http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/sp958-lide/191-193.pdf

http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/sp958-lide/191-193.pdf

Ha! That supports my claim!

On Feb 26, 11:09 am, j...@tele2.se wrote:

[...]

You couldn't figure out SR 8 years ago, and it seems you still can't.
Minkowski space and Euclidean space are very, very different.
Minkowski space is the manifold that describes special relativity, and
Euclidean space is the manifold that describes Galilean relativity.

I suggest you stop posting to this newsgroup, because arguing from
ignorance will only get you laughed at.

On 27 Feb, 04:12, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 26, 11:09 am, j...@tele2.se wrote:

[...]

You couldn't figure out SR 8 years ago, and it seems you still can't.
Minkowski space and Euclidean space are very, very different.
Minkowski space is the manifold that describes special relativity, and
Euclidean space is the manifold that describes Galilean relativity.

I suggest you stop posting to this newsgroup, because arguing from
ignorance will only get you laughed at.

Well i do not actually laugh but i smile sometimes when people try to
convince me that a straight line between two points actually can have
as many distances that there is paths in spacetime.

You do not have to bring me any suggestions, i however suggest you to
actually plot the lightpaths in an Euclidian space as ship A pass
planet Origo at t0 in positive direction along the x-axis.

And send lightpulses in directions of (positive x-axis, negative x-
axis, positive y-axis and negative y-axis) After you have done that it
is pretty much clear how far the actual lightpaths travelled at moment
t1.(after one second in earth frame)
Well it is clear how they would look like if sent at any angle. Maybe
you shoud plot out how an expanding sphere around the ship would look
like if you unsure.

There you have your most funny and wrinkled sheet spacetime....

It even get more funny if you let 3 ships travel in a group velocity
along the x-axis, one in front of ship A and one behind call them B-
behind and F-front.

You let A fly by planet origo again and send the lighpulses, you will
immediatly notice if not fully retarded that the actual lightpaths
enclosure velocity differ between B and F.

And even more funny it will be if you let the ships actually have a
spatial dimension that light have to travel over. Because these ships
inhabit same inertial frame and have same contraction and same
dilation.

You will now notice that the transformation is not just velocity
dependent it is also vector dependent the enclosure velocity differ.
Yet somehow both ship B and F will measure the velocity to be 300 000
km.

And at this point i really smile, because the ships have same spatial
extension in spacetime and same clocks. But then again the enclosure
velocity seem to differ and *YET THEY WILL MEASURE THE VELOCITY OF
LIGHT TO BE INVARIANT* .....according to SR......

To rephrase a famous song by Queen, it is a kind of magic.
Of course you could say that when the lightbeam reach the measure
equipment a B and F it normalize with respect to the objects travel
vector and speed. But then again you will have a Newton definition of
lightspeed c+v, c-v and that would invalidate the initial setup AKA
light travels invariant through space.

Face it SR is in dilemma.......

Best regards Jonas Thörnvall

The

On Feb 27, 3:58 am, j...@tele2.se wrote:





On 27 Feb, 04:12, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 26, 11:09 am, j...@tele2.se wrote:

[...]

You couldn't figure out SR 8 years ago, and it seems you still can't.
Minkowski space and Euclidean space are very, very different.
Minkowski space is the manifold that describes special relativity, and
Euclidean space is the manifold that describes Galilean relativity.

I suggest you stop posting to this newsgroup, because arguing from
ignorance will only get you laughed at.

Well i do not actually laugh but i smile sometimes when people try to
convince me that a straight line between two points actually can have
as many distances that there is paths in spacetime.

You do not have to bring me any suggestions, i however suggest you to
actually plot the lightpaths in an Euclidian space as ship A pass
planet Origo at t0 in positive direction along the x-axis.

And send lightpulses in directions of (positive x-axis, negative x-
axis, positive y-axis and negative y-axis) After you have done that it
is pretty much clear how far the actual lightpaths travelled at moment
t1.(after one second in earth frame)
Well it is clear how they would look like if sent at any angle. Maybe
you shoud plot out how an expanding sphere around the ship would look
like if you unsure.

There you have your most funny and wrinkled sheet spacetime....

It even get more funny if you let 3 ships travel in a group velocity
along the x-axis, one in front of ship A and one behind call them B-
behind and F-front.

You let A fly by planet origo again and send the lighpulses, you will
immediatly notice if not fully retarded that the actual lightpaths
enclosure velocity differ between B and F.

And even more funny it will be if you let the ships actually have a
spatial dimension that light have to travel over. Because these ships
inhabit same inertial frame and have same contraction and same
dilation.

You will now notice that the transformation is not just velocity
dependent it is also vector dependent the enclosure velocity differ.
Yet somehow both ship B and F will measure the velocity to be 300 000
km.

And at this point i really smile, because the ships have same spatial
extension in spacetime and same clocks. But then again the enclosure
velocity seem to differ and *YET THEY WILL MEASURE THE VELOCITY OF
LIGHT TO BE INVARIANT* .....according to SR......

To rephrase a famous song by Queen, it is a kind of magic.
Of course you could say that when the lightbeam reach the measure
equipment a B and F it normalize with respect to the objects travel
vector and speed. But then again you will have a Newton definition of
lightspeed c+v, c-v and that would invalidate the initial setup AKA
light travels invariant through space.

Face it SR is in dilemma.......

You don't limit yourself to gradeshool maths.
Don't limit Einstein to a 15 year old paper when
you have one more current:

SR says:

"The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetismhttp://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_ex...

Sue...





Best regards Jonas Thörnvall

The- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -

Face it SR is in dilemma.......

From an example that has nothing to do with special relativity?


Best regards Jonas Thörnvall

The

On Feb 26, 11:58 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote:
[snip garbage]



Face it SR is in dilemma.......
From an example that has nothing to do with special relativity?

Best regards Jonas Thörnvall

The- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -

On 27 Feb, 10:42, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
[...]

Face it SR is in dilemma.......

You don't limit yourself to gradeshool maths.
Don't limit Einstein to a 15 year old paper when
you have one more current:

Don't limit yourself to dogmas,

SR theory should be just as valid in
Euclidian space as in Minkowski you only have to transform events.

try to plot out what i suggested and maybe you find out your theory it
is not valid at all.

I know you will not bcs you invested to much time, but the truth is
lightinvariance only an illusion created by Minkowski spacetime and
the Lorentz transformations.

You can scream all you want that Gallilean cordinate system and
Euclidian space isn't there and never existed, but any event in
Minkowsky spacetime is possible to plot in Euclidian spacetime. And
objects only comparable pairwise in Minkowski spacetime does not seem
to bother you the least.

On Feb 26, 11:09 am, j...@tele2.se wrote:

[...]

You couldn't figure out SR 8 years ago, and it seems you still can't.
Minkowski space and Euclidean space are very, very different.
Minkowski space is the manifold that describes special relativity, and
Euclidean space is the manifold that describes Galilean relativity.

I suggest you stop posting to this newsgroup, because arguing from
ignorance will only get you laughed at.

On Feb 27, 5:25 am, j...@tele2.se wrote:

On 27 Feb, 10:42, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
[...]

Face it SR is in dilemma.......

You don't limit yourself to gradeshool maths.
Don't limit Einstein to a 15 year old paper when
you have one more current:

Don't limit yourself to dogmas,

When you retroactivly violate a calendar I'll consider
it isn't dogma.

1905 /= 1920

SR theory should be just as valid in
Euclidian space as in Minkowski you only have to transform events.

For EM it is:
.. the gauge functions chi(x, t) whose spatial and temporal
derivatives transform one set of electromagnetic potentials into
another equivalent set; and ... whatever propagation
or non-propagation characteristics are exhibited by the potentials
in a particular gauge, the electric and magnetic fields are always
the same and display the experimentally verified properties of
causality and propagation at the speed of light. >>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034

So

try to plot out what i suggested and maybe you find out your theory it
is not valid at all.

Jackson provides the transforms at the URL above.

I know you will not bcs you invested to much time, but the truth is
lightinvariance only an illusion created by Minkowski spacetime and
the Lorentz transformations.

You don't even realise that I am arguing YOUR POV so
I'll just keep my investment where I have it.



You can scream all you want that Gallilean cordinate system and
Euclidian space isn't there and never existed, but any event in
Minkowsky spacetime is possible to plot in Euclidian spacetime. And
objects only comparable pairwise in Minkowski spacetime does not seem
to bother you the least.

No... The Lorenz gauge is an incomplete expression and you
have no way to know what bothers me.

Sue...

snip rant
P.S. Contact George Bush about employment.
You have a marvelous talent for alienating allies.

On 27 Feb, 12:11, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:





On Feb 27, 5:25 am, j...@tele2.se wrote:

On 27 Feb, 10:42, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
[...]

Face it SR is in dilemma.......

You don't limit yourself to gradeshool maths.
Don't limit Einstein to a 15 year old paper when
you have one more current:

Don't limit yourself to dogmas,

When you retroactivly violate a calendar I'll consider
it isn't dogma.

1905 /= 1920

SR theory should be just as valid in
Euclidian space as in Minkowski you only have to transform events.

For EM it is:
.. the gauge functions chi(x, t) whose spatial and temporal
derivatives transform one set of electromagnetic potentials into
another equivalent set; and ... whatever propagation
or non-propagation characteristics are exhibited by the potentials
in a particular gauge, the electric and magnetic fields are always
the same and display the experimentally verified properties of
causality and propagation at the speed of light. >>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034

So

try to plot out what i suggested and maybe you find out your theory it
is not valid at all.

Jackson provides the transforms at the URL above.

I know you will not bcs you invested to much time, but the truth is
lightinvariance only an illusion created by Minkowski spacetime and
the Lorentz transformations.

You don't even realise that I am arguing YOUR POV so
I'll just keep my investment where I have it.

You can scream all you want that Gallilean cordinate system and
Euclidian space isn't there and never existed, but any event in
Minkowsky spacetime is possible to plot in Euclidian spacetime. And
objects only comparable pairwise in Minkowski spacetime does not seem
to bother you the least.

No... The Lorenz gauge is an incomplete expression and you
have no way to know what bothers me.

Sue...

snip rant
P.S. Contact George Bush about employment.
You have a marvelous talent for alienating allies.

So Sue why don't you try to actually plot the event t1 for the ship
and the four lightpulses as was sent along positiv x-axis, negative x-
axis, positive y-axis and negative y-axis in the Euclidian frame of
planet origo the moment ship passed origo.

And while you do it plot in the two ships B-behind a F-front that
travel in group velocity with A in 0.9999c and at a distance of 30 km
from eachother as measured within the euclidian space of planet origo
actually the ships are 30 km long battleships.

So Sue at what time in the Euclidian cordinate system and what
distance from planet origo will the lightpuls reach F-front, you can
not answer that can you it would invalidate your theory.

So i will have to do it for you it will reach the backend of ship F-
front at t1=1 sec 300 000 km from origo and it will pass frontend of
ship F-front at t2=2 sec 600 000 km in the Euclidian space of planet
origo.

Now it is your turn to calculate the moment and distances it passes
the ship B-behinds front and end within the Euclidian space of planet
origo, but you can not do that either can you.

Yes Sue the enclosure speed to B and F seem to differ.
Yes Sue light seem to travel invariant using enclosure velocities.

And now to the really funny thing measure the time it take for the
wavefront passing each ship using the inertial time of each ship using
local time.

Best regards Jonas Thörnvall- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 27, 6:59 am, j...@tele2.se wrote:





On 27 Feb, 12:11, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Feb 27, 5:25 am, j...@tele2.se wrote:

On 27 Feb, 10:42, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
[...]

Face it SR is in dilemma.......

You don't limit yourself to gradeshool maths.
Don't limit Einstein to a 15 year old paper when
you have one more current:

Don't limit yourself to dogmas,

When you retroactivly violate a calendar I'll consider
it isn't dogma.

1905 /= 1920

SR theory should be just as valid in
Euclidian space as in Minkowski you only have to transform events.

For EM it is:
.. the gauge functions chi(x, t) whose spatial and temporal
derivatives transform one set of electromagnetic potentials into
another equivalent set; and ... whatever propagation
or non-propagation characteristics are exhibited by the potentials
in a particular gauge, the electric and magnetic fields are always
the same and display the experimentally verified properties of
causality and propagation at the speed of light. >>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034

So

try to plot out what i suggested and maybe you find out your theory it
is not valid at all.

Jackson provides the transforms at the URL above.

I know you will not bcs you invested to much time, but the truth is
lightinvariance only an illusion created by Minkowski spacetime and
the Lorentz transformations.

You don't even realise that I am arguing YOUR POV so
I'll just keep my investment where I have it.

You can scream all you want that Gallilean cordinate system and
Euclidian space isn't there and never existed, but any event in
Minkowsky spacetime is possible to plot in Euclidian spacetime. And
objects only comparable pairwise in Minkowski spacetime does not seem
to bother you the least.

No... The Lorenz gauge is an incomplete expression and you
have no way to know what bothers me.

Sue...

snip rant
P.S. Contact George Bush about employment.
You have a marvelous talent for alienating allies.

So Sue why don't you try to actually plot the event t1 for the ship
and the four lightpulses as was sent along positiv x-axis, negative x-
axis, positive y-axis and negative y-axis in the Euclidian frame of
planet origo the moment ship passed origo.

I don't have any texts about light that use ships.
Can you show me where the ships are?

http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetismhttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html







And while you do it plot in the two ships B-behind a F-front that
travel in group velocity with A in 0.9999c and at a distance of 30 km
from eachother as measured within the euclidian space of planet origo
actually the ships are 30 km long battleships.

So Sue at what time in the Euclidian cordinate system and what
distance from planet origo will the lightpuls reach F-front, you can
not answer that can you it would invalidate your theory.

So i will have to do it for you it will reach the backend of ship F-
front at t1=1 sec 300 000 km from origo and it will pass frontend of
ship F-front at t2=2 sec 600 000 km in the Euclidian space of planet
origo.

Now it is your turn to calculate the moment and distances it passes
the ship B-behinds front and end within the Euclidian space of planet
origo, but you can not do that either can you.

Does "B" mean the magentic component?
What paragraph is that in ?http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html

Sue...

Yes Sue the enclosure speed to B and F seem to differ.
Yes Sue light seem to travel invariant using enclosure velocities.

And now to the really funny thing measure the time it take for the
wavefront passing each ship using the inertial time of each ship using
local time.

Best regards Jonas Thörnvall- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -

On 27 Feb, 12:11, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:





On Feb 27, 5:25 am, j...@tele2.se wrote:

On 27 Feb, 10:42, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
[...]

Face it SR is in dilemma.......

You don't limit yourself to gradeshool maths.
Don't limit Einstein to a 15 year old paper when
you have one more current:

Don't limit yourself to dogmas,

When you retroactivly violate a calendar I'll consider
it isn't dogma.

1905 /= 1920

SR theory should be just as valid in
Euclidian space as in Minkowski you only have to transform events.

For EM it is:
.. the gauge functions chi(x, t) whose spatial and temporal
derivatives transform one set of electromagnetic potentials into
another equivalent set; and ... whatever propagation
or non-propagation characteristics are exhibited by the potentials
in a particular gauge, the electric and magnetic fields are always
the same and display the experimentally verified properties of
causality and propagation at the speed of light. >>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034

So

try to plot out what i suggested and maybe you find out your theory it
is not valid at all.

Jackson provides the transforms at the URL above.

I know you will not bcs you invested to much time, but the truth is
lightinvariance only an illusion created by Minkowski spacetime and
the Lorentz transformations.

You don't even realise that I am arguing YOUR POV so
I'll just keep my investment where I have it.

You can scream all you want that Gallilean cordinate system and
Euclidian space isn't there and never existed, but any event in
Minkowsky spacetime is possible to plot in Euclidian spacetime. And
objects only comparable pairwise in Minkowski spacetime does not seem
to bother you the least.

No... The Lorenz gauge is an incomplete expression and you
have no way to know what bothers me.

Sue...

snip rant
P.S. Contact George Bush about employment.
You have a marvelous talent for alienating allies.

So Sue why don't you try to actually plot the event t1 for the ship
and the four lightpulses as was sent along positiv x-axis, negative x-
axis, positive y-axis and negative y-axis in the Euclidian frame of
planet origo the moment ship passed origo.

And while you do it plot in the two ships B-behind a F-front that
travel in group velocity with A in 0.9999c and at a distance of 30 km
from eachother as measured within the euclidian space of planet origo
actually the ships are 30 km long battleships.

So Sue at what time in the Euclidian cordinate system and what
distance from planet origo will the lightpuls reach F-front, you can
not answer that can you it would invalidate your theory.

So i will have to do it for you it will reach the backend of ship F-
front at t1=1 sec 300 000 km from origo and it will pass frontend of
ship F-front at t2=2 sec 600 000 km in the Euclidian space of planet
origo.

Now it is your turn to calculate the moment and distances it passes
the ship B-behinds front and end within the Euclidian space of planet
origo, but you can not do that either can you.

Yes Sue the enclosure speed to B and F seem to differ.

Yes Sue light seem to travel ***variant*** using enclosure velocities.

And now to the really funny thing measure the time it take for the
wavefront passing each ship using the inertial time of each ship using
local time.

Best regards Jonas Thörnvall- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -

http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/sp958-lide/191-193.pdf

Ha! That supports my claim!

On 27 Feb, 04:12, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 26, 11:09 am, j...@tele2.se wrote:

[...]

You couldn't figure out SR 8 years ago, and it seems you still can't.
Minkowski space and Euclidean space are very, very different.
Minkowski space is the manifold that describes special relativity, and
Euclidean space is the manifold that describes Galilean relativity.

I suggest you stop posting to this newsgroup, because arguing from
ignorance will only get you laughed at.

Using Euclidian you could not plot out the positions of the lightpulse
wavefront 8 years ago, and it seems you still can't.

Oh maybe you can, but just refuse to because that would invalidate SR.