Re: What was original in Einsteins SR theory ?

In article <x0y0f.53365$VI6.9132@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Androcles <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote:
>
>"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:dhu8p9$g12$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>| In article <1128407331.040336.266700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>| blackboab <blackboab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>| Related to the assumption of c'=c+v, Maxwell's equations as given in
>the
>| textbooks would be for the rest frame of the aether. Under a boost
>they
>| would pick up velocity-dependent terms. The assumption was basically
>that
>| Newton's mechanics were correct, and electromagnetism had to be fixed
>up.
>
>Which is simple to do:
>
>c = 1/sqrt(epsilon * mu)
>
>The permittivity and permeability of space is zero,
>c = 1/sqrt(0*0) is undefined.
>
>The permittivity and permeability of aether defined the speed of light
>in aether.

That doesn't seem to address the transformation properties of Maxwell's
equations. E.g. for an electromagnetic wave moving with velocity v
relative to the aether,

(del^2 -1/c^2 d^2/dt^2

-2/c^2 v dot del d/dt - 1/c^2 v dot del v dot del) E = 0

The terms on the second line are velocity-dependent and don't appear in
the standard theory.

>
>
>[snip crap]
>
>| If the Lorentz
>| transformations were not universal, it could have been the case, e.g.,
>| that particle decays mediated by the electromagnetic force would go as
>| t'=t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
>Idiot:
>t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> = (t - v (vt)/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> = t (1 - v^2/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

By your triumphant insult you seem to think you've proven something
astonishing. But it looks to me that instead of finding a relation
between elapsed times for a particle stationary in the unprimed frame and
moving in the primed, as is usually done, you've found a relation for a
particle stationary in the primed and moving in the unprimed frame. What
am I missing?

--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Naturally, there can be no "aether"; Special Relativity Lecture by Michael Fowler
    ... > You Really Can't Tell You're Moving! ... Naturally, there can be no "aether", no thin ... Michelson would have said that a frame "at rest" ... As the CMBR reveals, it does... ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What was original in Einsteins SR theory ?
    ... |>| textbooks would be for the rest frame of the aether. ... and electromagnetism had to be ... E.g. for an electromagnetic wave moving with velocity v ... Nothing can go faster than a turtle. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Relativity is a Dutch discovery
    ... moving - that is what is meant by 'wind'. ... stationary in a frame and is independent of if the aether is a material ... so an aether wind exists. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativity is a Dutch discovery
    ... stationary in a frame and is independent of if the aether is a material ... substance, mathematical construct, or philosophical device. ... part of your dialectic, and is stationary in a frame, then it is moving ... so an aether wind exists. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativity is a Dutch discovery
    ... Any particle at rest in aether in the absence of forces working on ... itself is an inertial frame of reference. ... matter moving in it. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)