Re: The genius of the Absolute

From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 01/12/05 

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:12:45 GMT

"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:41E4E4EE.3020409@mail.verizon.net...
>
>
> Androcles wrote:
>
>>"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
>>news:41E44116.5030902@mail.verizon.net...
>>
>>>Androcles wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:41E35A5A.8050601@mail.verizon.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Androcles wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:41E32569.6050001@mail.verizon.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course, before Einstein physicists didn't think Maxwell's laws
>>>>>>>would be correct in every observer's reference frame--they
>>>>>>>thought they would only hold exactly in the rest frame of the
>>>>>>>aether. They would have believed that to state the laws of
>>>>>>>electromagnetism in a way that would hold in all frames, you'd
>>>>>>>have to replace every x in Maxwell's laws with (x - v*t), where v
>>>>>>>represents the observer's velocity relative to the rest frame of
>>>>>>>the aether...any derivatives of x would have to be replaced in
>>>>>>>the same way, like replacing dx/dt with (dx/dt - v). This would
>>>>>>>give a new set of electromagnetic laws which would be
>>>>>>>Galilei-invariant, and which would reduce to Maxwell's laws in
>>>>>>>the case where v=0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But a prediction of this Galilei-invariant analogue of Maxwell's
>>>>>>>laws would be that for an observer in motion relative to the
>>>>>>>aether, light will be observed to move at different speeds in
>>>>>>>different directions, relative to himself. Unfortunately this was
>>>>>>>not supported by the Michelson-Morley experiment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>The speed of light in diamond, water, air, any transparent medium
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>constant with respect to the medium. MMX fails to support aether.
>>>>>>In MMX, the medium is air. It is as simple as that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>What do you mean "the medium is air"?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I mean that air was used as a medium for light,
>>>>by Michelson, in his interferometer, of course.
>>>>He did not perform the experiment in an evacuated chamber, on the
>>>>surface
>>>>of the moon, or aboard the ISS.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>My point was that when waves are considered as a vibration in a
>>>>>medium, like sound waves, the speed of any wave will be constant
>>>>>with respect to the rest frame of the medium.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Your points are invariance, x-vt, Maxwell's laws, derivatives,
>>>>aether and
>>>>anything else you can mention hoping to cover the issue, but you
>>>>omitted
>>>>to say anything about the physical medium used and asked me what I
>>>>meant by it, so clearly it was NOT your point, it is MY point.
>>>>
>>>>Recall that Einstein's second postulate is
>>>>"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
>>>>c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Maxwell's laws also say that light's velocity is independent of the
>>>state of motion of the emitting body,
>>>
>>
>>For light in a medium. Maxwell believed in aether.
>>
>
> Who cares what Maxwell believed? Maxwell's laws are just a set of
> equations telling you how charged objects interact with the
> electromagnetic field, and how the electromagnetic field in turn
> affects the movements of charged objects. You don't have to believe in
> aether

I do not, but Maxwell did. OK? So whatever Maxwell's "laws" may be,
they are premised on aether. There is no aether, so Maxwell has no law.
If you wish to discuss Maxwell's equations, we can do that. I refuse
to discuss Maxwell's "laws".
[snip]

> This is a pure mathematical consequence of the equations of Maxwell's
> laws.
[snip]

> For reference, Maxwell's equations themselves can be found here:
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq.html

I see Gauss, Faraday and Ampere.

>
> You can see that "the speed of light is c" is not a
> tacked-on-assumption,

Ampere uses it. It IS a tacked on assumption.

I also see mu0 and epsilon0, properties of aether.
That is the tacked on assumption.

>>
>>
>>> regardless of whether you have the relativistic understanding of
>>> these laws (that they hold in all reference frames)
>>>
>>
>> Michelson was intending to use doppler shift to measure the
>>the speed of light in the aether as the Earth flew through it. He was
>>certainly NOT claiming the speed of light was invariant. Neither was
>>Maxwell. Both believed time and distance are invariant, as indeed
>>they are.
>>
>
> Yes, they believed that Maxwell's laws only worked in a single
> preferred reference frame. But in relativity, which neither Michelson
> nor Maxwell believed in (because it hadn't been invented yet), if
> Maxwell's laws are true in one reference frame they must be true in
> all of them (because they have the mathematical property of
> Lorentz-invariance).
>
Mathematical properties of aether. There is no aether. <yawn>

>>
>>
>>>or the pre-relativistic understanding of them (that they only hold in
>>>one preferred frame, and in other frames the velocity of light would
>>>be c+v in one direction and c-v in the other).
>>>
>>
>>Both are wrong. The speed of light is source dependent in a vacuum,
>>and medium dependent when passing though a medium. The medium
>>becomes the new source, of course.
>>
>
> So you assert.

So the stars assert, but you'd have them blowing themselves to
smithereens,
settling back to normal and blowing themselves to smithereens again.
You'd have them puffing up and down like blowfish. You'd have them
throwing out flares a 1000 times brighter than the star itself. You'd
have
a different model for every single phenomenon, and I have one model
for all of them. I don't think your many models are plausible, whatever
Maxwell's so-called "laws" may say.

> But this does not fit with the predictions of classical
> electromagnetism,

Of course it doesn't! Classical electrodynamics uses aether. THERE
IS NO AETHER.

> and you don't have an alternate theory that can replicate all of the
> successful predictions of classical electromagnetism.

I've told you. I do not have a theory at all. All theories are the work
of others. What I have is a discovery. I'm telling you about the
discovery.
The speed of light, in a vacuum, is source dependent, just like a
bullet from a gun. YOU figure out the theory.

>>>
>>>>All speeds are relative to something.
>>>>When requesting a drink on a plane, my speed relative to the flight
>>>>attendant is also zero, even though travelling at 500 mph ground
>>>>speed
>>>>and 250 mph by the air speed indicator.
>>>>The speed of light inside a plane, as with the speed of sound, is
>>>>relative.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>That's because the plane carries its own little pocket of air with
>>>it,
>>>
>>
>>So does MMX, so we can put that one to bed. MMX has nothing
>> whatever to do with Einstein's relativity. Have it struck from the
>>FAQ's, which are a biased and prejudiced sham, a disgrace to science.
>>
>
> Should the theory of electromagnetism (the non-quantum version, ie
> Maxwell's equations) also be struck from the FAQ's? It seems that it
> conflicts just as badly with your ideas.

Your problem. I detect bugs other people's work, and Einstein's
paper has a bug in it. His '½' in
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
is a wild guess and totally absurd.

Anyway, I'm out of time on this post, and tired of reading "Maxwell's
laws".

Androcles.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Aether, light, and mediums ... mmmmkay?
    ... > It seems to me that except for people who post around here the aether is ... misinterpretation of what a medium is actually doing. ... >> must be some kind of medium for light to travel in if it is a wave. ... >> it with mass, electromagnetism and gravity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Aether, light, and mediums ... mmmmkay?
    ... > It seems to me that except for people who post around here the aether is ... misinterpretation of what a medium is actually doing. ... >> must be some kind of medium for light to travel in if it is a wave. ... >> it with mass, electromagnetism and gravity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The genius of the Absolute
    ... > they would only hold exactly in the rest frame of the aether. ... and which would reduce to Maxwell's laws ... The speed of light in diamond, water, air, any transparent medium is ... > a physicist in a time before the theory of relativity had been ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The genius of the Absolute
    ... >>electromagnetic field, and how the electromagnetic field in turn ... There is no aether, ... many of the set of equations known as "Maxwell's laws" had already ... When I use the term "classical electromagnetism" I am just referring to ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Lightspeed exceeded
    ... theory was impeccable and ditch three axioms of mechanics or assume ... differently than the laws of electrodynamics among choice of inertial ... of Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics it would seem sensible to modify EM ... aether concept the idea that light was waves in the aether dominated ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast