Re: The genius of the Absolute
From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 01/12/05
- Next message: Peter Kinane: "Re: Charge"
- Previous message: Alphonse: "Re: Time and space"
- In reply to: Jesse Mazer: "Re: The genius of the Absolute"
- Next in thread: Jesse Mazer: "Re: The genius of the Absolute"
- Reply: Jesse Mazer: "Re: The genius of the Absolute"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:53:37 GMT
"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:41E567DF.1040206@mail.verizon.net...
>
>
> Androcles wrote:
>
>>"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]
>>
>
> No, you're wrong. Maxwell's equations are premised on empirical
> observations.
(Sigh).
Here's an empirical observation.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/New_Folder/00918-ck.gif
Maxwell's "laws" are NOT based on that empirical observation, and
there are many more like it than Maxwell (or YOU) have never looked at.
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00107-de.gif
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00135-di.gif
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00164-dg.gif
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00470-dg.gif
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00526-di.gif
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00359-de.gif
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00588-db.gif
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifl/00029.gif
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifl/00054.gif
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifl/00054.gif
I really don't care if you use air as a medium for light's speed,
because
I agree that the speed of light is medium dependent. I'm sure of it.
Maxwell can base his "laws" on observations made in a medium
until the cows come home, he will never explain that curve, and neither
will you.
I am NOT wrong. YOU are.
> Physicists don't believe in aether anymore, but they still use
> Maxwell's equations to make predictions about electromagnetic fields,
> because the predictions of these equations STILL AGREE WITH
> EXPERIMENTS. Are you disagreeing with this?
I'm predicting V1493 Aql will provide another outburst in about 200
years.
Are you disagreeing with me?
Your "physicists" have made every little progress toward controlled
fusion,
they allow relativity to screw them up.
>>
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>
> Yes, many of the set of equations known as "Maxwell's laws" had
> already been discovered before Maxwell. But Maxwell was the first to
> write down the complete set of equations for the electromagnetic
> field, hence this collection of equations is known as "Maxwell's
> laws". If you don't like this terminology, feel free to come up with
> some other name for this set of six equations, and we can use that
> name for the rest of our discussion; the equations will be the same
> either way.
>
> Here's another site which also refers to these equations as "Maxwell's
> equations", so you can verify that I'm using the standard terminology:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations
Understand this: Mathematics can only DESCRIBE physics. It cannot
BE physics. If Einstein wants to play games pretending that time is
not invariant by claiming the time for light to get to a distant point
is 1/2 the time it takes to make the round trip, just because he can't
figure it out any other way, he's
1) wrong.
2) dead wrong.
3) an idiot savant.
>
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>
> Ampere's law does not say anything about the speed of light.
I give up.
There is quite clearly a c^2 in the middle box on the page
you referred to. You are wasting my time. I'll accept Gauss,
I will accept Faraday. Ampere has a speed in it. I dnt care
how many times "physicists" have proven Gauss and Faraday,
I'm not clumping it all together and calling it "Maxwell" proven.
Androcles.
- Next message: Peter Kinane: "Re: Charge"
- Previous message: Alphonse: "Re: Time and space"
- In reply to: Jesse Mazer: "Re: The genius of the Absolute"
- Next in thread: Jesse Mazer: "Re: The genius of the Absolute"
- Reply: Jesse Mazer: "Re: The genius of the Absolute"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
