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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #476624 > unrolled thread

6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp

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

Contents

  6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2018-11-09 00:53 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-09 06:06 +0100
      Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-09 09:02 -0600
        Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-09 18:19 +0100
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-09 19:12 +0100
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@j2adosw.nv> - 2018-11-09 19:27 +0000
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 12:04 -0800
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-09 19:13 -0600
      Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2018-11-10 01:02 -0800
        Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2018-11-13 00:21 -0800
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2018-11-24 01:57 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 06:24 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 15:04 -0800
      Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-10 08:41 +0000
        Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-10 10:02 +0100
        Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-10 01:33 -0800
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-10 04:03 -0800
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-10 08:27 -0600
            Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java2osw.np> - 2018-11-10 20:03 +0000
            Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-10 14:49 -0800
              Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java4osw.nv> - 2018-11-11 00:39 +0000
                Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java4osw.nv> - 2018-11-11 00:40 +0000
              Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-10 21:32 -0600
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java2osw.np> - 2018-11-10 20:01 +0000
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 08:45 +0000
            Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 13:14 -0800
              Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 13:32 +0000
                Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-13 12:21 -0600
                Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 14:57 -0800
        Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-10 14:38 +0100
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-10 15:55 +0100
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-10 14:05 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-10 14:08 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-10 14:09 -0800
      Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-11 09:22 +0100
      Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 12:14 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-11 11:43 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-11 13:04 -0800
      Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-12 00:55 +0100
        Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-11 16:00 -0800
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-12 02:08 +0100
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-11 14:14 -0800
      Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 23:24 +0000
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-13 10:09 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-13 10:25 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-13 15:12 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-13 16:12 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-13 16:19 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 11:45 +0000
      Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-15 05:05 +0100
        Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 11:35 +0000
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-15 03:51 -0800
            Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 16:31 +0000
              Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-11-15 08:56 -0800
                Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 10:00 -0800
                Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-15 10:17 -0800
              Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-15 18:57 +0100
                Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-15 10:15 -0800
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-15 15:34 +0100
            Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-15 06:37 -0800
            Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 16:46 +0000
              Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-15 18:54 +0100
                Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 16:02 +0000
                  Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-16 21:48 +0100
                    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-16 13:00 -0800
                Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 17:07 +0000
                  Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-16 22:05 +0100
                    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 21:33 +0000
                      Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-16 22:41 +0100
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-14 18:02 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-15 14:02 -0800
      Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-16 03:47 +0100
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-16 09:27 -0800
      Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-16 22:45 +0100
        Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 22:01 +0000
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-16 23:15 +0100
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-17 11:36 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-17 14:37 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-17 14:52 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-17 14:53 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-17 14:59 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-18 12:15 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-18 12:47 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-19 10:13 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-24 17:04 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-25 11:38 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-26 13:41 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-28 13:15 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-28 15:10 -0800

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#476752

JanPB wrote:

> For example Lorentz himself goes through this in detail in his 1904
> paper "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity
> less than that of light", included in the standard Dover collection "The
> Principle of Relativity".

What you say is that Lorentz is the true father of Relativity, since the 
young never mentioned Relativity with a word in his papers.

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

#476753

Gaston Castaneda wrote:

> JanPB wrote:
> 
>> For example Lorentz himself goes through this in detail in his 1904
>> paper "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity
>> less than that of light", included in the standard Dover collection
>> "The Principle of Relativity".
> 
> What you say is that Lorentz is the true father of Relativity, since the
> young never mentioned Relativity with a word in his papers.

Meant to say "the young Einstein".

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

#476758

On 11/10/18 4:49 PM, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, November 10, 2018 at 6:27:44 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 11/10/18 3:33 AM, JanPB wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 10, 2018 at 12:41:20 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>> The Lorentz transforms are most definitely NOT a consequence of
>>>> Maxwell's Theory, as written by J.C.Maxwell.
>>>
>>> It's a property of Maxwell's equations that they are invariant under the Lorentz
>>> transformation. This was known before Einstein.
>>
>> Hmmmm. You are confusing Maxwell's ORIGINAL THEORY with what are NOW
>> called "Maxwell's equations". The latter are a subset of the former,
>> using only 8 of his original equations and 16 of his original fields. In
>> particular we now omit his fields related to motion relative to the aether.
>>
>> 	(There is considerable flexibility in how one writes these
>> 	 equations, so counts of them can vary.)
>>
>> Of course Maxwell's ORIGINAL THEORY has been solidly refuted, as it
>> implicitly assumes Galilean relativity; it is NOT Lorentz invariant.
> 
> Yes, I keep referring to the state of the affairs in the years just
> preceding Einstein's paper, not to Maxwell's original treatise which
> was commented upon by Fitzgerald:
> 
> "Maxwell's treatise is cumbered with the debris of his brilliant lines
> of assault, of his entrenched camps, of his battles. Oliver Heaviside
> has cleared these away, has opened up a direct route, has made a broad
> road, and has explored a considerable trace of country."
> [quoted after John M. Charap's book "Covariant Electrodynamics"]
> 
> I should have made it more clear.
> 
> Closer to 1905 people knew about the Lorentz invariance of the (by then)
> "cleared away" equations. For example Lorentz himself goes through this
> in detail in his 1904 paper "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving
> with any velocity less than that of light", included in the standard Dover
> collection "The Principle of Relativity". On pages 13-16 he shows this
> invariance. The transformation looks a bit odd because it's written as
> a superposition of a Galilean transformation (p. 13) followed by
> the formulas (4) and (5) on p. 14. He also keeps an extra multiplicative
> constant in place (called "l", Lorentz says it's of the second order in
> v, hence ignorable. Einstein in his re-derivation of the transform in his
> 1905 paper actually gives an argument why l = 1 exactly).

I agree with all you said here. It is truly remarkable that most of 
Maxwell's original equations have stood the test of time, given their 
origin.

Tom Roberts

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

#476727

JanPB wrote:

>> > No, he was motivated by Maxwell's equations, more specifically he
>> > wanted to supply a physical basis to the transformed E and B fields
>> > and to the Lorentz transformation which had been known already but
>> > interpreted as a mostly mathematical property of Maxwell's equations.
>> 
>> The Lorentz transforms are most definitely NOT a consequence of
>> Maxwell's Theory, as written by J.C.Maxwell.
> 
> It's a property of Maxwell's equations that they are invariant under the
> Lorentz transformation. This was known before Einstein.

Rather Einstein incorporated their work.

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

#476857

On 10/11/2018 09:33, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, November 10, 2018 at 12:41:20 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 09/11/2018 23:04, JanPB wrote:

>>> [Einstein] was motivated by Maxwell's equations, more specifically he wanted
>>> to supply a physical basis to the transformed E and B fields and to the
>>> Lorentz transformation which had been known already but interpreted as a
>>> mostly mathematical property of Maxwell's equations.

>> The Lorentz transforms are most definitely NOT a consequence of
>> Maxwell's Theory, as written by J.C.Maxwell.

> It's a property of Maxwell's equations that they are invariant under the Lorentz
> transformation. This was known before Einstein.

Maxwell's equations (as written by Maxwell) were NEVER invariant under
the Lorentz transforms. Not then, not now, not ever eh!

>> According to Maxwell's
>> theory, as written by Maxwell, light travels at a speed appropriate
>> to, and relative to, the "medium" (i.e. the "stuff" the light is
>> traveling through).

> Yes, and this was a problem for many reasons. I listed some of them.

I think Maxwell's Theory, as written by Maxwell, was indeed
correct at the MACROSCOPIC SCALE, and i have seen no list,
or any experimental evidence obtained since Maxwell's day,
which gives gives me any reason to doubt it.

keith stein


> --
> Jan
> 

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

#476925

On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 12:45:44 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 10/11/2018 09:33, JanPB wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 10, 2018 at 12:41:20 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
> >> On 09/11/2018 23:04, JanPB wrote:
> 
> >>> [Einstein] was motivated by Maxwell's equations, more specifically he wanted
> >>> to supply a physical basis to the transformed E and B fields and to the
> >>> Lorentz transformation which had been known already but interpreted as a
> >>> mostly mathematical property of Maxwell's equations.
> 
> >> The Lorentz transforms are most definitely NOT a consequence of
> >> Maxwell's Theory, as written by J.C.Maxwell.
> 
> > It's a property of Maxwell's equations that they are invariant under the Lorentz
> > transformation. This was known before Einstein.
> 
> Maxwell's equations (as written by Maxwell) were NEVER invariant under
> the Lorentz transforms. Not then, not now, not ever eh!

Yes, but as I've already explained (responding to Tom's post), I meant 
Maxwell's equations at the time Einstein began his work, NOT as originally 
written by Maxwell almost 50 years earlier. Look e.g. at Lorentz's 1904 paper
preceding Einstein's in the Dover book. He goes over the Lorentz invariance of 
Maxwell's equations there.

--
Jan

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

#476961

On 12/11/2018 21:14, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 12:45:44 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 10/11/2018 09:33, JanPB wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 10, 2018 at 12:41:20 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>> On 09/11/2018 23:04, JanPB wrote:
>>
>>>>> [Einstein] was motivated by Maxwell's equations, more specifically he wanted
>>>>> to supply a physical basis to the transformed E and B fields and to the
>>>>> Lorentz transformation which had been known already but interpreted as a
>>>>> mostly mathematical property of Maxwell's equations.
>>
>>>> The Lorentz transforms are most definitely NOT a consequence of
>>>> Maxwell's Theory, as written by J.C.Maxwell.
>>
>>> It's a property of Maxwell's equations that they are invariant under the Lorentz
>>> transformation. This was known before Einstein.
>>
>> Maxwell's equations (as written by Maxwell) were NEVER invariant under
>> the Lorentz transforms. Not then, not now, not ever eh!
> 
> Yes, but as I've already explained (responding to Tom's post), I meant
> Maxwell's equations at the time Einstein began his work, NOT as originally
> written by Maxwell almost 50 years earlier.

And as I've already explained to Tom Roberts, when i say Maxwell's
  equations, i mean Maxwell's equations eh!

> Look e.g. at Lorentz's 1904 paper
> preceding Einstein's in the Dover book. He goes over the Lorentz invariance of
> Maxwell's equations there.

Lorentz certainly did not show the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell's 
equations, because Maxwell's equations are not Lorentz invariant eh!

keith stein




> --
> Jan
> 

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

#476979

On 11/13/18 7:32 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
> when i say Maxwell's equations, i mean Maxwell's equations eh!

This is 2018, not 1860. TODAY, "Maxwell's equations" means the four 
3-vector equations as revised by Heaviside; the phrase has been used 
this way for well over a century. You cannot change this.

If you want to refer to Maxwell's ORIGINAL equations, then you must say 
so explicitly, because "Maxwell's equations" means something else. 
Unlike Maxwell's equations, his original theory is SOLIDLY refuted, so 
it's pretty useless.

Maxwell's Equations are not a complete theory of electrodynamics, but 
they are the cornerstone of Classical Electrodynamics, which is a 
complete theory, valid within its (non-quantum) domain. CE combines the 
ME with the Lorentz transform, the Lorentz force equation, the scalar 
and vector potentials, and constitutive equations for materials. CE can 
be formulated using tensors in a manifestly Lorentz-invariant way, and 
can be applied on the curved manifolds of GR.

	NONE of that applies to Maxwell's original theory, so
	in addition to being experimentally refuted it is also
	a dead end theoretically. But the ME, in the guise of
	CE, have proven to be very fruitful. Hence the general
	acceptance of the meaning of "Maxwell's equations".

Tom Roberts

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

#477013

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 5:32:39 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 12/11/2018 21:14, JanPB wrote:
> > On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 12:45:44 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
> >> On 10/11/2018 09:33, JanPB wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, November 10, 2018 at 12:41:20 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>>> On 09/11/2018 23:04, JanPB wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> [Einstein] was motivated by Maxwell's equations, more specifically he wanted
> >>>>> to supply a physical basis to the transformed E and B fields and to the
> >>>>> Lorentz transformation which had been known already but interpreted as a
> >>>>> mostly mathematical property of Maxwell's equations.
> >>
> >>>> The Lorentz transforms are most definitely NOT a consequence of
> >>>> Maxwell's Theory, as written by J.C.Maxwell.
> >>
> >>> It's a property of Maxwell's equations that they are invariant under the Lorentz
> >>> transformation. This was known before Einstein.
> >>
> >> Maxwell's equations (as written by Maxwell) were NEVER invariant under
> >> the Lorentz transforms. Not then, not now, not ever eh!
> > 
> > Yes, but as I've already explained (responding to Tom's post), I meant
> > Maxwell's equations at the time Einstein began his work, NOT as originally
> > written by Maxwell almost 50 years earlier.
> 
> And as I've already explained to Tom Roberts, when i say Maxwell's
>   equations, i mean Maxwell's equations eh!
> 
> > Look e.g. at Lorentz's 1904 paper
> > preceding Einstein's in the Dover book. He goes over the Lorentz invariance of
> > Maxwell's equations there.
> 
> Lorentz certainly did not show the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell's 
> equations, because Maxwell's equations are not Lorentz invariant eh!

We are talking about different things. Fine.

--
Jan

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

#476709

Keith Stein wrote:
> On 09/11/2018 23:04, JanPB wrote:
>> On Friday, November 9, 2018 at 12:53:54 AM UTC-8, nero wrote:
>>> ..Einstein derived his Relativity ' theory also from the MMX
>>
>> No, he was motivated by Maxwell's equations, more specifically he wanted
>> to supply a physical basis to the transformed E and B fields and to the
>> Lorentz transformation which had been known already but interpreted as a
>> mostly mathematical property of Maxwell's equations.
> 
> The Lorentz transforms are most definitely NOT a consequence of
> Maxwell's Theory, as written by J.C.Maxwell. […]

But they are, because Maxwell’s equations are not invariant under Galilean
transformation, i.e. they take a different form in another inertial frame
of reference if one uses the Galilean transformation for transforming
coordinates between inertial frames.

This *violates* the otherwise well-confirmed Galilean principle of
relativity which says that there is no way to tell solely from quantities
measured in a frame whether that frame is inertial motion relative to some
other inertial frame.

however, Maxwell’s equations *are* invariant under *Lorentz* transformation
which *also* follow from the special principle of relativity as formulated
by Albert Einstein (see below).

> According to Maxwell's theory, as written by Maxwell, light travels at a
> speed appropriate to, and relative to, the "medium" (i.e. the "stuff" the
> light is traveling through).

No, this is the modern view.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian's_fallacy>

With “medium”, Maxwell was referring to a luminiferous aether instead as a
medium *by which* electromagnetic waves such as light would propagate.
Because at the time it was not conceivable that such transverse waves could
propagate without an oscillating medium, but they had already been
assumed/observed to travel through vacuum (in the laboratory; also, we can
see distant stars).

The MMX of 1887 showed that such an aether would have to have special
properties because it could not be detected by relative motion through it
(no “aether wind”).  But it could also not be partially or fully dragged by
objects moving in it or through it (which would explain the null result)
because then there would be less or no stellar aberration (since Bradley, 1729).

Chiefly, Woldemar Voigt, George FitzGerald, Joseph Larmor, Hendrik Antoon
Lorentz, and Henri Poincaré, among others, proposed such special properties
to solve the contraction, such as that objects would be contracted when
moving through the aether (length contraction), and that time would pass
slower then (time dilation):

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations>

But these were just ad-hoc assumptions to make the mathematics fit the
observations.  There was no fundamental reason why it had to be so, and
there was no way to falsify those assumptions as then the aether would be
undetectable.  Lorentz only considered them as a working hypothesis (ibd.)

In his 1905 paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, Albert Einstein
showed that one can derive the required length contraction and time dilation
*without* assuming an undetectable luminiferous aether, by simply letting go
of the Galilean/Newtonian notion that lengths and times would be absolute.
Instead, every (inertial) frame of reference has their own measure of
lengths and times, and one must use the Lorentz transformation to transform
spatial and temporal coordinates, and physical quantities depending on them,
between frames – the same Lorentz transformation under which Maxwell’s
equations are invariant, i.e. are physical laws (as observed).

To this day this theory – later called by Einstein “(the) special (theory
of) relativity” – is the prevailing one because it has survived all serious
attempts to falsify it, and it is the foundation of other theories that have
been confirmed by experiment to even greater precision, namely general
relativity (GR, from 1915) and quantum electrodynamics (QED, from the 1940s).

Also, all those theories resulted in practical applications, in
*technology*: particle accelerators (from 1931), nuclear fission power
plants (from 1942), atomic bombs (Trinity, 1945; unfortunately), lasers
(1960), global satellite navigation and timekeeping (e.g. GPS, from 1977),
and gravitational wave observatories (from 1980), to name a few.

None of the devices would work if those theories were fundamentally wrong.

And we would know and understand a lot less about our universe.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#476721

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> […]
> The MMX of 1887 showed that such an aether would have to have special
> properties because it could not be detected by relative motion through it
> (no “aether wind”).  But it could also not be partially or fully dragged by
> objects moving in it or through it (which would explain the null result)
> because then there would be less or no stellar aberration (since Bradley, 1729).
> 
> Chiefly, Woldemar Voigt, George FitzGerald, Joseph Larmor, Hendrik Antoon
> Lorentz, and Henri Poincaré, among others, proposed such special properties
> to solve the contraction,

_contradiction_

> such as that objects would be contracted when
> moving through the aether (length contraction), and that time would pass
> slower then (time dilation):
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations>
> 
> But these were just ad-hoc assumptions to make the mathematics fit the
> observations.  There was no fundamental reason why it had to be so, and
> there was no way to falsify those assumptions as then the aether would be
> undetectable.  Lorentz only considered them as a working hypothesis (ibd.)
> 
> In his 1905 paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, Albert Einstein
> showed that one can derive the required length contraction and time dilation
> *without* assuming an undetectable luminiferous aether, by simply letting go
> of the Galilean/Newtonian notion that lengths and times would be absolute.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#476744

Long after Maxwell's death it was learned that this particular subset, 
plus a few additions such as the EM potential and the Lorentz 
transformation, form a self-consistent theory we now call "Classical 
Electrodynamics" (after the eponymous book by J. D. Jackson). It has 
never been refuted within its domain of classical (non-quantum) physics


What Experiment is Maxwell's theory based on?

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

#476745

But they are, because Maxwell’s equations are not invariant under Galilean 
transformation, i.e. they take a different form in another inertial frame 
of reference if one uses the Galilean transformation for transforming 
coordinates between inertial frames. 


What pray tell experiment is Maxwell's theory based on?

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

#476746

Or what experiment is Maxwell's equations based on?

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

#476763

consequently7990662@gmail.com Wrote in message:
> Or what experiment is Maxwell's equations based on?

Rather on all experiments in electromagnetism done in many years
 before.

They were originally belonging to a set of  separate areas from
 electrostatics to magnetodynamics, joined together by Maxwell
 theory.

By other words, there is not a specific experiment, leading to MT.
There was a huge set of experiments, addressed by particular laws,
 with lack of unification principles.

-- 
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]

#476804

On Saturday, November 10, 2018 at 2:09:49 PM UTC-8, consequen...@gmail.com wrote:
> Or what experiment is Maxwell's equations based on?

I don't know the history of Maxwell's reasoning but the equations are obviously based
on E&M laws known by then: Gauss' law, Ampère's law (which originally applied to
magnetostatics only, Maxwell corrected it), Faraday's law, Biot-Savart law.

--
Jan

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

#476801

.Rather on all experiments in electromagnetism done in many years 
 before. 


 Could you give me an example?

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

#476810

Is Maxwell's theory an "electromagnetic theory of light"?

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

#476826

carleto4157990662@gmail.com Wrote in message:
> Is Maxwell's theory an "electromagnetic theory of light"?

Yes and no. It depends what you  mean by "is".

MT addresses all classical  (non quantum ) range of electromagnetism. 
EM nature of light is just a part of it.

-- 
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]

#476829

On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 3:55:34 PM UTC-8, Libor Striz wrote:
> carleto4157990662@gmail.com Wrote in message:
> > Is Maxwell's theory an "electromagnetic theory of light"?
> 
> Yes and no. It depends what you  mean by "is".
> 
> MT addresses all classical  (non quantum ) range of electromagnetism. 
> EM nature of light is just a part of it.
> 
> -- 
> 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/

What are the strengths of the magnetic and electric fields
as the forces of light wave?

Mitchell Raemsch

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

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

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

csiph-web