Re: why lorentz transformation?
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 Sep 2005 00:57:12 -0700
David McAnally wrote:
> "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> >francisco wrote:
> >> galileo's principle of relativity states that the laws of mechanics should
> >> be the same for all inertial observers. and indeed, newtonian mechanics is
> >> unchanged under galilean transformations. the problem is that maxwellian
> >> electrodynamics is not the same in every inertial frame under that
> >> transformation. so what to do? find a set of transformations under which
> >> both mechanics and electrodynamics are the same for all inertial frames.
> >> this leads to the lorentz transformation.
>
> >Since Maxwell's equations don't predict radiation either
>
> As the softrat points out, Maxwell's Equations do predict the existence of
> electromagnetic radiation. What line of reasoning could possibly have led
> you to believe that they don't? Seeing that you have made this
> demonstrably false claim about Maxwell's Equations, how could anybody
> trust your word on anything else?
Science is not the business of knowing who to trust.
The line of reasoning is in the two well considered
papers offered and you have offered nothing
*demonstrable*.
Sue...
>
> -----
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: why lorentz transformation?
- From: David McAnally
- Re: why lorentz transformation?
- References:
- why lorentz transformation?
- From: francisco
- Re: why lorentz transformation?
- From: Sue...
- Re: why lorentz transformation?
- From: David McAnally
- why lorentz transformation?
- Prev by Date: Re: why lorentz transformation?
- Next by Date: Re: twin clock problem - SR experts help!
- Previous by thread: Re: why lorentz transformation?
- Next by thread: Re: why lorentz transformation?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
