Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.


"bz" <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:Xns968984D81EC04WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:1120489780.990083.63750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
> >> [quote]
> >> the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all
> >> frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
> >> [unquote]
> >> He does not say what those laws are. He just says that they will hold
> >> for all frames of reference for which the equations of machanics hold.
> >>
> >> He follows this closely with his second postulate.
> >> [quote]
> >> that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
> >> c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
> >> [unquote]
> >>
> >
> > Coulomb force and gravity is what usually is exempted
> > from "crutched up" interpretations of AE's PoR.
>
> In AE's 1905 paper on special relativity, he deals with uniform motion, so
> those exclusions makes sense as they involve acceleration.
>
> > Isn't that convenient? Long range forces that can
> > never be localized can't screw up what really
> > should be called a "Theory of Invariance".
> >
> > But Oops. Exempting the Coulomb force and
> > gravity assumes things don't radiate.
>
> NO. It just says that 'today we will not deal with gravity or how light is
> created'.

Thanks for pouring over the original. I had never notice the
Maxwell officially getting sidelined too ... Hmmm.

>
> > Which is quite consistant with Maxwell's equations
> > when Ampere's law is used, (vs Biot-Savart)
> > and quite consistant with a gravity theory
> > that requires rocket motors under your chair.
>
> But quite outside the scope of Special Relativity.

Whaaaaa? It is whole reason for Special Relativiy.
Maxwell couldn't radiate but Hertz and Weber could.

>
> Science often involves restricting the scope of ones investigation.

Special relativity is not science. But it's scope was most certainly
limited enough to exclude both Maxwell's problems and Weber's
solutions.

>
>
> [No need to quote the entire article just to post such a comment.]
I am still a bit rough with googlegroups but thanks. I see how to
do that now.

Sue...

>
>
>
> --
> bz
>
> please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
> infinite set.
>
> bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
    ... >> He does not say what those laws are. ... >> for all frames of reference for which the equations of machanics hold. ... > gravity assumes things don't radiate. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Maxwells and Faradays formulations of induction
    ... In accordance with these laws, ... The aether is a separate issue. ... Thus, Newton did not reject the aether as a substance, but he had ... gravity this tensor _does not reduce_ to Delta phi. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: GUT ( Grand unification theory)
    ... Newtons laws are ... We then see that the resultant of the transition from Gauss to Maxwell ... Put the request into your Maxwellian based radiation computor program ... Atomic nucleii have mass which gives rise to gravity (which distorts ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
  • Re: On Religion, confessions of a deist
    ... > physics as we know them, and the laws of physics as they truly are. ... > gravity", but a man named Einstein convinced us that gravity isn't ... > not our life take on a new form, as its judgment by others, once our ... > Some would argue that this discourse On Religion is incomplete; ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: OT: Religion and Science (WAS: Making money from Java)
    ... > what causes it, about which ancestral forms begat later species, about ... >> Much like, as you say later in this post, that gravity is a theory. ... Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their ... Then there is the "Law of Evolution", ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)