 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Principle of Relativity... |
|
Page 4 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| PD... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 1:36 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:06 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
PD the bitter old man who used to call himself a professor of physics
is now in denial of the Lorentz transform being a law of physics.
"Now"? When was it ever a law of physics, Kooky Wobbly?
Try to pick up one of your textbooks and read up on relativity.
shrug
[/quote]
Which one do you suggest that says the Lorentz transform is a law of
physics that respects the principle of relativity?
[quote]
Needless to say, he does not know about this so-called symmetry in the
Lorentz transform as well.
What so-called symmetry are you referring to? And what would symmetry
have to do with the principle of relativity?
So, all of a sudden, the self-claimed professor does not know the
symmetry in the Lorentz transform is all about any more. It is your
problem. <shrgu
[/quote]
What so-called symmetry are you referring to? And what would symmetry
have to do with the principle of relativity?
[quote]
I think you need to seek help before
turning psychotic. <shrug
I'll be sure to do that, learning from your errors of omission.
Does you psychiatrist/warden know you have internet access?[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Koobee Wublee wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:06 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
PD the bitter old man who used to call himself a professor of physics
is now in denial of the Lorentz transform being a law of physics.
"Now"? When was it ever a law of physics, Kooky Wobbly?
Try to pick up one of your textbooks and read up on relativity.
shrug
[/quote]
Why don't you go ahead and cite a specific textbook?
[...] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:28 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3507
|
On Nov 5, 6:01 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8da71c9-c2e0-4b10-b10b-ddfd50021520 at (no spam) a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 4:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"PD" <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
What so-called symmetry are you referring to? And what would symmetry
have to do with the principle of relativity?
Apparently KW thinks he has proved that, in general, with a Lorentz
transform with two observers/frames, A and B, that the velocity of A
relative to B (ie A's velocity in B's frame) is NOT the negative of the
velocity of B relative to A (ie B's velocity in A's frame). The you only
get
that "symmetry" in the case when you set up your axes so that one axis
(say
the x-axis) is parallel to the direction of relative motion.
When I brought up the Galilean transform satisfying ([v_12] + [v_21] > > 0), you did not raise any objections
Why should I?
and ever so stupidly offered that
the Lorentz transform would achieve the same result.
They do
You have no
credential. You are there for the ride. You are a zombie. You are
wishy-washy. You cannot think logically to save your own life. You
are an Einstein Dingleberry. <shrug
Now, get lost. Go back to your ilk brethrens --- the college dropout
crowds.
[/quote]
[quote]Yeah yea .. Shut the fuck up your moron .. noone cares about you and your
stupidity.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
I care about yours inertial.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8da71c9-c2e0-4b10-b10b-ddfd50021520 at (no spam) a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 3, 4:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"PD" <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
What so-called symmetry are you referring to? And what would symmetry
have to do with the principle of relativity?
Apparently KW thinks he has proved that, in general, with a Lorentz
transform with two observers/frames, A and B, that the velocity of A
relative to B (ie A's velocity in B's frame) is NOT the negative of the
velocity of B relative to A (ie B's velocity in A's frame). The you only
get
that "symmetry" in the case when you set up your axes so that one axis
(say
the x-axis) is parallel to the direction of relative motion.
When I brought up the Galilean transform satisfying ([v_12] + [v_21] =
0), you did not raise any objections
[/quote]
Why should I?
[quote]and ever so stupidly offered that
the Lorentz transform would achieve the same result.
[/quote]
They do
[quote]You have no
credential. You are there for the ride. You are a zombie. You are
wishy-washy. You cannot think logically to save your own life. You
are an Einstein Dingleberry. <shrug
Now, get lost. Go back to your ilk brethrens --- the college dropout
crowds.
[/quote]
Yeah yea .. Shut the fuck up your moron .. noone cares about you and your
stupidity. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"BURT" <macromitch at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:799d64d8-b2f6-428e-939e-31988ce66729 at (no spam) g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 5, 6:01 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8da71c9-c2e0-4b10-b10b-ddfd50021520 at (no spam) a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 4:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"PD" <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
What so-called symmetry are you referring to? And what would
symmetry
have to do with the principle of relativity?
Apparently KW thinks he has proved that, in general, with a Lorentz
transform with two observers/frames, A and B, that the velocity of A
relative to B (ie A's velocity in B's frame) is NOT the negative of
the
velocity of B relative to A (ie B's velocity in A's frame). The you
only
get
that "symmetry" in the case when you set up your axes so that one axis
(say
the x-axis) is parallel to the direction of relative motion.
When I brought up the Galilean transform satisfying ([v_12] + [v_21] =
0), you did not raise any objections
Why should I?
and ever so stupidly offered that
the Lorentz transform would achieve the same result.
They do
You have no
credential. You are there for the ride. You are a zombie. You are
wishy-washy. You cannot think logically to save your own life. You
are an Einstein Dingleberry. <shrug
Now, get lost. Go back to your ilk brethrens --- the college dropout
crowds.
Yeah yea .. Shut the fuck up your moron .. noone cares about you and your
stupidity.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I care about yours inertial.
[/quote]
I don't have any. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 6:01 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"Koobee Wublee" wrote:
When I brought up the Galilean transform satisfying ([v_12] + [v_21] =
0), you did not raise any objections
Why should I?
[/quote]
Because you are grossly ignorant. As I said, go back to your college
dropout crowd. Get the fvck lost, would you? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 5:08 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 1:36 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Try to pick up one of your textbooks and read up on relativity.
shrug
Which one do you suggest that says the Lorentz transform is a law of
physics that respects the principle of relativity?
[/quote]
Which one do you have? That is the one. <shrug>
[quote]So, all of a sudden, the self-claimed professor does not know the
symmetry in the Lorentz transform is all about any more. It is your
problem. <shrgu
What so-called symmetry are you referring to?
[/quote]
Try to read up in the textbooks you have. <shrug>
[quote]And what would symmetry
have to do with the principle of relativity?
[/quote]
Ditto.
[quote]Does you psychiatrist/warden know you have internet access?
[/quote]
Name a textbook saying [v_12 + v_21 != 0] does not violate the
principle of relativity. Even Professor Roberts had claimed [v_12 +
v_21 = 0] is a necessary condition for the principle of relativity,
but I seem not able to find the post because I am not willing to waste
a bunch of time helping your ignorance. Get over with that. <shrug> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ecab03c-3619-4040-a082-b09f1df0eb34 at (no spam) r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 5, 6:01 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote:
When I brought up the Galilean transform satisfying ([v_12] + [v_21] =
0), you did not raise any objections
Why should I?
Because you are grossly ignorant.
[/quote]
Not at all. I'm not the one here who is confused about the PoR. That would
be you
[quote]As I said, go back to your college
dropout crowd. Get the fvck lost, would you?
[/quote]
Fuck off, you idiot. You're a waste of valuable time |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Koobee Wublee wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 5:08 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 1:36 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Try to pick up one of your textbooks and read up on relativity.
shrug
Which one do you suggest that says the Lorentz transform is a law of
physics that respects the principle of relativity?
Which one do you have? [...]
[/quote]
Why is it that you can not name even one textbook which supports your
opinions? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Inertial wrote:
[quote]"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ecab03c-3619-4040-a082-b09f1df0eb34 at (no spam) r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 5, 6:01 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote:
When I brought up the Galilean transform satisfying ([v_12] + [v_21] =
0), you did not raise any objections
Why should I?
Because you are grossly ignorant.
Not at all. I'm not the one here who is confused about the PoR. That
would be you
As I said, go back to your college
dropout crowd. Get the fvck lost, would you?
Fuck off, you idiot. You're a waste of valuable time
[/quote]
Try to not get any of his sense of superiority on your shoes. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 2:14 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 5:08 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 1:36 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Try to pick up one of your textbooks and read up on relativity.
shrug
Which one do you suggest that says the Lorentz transform is a law of
physics that respects the principle of relativity?
Which one do you have? That is the one. <shrug
[/quote]
I have a fair number of them. You have ONE you can cite?
[quote]
So, all of a sudden, the self-claimed professor does not know the
symmetry in the Lorentz transform is all about any more. It is your
problem. <shrgu
What so-called symmetry are you referring to?
Try to read up in the textbooks you have. <shrug
[/quote]
You have one you can cite?
[quote]
And what would symmetry
have to do with the principle of relativity?
Ditto.
[/quote]
You have one you can cite?
I love this Kooky. You make an irrational statement, then state that
any textbook backs up what you say, when you can't cite a single one
that does so, possibly because you don't have any to look in to check
on it. It's all in the foam and bluster, isn't it?
[quote]
Does you psychiatrist/warden know you have internet access?
Name a textbook saying [v_12 + v_21 != 0] does not violate the
principle of relativity. Even Professor Roberts had claimed [v_12 +
v_21 = 0] is a necessary condition for the principle of relativity,
[/quote]
You understand the difference between necessary and sufficient? You
understand what semantic equivalence would require?
[quote]but I seem not able to find the post because I am not willing to waste
a bunch of time helping your ignorance. Get over with that. <shrug[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 9:53 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 2:14 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Which one do you have? That is the one. <shrug
I have a fair number of them. You have ONE you can cite?
[/quote]
So, without a book, a self-claimed professor like yourself cannot
discuss any subject with any confidence, is that right?
[quote]Try to read up in the textbooks you have. <shrug
You have one you can cite?
[/quote]
There are just too numerous to site. Which book controls your mind
now? Would that go with moon phase?
[quote]I love this Kooky.
[/quote]
I am still not sure what you love. <shrug>
[quote]You make an irrational statement, then state that
any textbook backs up what you say, when you can't cite a single one
that does so, possibly because you don't have any to look in to check
on it.
[/quote]
What irrational statement? So, this is how you deal with your sanity
in keeping a religion alive by labeling all things that would destroy
your religion outright as irrational. <shrug>
[quote]It's all in the foam and bluster, isn't it?
[/quote]
What is that again? It does not compute.
[quote]Name a textbook saying [v_12 + v_21 != 0] does not violate the
principle of relativity. Even Professor Roberts had claimed [v_12 +
v_21 = 0] is a necessary condition for the principle of relativity,
You understand the difference between necessary and sufficient? You
understand what semantic equivalence would require?
[/quote]
Do you understand the implication of the equation [v_12 + v_21 != 0]
to the principle of relativity? I don't think you do. I think your
institution should re-evaluate your tenure because one day the truth
is going to triumph. Your institution should not jeopardize its
future reputation by employing someone who does not even understand
the principle of relativity to teach the new generation of self-styled
physicists. <shrug>
[quote]but I seem not able to find the post because I am not willing to waste
a bunch of time helping your ignorance. Get over with that. <shrug
[/quote]
The cycle of Einstein Dingleberries proliferating another generation
of Einstein Dingleberries will come to an end someday. Just mark your
ever so humble Kooblee Wublee's words on this. Please do so. <shrug> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 9:27 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 9:53 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 2:14 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Which one do you have? That is the one. <shrug
I have a fair number of them. You have ONE you can cite?
So, without a book, a self-claimed professor like yourself cannot
discuss any subject with any confidence, is that right?
[/quote]
Doesn't it just SUCK to have your bluff called and to be holding a
pair of threes?
[quote]
Try to read up in the textbooks you have. <shrug
You have one you can cite?
There are just too numerous to site. Which book controls your mind
now? Would that go with moon phase?
I love this Kooky.
I am still not sure what you love. <shrug
You make an irrational statement, then state that
any textbook backs up what you say, when you can't cite a single one
that does so, possibly because you don't have any to look in to check
on it.
What irrational statement? So, this is how you deal with your sanity
in keeping a religion alive by labeling all things that would destroy
your religion outright as irrational. <shrug
It's all in the foam and bluster, isn't it?
What is that again? It does not compute.
Name a textbook saying [v_12 + v_21 != 0] does not violate the
principle of relativity. Even Professor Roberts had claimed [v_12 +
v_21 = 0] is a necessary condition for the principle of relativity,
You understand the difference between necessary and sufficient? You
understand what semantic equivalence would require?
Do you understand the implication of the equation [v_12 + v_21 != 0]
to the principle of relativity? I don't think you do. I think your
institution should re-evaluate your tenure because one day the truth
is going to triumph. Your institution should not jeopardize its
future reputation by employing someone who does not even understand
the principle of relativity to teach the new generation of self-styled
physicists. <shrug
but I seem not able to find the post because I am not willing to waste
a bunch of time helping your ignorance. Get over with that. <shrug
The cycle of Einstein Dingleberries proliferating another generation
of Einstein Dingleberries will come to an end someday. Just mark your
ever so humble Kooblee Wublee's words on this. Please do so. <shrug[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 8:03 am, Albertito <albertito1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 1:17 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 7:34 am, Albertito <albertito1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 10:27 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:49:54 -0700:
You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
Where
** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1 **
[v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
Let’s look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
#1, and #2.
** [v_12] = [v_02] – [v_01]
** [v_21] = [v_01] – [v_02]
Where
** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0 ** [v_02] > > > > > Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very first
equation.
Does anyone have any objections?
The Galilean transform for velocity is only valid for 'low' velocities.
No part of this message has presented us the principle of relativity.
Principle of relativity:
"All relativists tell the same
stupidities, regardless the forum,
and can be described as entities that
use the same dingleberrism"
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING DINGLEBERRIES
By A. Einstein June 30, 1905
"It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--
as usually understood at the present time--
when applied to moving bodies, leads to
asymmetries[*1] which do not appear to be
inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example,
the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet
and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here
depends only on the relative motion of the conductor
and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws
a sharp distinction between the two cases in which
either the one or the other of these bodies is in
motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the
conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood
of the magnet an electric field with a certain
definite energy, producing a current at the places
where parts of the conductor are situated. But if
the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion,
no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of
the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an
electromotive force, to which in itself there is
no corresponding energy, but which gives rise--
assuming equality of relative motion in the two
cases discussed--to electric currents of the same
path and intensity as those produced by the electric
forces in the former case."
Guys, let's see the dingleberrism of the Einsteinian Principle
of Relativity:
"But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor
in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood
of the magnet"
Put up a voltmeter in the neighborhood of a stationary magnet and
measure. No voltage.
You don't know what is
voltimeter,
neighborhood,
stationary,
magnet,
measure,
voltage
Try again. Study the reason why a moving
magnet with respect to a stationary conductor
produces an electric current in the latter.
And also study the reason why a moving
conductor with respect to a stationary magnet
produces the very electric current in the former.
Those two apparent different effects are
actually one and the same, but by means of
the nonsensical Maxwell equations, they are
described following different laws. That's not
how a serious Principle of Relativity works.
What a load of crap is that paragraph referring to?
The non-relativistic view that Einstein was attacking. Nothing
Einstein is saying above is controversial. But he's trying to
describe things in a way that leads the reader toward a certain way of
thinking about the situation.
Two cases. Two explanations. One effect.
If the principle of relativity holds good, the two cases are, in fact,
identical.
If the principle of relativity holds good, one explanation should
suffice for both cases.
That's the conundrum that he's trying to establish. A motivation for
the rest of the paper.
Again, none of this is controversial. Maxwell's equations work. The
measured voltage
is as they predict.
What ought not be controversial is that the principle of relativity
together with the Lorentz Transform also works. The same measured
values are predicted regardless of what frame of reference is chosen
from which to make the prediction. That much is provable. What is
also true is that experiment matches prediction.
[/quote]
Hey, Albertito: http://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/public/EVTDISPLAY/atlas2009-collision-vp1-140541-171897-new.png
First collisions at LHC.
Are you going to shut up as promised yet? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:32 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3507
|
On Nov 23, 12:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 8:03 am, Albertito <albertito1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 1:17 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 7:34 am, Albertito <albertito1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 10:27 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:49:54 -0700:
You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
Where
** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1 **
[v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
Let’s look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
#1, and #2.
** [v_12] = [v_02] – [v_01]
** [v_21] = [v_01] – [v_02]
Where
** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0 ** [v_02] > > > > > > Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very first
equation.
Does anyone have any objections?
The Galilean transform for velocity is only valid for 'low' velocities.
No part of this message has presented us the principle of relativity.
Principle of relativity:
"All relativists tell the same
stupidities, regardless the forum,
and can be described as entities that
use the same dingleberrism"
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING DINGLEBERRIES
By A. Einstein June 30, 1905
"It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--
as usually understood at the present time--
when applied to moving bodies, leads to
asymmetries[*1] which do not appear to be
inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example,
the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet
and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here
depends only on the relative motion of the conductor
and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws
a sharp distinction between the two cases in which
either the one or the other of these bodies is in
motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the
conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood
of the magnet an electric field with a certain
definite energy, producing a current at the places
where parts of the conductor are situated. But if
the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion,
no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of
the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an
electromotive force, to which in itself there is
no corresponding energy, but which gives rise--
assuming equality of relative motion in the two
cases discussed--to electric currents of the same
path and intensity as those produced by the electric
forces in the former case."
Guys, let's see the dingleberrism of the Einsteinian Principle
of Relativity:
"But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor
in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood
of the magnet"
Put up a voltmeter in the neighborhood of a stationary magnet and
measure. No voltage.
You don't know what is
voltimeter,
neighborhood,
stationary,
magnet,
measure,
voltage
Try again. Study the reason why a moving
magnet with respect to a stationary conductor
produces an electric current in the latter.
And also study the reason why a moving
conductor with respect to a stationary magnet
produces the very electric current in the former.
Those two apparent different effects are
actually one and the same, but by means of
the nonsensical Maxwell equations, they are
described following different laws. That's not
how a serious Principle of Relativity works.
What a load of crap is that paragraph referring to?
The non-relativistic view that Einstein was attacking. Nothing
Einstein is saying above is controversial. But he's trying to
describe things in a way that leads the reader toward a certain way of
thinking about the situation.
Two cases. Two explanations. One effect.
If the principle of relativity holds good, the two cases are, in fact,
identical.
If the principle of relativity holds good, one explanation should
suffice for both cases.
That's the conundrum that he's trying to establish. A motivation for
the rest of the paper.
Again, none of this is controversial. Maxwell's equations work. The
measured voltage
is as they predict.
What ought not be controversial is that the principle of relativity
together with the Lorentz Transform also works. The same measured
values are predicted regardless of what frame of reference is chosen
from which to make the prediction. That much is provable. What is
also true is that experiment matches prediction.
Hey, Albertito:http://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/public/EVTDISPLAY/atlas2009-collision-...
First collisions at LHC.
Are you going to shut up as promised yet?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Relativity is wrong. But its principle in the appearence of motion
will stay.
Objects move with absolute motion of their own individually. But their
difference in absolute space reveal themselves as a motion inbetween
the objects that Einstein called frames.
You can get behind light.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:58 am
|
|