Re: A Forgotten Prediction of Einstein




Russell wrote:
> 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?


I will will state in closing you've shown nothing physically
objectionable with the statement that so intrigued you:

<<If Annie Oakly and Buffalo Bill are moving relatively on
equal horses and firing equal arms, a mid-point collision
of the bullets is proof they both know what "now' is. >>

If it doesn't fit in your universe then perhaps you are
describing a universe we have no access to.

Sue...

.