Re: The derivative of the SR function.
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:25:17 -0700
On Jun 1, 6:45 pm, "Gerald L. O'Barr" <glob...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 1, 12:37 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 1, 3:34 pm, "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The derivative of the SR function.
Guidance from O'Barr.
[...]
So LET tells us how to navigate a universe with
a material ether and SR tells us how to navigate
a universe with no material at all. If we ever
find ourselves in either predicament, your
guidance could be most useful in plotting
an escape back to the world where fresh
and sunshine can be found. :o)
O'Barr comments:
Now sue, do not make me look dumber than I am.
LET does not tell us too much about the ether,
mainly that it is there and is the decider at least
of what length or rate will be seen in rulers and
clocks moving through it. We really do not know
exactly what it is made of, or how it works.
(The at theory addresses a few of these things.)
So it is physically wrong because rulers can't
contract along the axis of motion.
And SR is telling us what physical measurements
we will see. But SR was not derived by physical
means. SR was derived by one math constant, c, and
by assumptions that all math equations will be of
the same form in all frames. Because of it being
only mathematically derived, then we have no
physical cause and effects, no cause for a fixed
photon velocity, no physical cause for changes
in anything.
So it is physically wrong because the rulers
spoil the ~perfect~ vacuum and light doesn't
propagate as a massive particle.
But you can't do this with LET.
<< Figure 3: The wave impedance measures
the relative strength of electric and magnetic
fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>
Formerly: http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
....and that is consistant with real world measurements
where the clocks vary in the near field and the relative
lengths of magnetic and electric paths vary with motion.
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extended
Just as SR states:
"The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
The extensions (by others) were mentioned
in Einstein's 1923 Nobel lecture. The war
you are fighting ended over 80 years ago.
Sling your Arisaka and come down out of
the sniper's nest. Ya won't believe how much
more fun you can have with Nintendo.
Sue...
But thanks for thinking of me.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The derivative of the SR function.
- From: harry
- Re: The derivative of the SR function.
- References:
- The derivative of the SR function.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: The derivative of the SR function.
- From: Sue...
- Re: The derivative of the SR function.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- The derivative of the SR function.
- Prev by Date: Re: SR WITHOUT THE LIGHT POSTULATE?
- Next by Date: Re: SR WITHOUT THE LIGHT POSTULATE?
- Previous by thread: Re: The derivative of the SR function.
- Next by thread: Re: The derivative of the SR function.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
