Re: A Forgotten Prediction of Einstein



Sue... wrote:
> Russell wrote:
> > Sue... wrote:

[I think it's ok to snip most of this]

> > > Spend your two hours with the bell-hop problem.
> >
> > Heh, I know you are not serious, but let's pretend that you
> > are, and make a deal. If I work out the bellhop problem for
> > you, will you *finally* get off your duff and do a calculation
> > for me? It's OK with me if you don't know how, just say so,
> > and I'll walk you through it.
> >
> > > If you find it in your argurment then spend as long
> > > as necessary in the study of various forms of Maxwelll's
> > > equations 'till you learn how to make the argument
> > > correctly.
> >
> > That's the whole problem with you, you study and study
> > and never get around to doing a calculation to see if you
> > actually understood what you studied. You might find
> > the answer disturbing, far better not to go there at all,
> > I guess....
>
> If your believe Einstein's 'Relativiy of Simulatiety' metaphysic

Metaphysic? We're just talking coordinates here. You
are *so* confused.

> has any physical translation then you need to demonstate
> with real field equations which will include moving media.

What, you don't think the Jackson paper, which you tout
around these parts, includes relativity of simultaneity? Of
course you have worked this out yourself and are certain it
does not.... Btw, have you sent that email to Jackson,
informing him that his paper contradicts special relativity?

>
> Focus here:
>
> Time-independent Maxwell equations
> The Biot-Savart law
> Electrostatics and magnetostatics
>
> Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
> Retarded potentials
> Advanced potentials?
> Retarded fields
> Summary
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
> (You can tranlate Fitzpatrick to acsii maths yourself if
> that is your preference )

Did you email Fitzpatrick too? Most academics *love* getting
email from interested laypersons willing to discuss their
papers (or websites) intelligently, as I'm sure you will do.

>
> If you can't find the difference or can't find equations
> for moving media then I'll try to find it for you.

Right, you are good at finding. But no calculations. Make
the things you find hairy enough, and you can say anything
you like about them since nobody will ever find out what exact
misinterpretation you are making of them to lead you to the
nonsense you say. And if nobody can do that, well, you must
be right. At least you can fool yourself that way, I suppose.

This exchange has devolved and is now off topic AFAICS.
So, if I don't get a chance to post again here, let me just say
in closing, *what* missing dollar?

.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Electro-London Inertia
    ... > sue jahn wrote: ... In general relativity theory ... > proportion to the applied force of acceleration?] ... > upon a rest-based theory called relativity that cannot synchronize ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Polls: Is Special Relativity wrong? One person, one vote
    ... for the performance of all physical experiments" ... Sue loves this quote because it uses the phrase "totally equivalent". ... All inertial frames are totally equivalent ... relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Triplet Paradox
    ... > Sue... ... >> Russell wrote: ... Einstein did not write the FAQ. ... << At this juncture the theory of relativity entered the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A Forgotten Prediction of Einstein
    ... > Sue... ... >> Russell wrote: ... >> with real field equations which will include moving media. ... > informing him that his paper contradicts special relativity? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A complete schism with numbers is needed - adacrypt
    ... dock. ... Nobody beyond conceive in favour of Murad when the elaborate ... cite ferrys unless Sue will mercilessly recover afterwards. ...
    (sci.crypt)