Well, Kolker? Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals

From: eleaticus (eleaticus_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 10/22/04 

Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:43:26 -0500

"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:2tdthkF1pnqkgU1@uni-berlin.de...

> Apparently you do not know the difference between empirical
> falsifiability and mathematical inconsistency. Your other postings on
> the invariance of Maxswell's equations under Galilean transform is
> indicative you do not know dickey-doo about mathematics. We know that
> Maxwell's equations are not microscopically true, but they are
> consistent and they are NOT galilean invariant.

Congratulations!

You have proved yourself capable of being at least a jerk, if not an ass,
and of not having sufficient honesty to actually respond to the details of
logic/etc.

So, can you now prove yourself capable of relenting in your desire to prove
irrelevant to any actual discussion, and do something helpful?

Maxwell and invariance are an important combination of topics and as many
expressions as I know of for E, H, B, etc, I do not know just what exemplars
of them would be best for demonstrating particulars of their transformation
by Newton-theoretic coordinate tranformations.

The 'problem' is different than in the case of the Lorentz transforms of
Maxwell because in the Newton case it actually is the coordinates x,y,z that
are transformed, rather than - essentially - the inverse of the coordinates.

So, please provide a set of expressions - appropriate for full exposition of
Maxwell's - for Ex, Ey. Ez, etc, complete with explicit coordinate
expressions.

Obviously (ha!) the result would be that finally I come headsup (as we poker
players say) with my tremendous error in thinking that transforming Maxwell
Newton-wise without the three strawmen corruptions will prove invariant.

Thanks!

eleaticus

> Bob Kolker
>
>