people, long dead, said. > Well believe it or not Sylvia, i did actually arrive at the conclusion that electromagnetic waves are going to travel with a velocity relative to the matter which they are traveling through before i had read a word of Maxwell's. But credit where it is due Sylvia, Maxwell thought of it first eh! keith stein > Sylvia. >> >> keith stein >>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web