| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"David Thomson" |
| Date: |
11 Sep 2005 11:03:51 AM |
| Object: |
A New Foundation for Physics |
A new white paper on the Aether Physics Model is available as a
Microsoft Word document at:
http://www.16pi2.com/files/A%20New%20Foundation%20of%20Physics.doc
This paper gives the basics of the Aether Physics Model in a condensed
format.
Dave
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
11 Sep 2005 11:38:50 AM |
|
|
"David Thomson" <google@volantis.org> wrote in message news:1126454631.534114.8780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
A new white paper on the Aether Physics Model is available as a
Microsoft Word document at:
http://www.16pi2.com/files/A%20New%20Foundation%20of%20Physics.doc
This paper gives the basics of the Aether Physics Model in a condensed
format.
Does the paper have angular momentum?
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Binding.html
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
11 Sep 2005 10:45:56 PM |
|
|
This paper gives the basics of the Aether Physics Model in a condensed
format.
Does the paper have angular momentum?
You've just proved you're not the dimmest bulb on the tree, either.
Good for you.
Dave
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
11 Sep 2005 06:12:58 PM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
A new white paper on the Aether Physics Model
[snip crap]
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
11 Sep 2005 10:44:13 PM |
|
|
A new white paper on the Aether Physics Model
Excellent work Dave, I hope to read more!
Thanks Al, I have also posted a version in pdf format.
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
Dave
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
11 Sep 2005 10:59:17 PM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
A new white paper on the Aether Physics Model is available as a
Microsoft Word document at:
http://www.16pi2.com/files/A%20New%20Foundation%20of%20Physics.doc
This paper gives the basics of the Aether Physics Model in a condensed
format.
Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
Then there is this problem...
http://www.google.com/search?q=thomson+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
12 Sep 2005 04:27:45 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:p27Ve.325179$_o.200887@attbi_s71...
David Thomson wrote:
A new white paper on the Aether Physics Model is available as a
Microsoft Word document at:
http://www.16pi2.com/files/A%20New%20Foundation%20of%20Physics.doc
This paper gives the basics of the Aether Physics Model in a condensed
format.
Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and
Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
The greatest scientifically inaccurate claim
on the above page is the (scientifically
inaccurate) claim that:
"Albert Einstein, in his essay
'On the Aether' (1924), made
some injudicious comments ... "
As if it was some sort of isolated instance
of Einstein reconsidering the postulate of
some form of aether !!
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
The fat lady has not yet sung!
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506005
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
12 Sep 2005 08:22:55 AM |
|
|
The greatest scientifically inaccurate claim
on the above page is the (scientifically
inaccurate) claim that:
"Albert Einstein, in his essay
'On the Aether' (1924), made
some injudicious comments ... "
As if it was some sort of isolated instance
of Einstein reconsidering the postulate of
some form of aether !!
It's funny, isn't it? When Tesla was in his old age and talked of
wireless power transmission, and the existence of longitudinal waves in
the Aether, he was labeled senile. But when in Einstein's old age he
wrote extensively on the Aether, it was merely an "injudicious
comment." Do we detect a hint of hypocrisy among our more staunch
newsgroup members?
Dave
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
12 Sep 2005 08:41:37 AM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
The fat lady has not yet sung!
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506005
The fat lady had pretty much died by 1905. She's been buried for
100 years.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
12 Sep 2005 08:18:54 AM |
|
|
Hi Sam,
Thanks for your concerns. I understand how disquieting it can be to
have someone actually quantify the Aether based upon empirical data,
and then use that information to come up with the Unified Force Theory.
It must make Einstein look vulnerable. But don't worry, even though
Einstein's SR was flat wrong, his GR was correct in principle. He just
saw it from the wrong perspectives of curved geometry and mass. In
reality, GR is the effect of electrostatic charge of Aether interacting
with the strong charge induced by angular momentum.
Don't worry about Dirk's lack of understanding regarding angular
momentum. When he is ready, he'll correct it.
Fortunately, there is an excellent paper out that now tightly
introduces the quantifiable Aether. It further shows how visible matter
arises from dark matter, which has been absorbed into Aether. It also
shows how Aether is developed from Gforce, a previously unrecognized,
but quantifiable type of force that all other forces arise from. You
can read this mathematically correct paper at:
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
Good reading,
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
12 Sep 2005 08:54:01 AM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Sam,
Thanks for your concerns. I understand how disquieting it can be to
have someone actually quantify the Aether based upon empirical data,
and then use that information to come up with the Unified Force Theory.
It must make Einstein look vulnerable. But don't worry, even though
Einstein's SR was flat wrong, his GR was correct in principle.
Hi David--You claim that Einstein's SR was flat wrong... so it
would be splendid if you could cite empirical data that contradicts
a prediction made by Special Relativity.
Thanks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
12 Sep 2005 03:16:56 PM |
|
|
Hi David--You claim that Einstein's SR was flat wrong...
so it would be splendid if you could cite empirical data
that contradicts a prediction made by Special Relativity.
Special Relativity cannot make a valid prediction. It is not based on
sound math. Also, the values SR supposedly predicts are so small they
cannot emerge from background noise caused from the environment and
acquiring the data. The burden of proof is on those who make the
claims. Show us that SR predictions have been validated beyond margins
of error.
My theory validates GR, btw, although the actual physics have to be
reinterpreted in terms of charge, instead of mass and "curved space"
(whatever that is).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
12 Sep 2005 03:21:22 PM |
|
|
"David Thomson" <google@volantis.org> wrote in message news:1126556216.773057.164820@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi David--You claim that Einstein's SR was flat wrong...
so it would be splendid if you could cite empirical data
that contradicts a prediction made by Special Relativity.
Special Relativity cannot make a valid prediction. It is not based on
sound math.
Another retard who can't handle the baby linear algebra of
special relativity...
Join the club of
- Androcles
- Marcel Luttgens
- Thomas Smid
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
14 Sep 2005 07:37:15 PM |
|
|
Hey Dirk,
The baloney you and the other morons on this list spout out about GPS
systems requiring an SR correction is easily debunked. The SR
correction for a single GPS measurement is about .108 millimeter per
measurement. The Ionospheric correction per measurement accounts for
about 12 meters per measurement. The SR correction is completely
unnecessary and is put in there for public relations purposes. You
can't claim that with an error of 12 meters per measurement that a .108
millimeter adjustment by SR theory is validated. No real scientist in
their right mind would state that. The SR correction, if it existed,
would be completely lost in the ionospheric correction. Even the GR
correction is over 5000 times greater than the SR correction. The
ionospheric correction is about 100,000 times greater than the SR
correction.
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
15 Sep 2005 11:53:36 AM |
|
|
"David Thomson" <google@volantis.org> wrote in message news:1126744635.747811.230250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Hey Dirk,
Hey retard,
I admit I was too early with the linear algebra thing.
You can't even handle one single equation.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
16 Sep 2005 12:37:09 PM |
|
|
Actually, I copied a wrong value from a page with a mistake on it.
http://www.kowoma.de/en/gps/errors.htm
"The shift of time to the observer on earth would be about 38
milliseconds per day and would make up for an total error of
approximately 10 km per day."
The above line should read 38 microseconds, not milliseconds. Doing
the above calculations, the SR correction is still over 110 times
smaller than the ionospheric correction and the theoretical SR
correction only accounts for 8 cm of the total 25 meter margin of error
caused by the ionosphere.
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
16 Sep 2005 12:48:04 PM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
Actually, I copied a wrong value from a page with a mistake on it.
http://www.kowoma.de/en/gps/errors.htm
"The shift of time to the observer on earth would be about 38
milliseconds per day and would make up for an total error of
approximately 10 km per day."
The above line should read 38 microseconds, not milliseconds. Doing
the above calculations, the SR correction is still over 110 times
smaller than the ionospheric correction and the theoretical SR
correction only accounts for 8 cm of the total 25 meter margin of error
caused by the ionosphere.
Dave
You are forgetting cumulative error.
Here are some good resource papers showing the importance of
relativistic corrections to the performance of GPS positioning.
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
17 Sep 2005 09:45:27 AM |
|
|
Hi Sam,
I didn't forget cumulative error. To begin with, any given measurement
from the GPS system does not take more than 5 seconds. You can't
compare a 24 hour "cumulative error" to a 5 second error, unless you
reduce the accumulative error proportionally.
Second, I am not the only one who recognizes that GPS systems cannot
verify SR.
http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm
"At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which
contained the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some
who doubted that relativistic effects were real. A frequency
synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after
launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that
predicted by GR, then the synthesizer could be turned on bringing the
clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. The atomic clock
was first operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before
turning on the synthesizer. The frequency measured during that interval
was +442.5 parts in 1012 faster than clocks on the ground; if left
uncorrected this would have resulted in timing errors of about 38,000
nanoseconds per day. The difference between predicted and measured
values of the frequency shift was only 3.97 parts in 1012, well within
the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a
1% validation of the combined motional and gravitational shifts for a
clock at 4.2 earth radii.
"At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity with the
system because the SV clocks are actively steered to be within 1
microsecond of Universal Coordinated Time (USNO).
"Several relativistic effects are too small to affect the system at
current accuracy levels, but may become important as the system is
improved; these include gravitational time delays, frequency shifts of
clocks in satellites due to earth's quadrupole potential, and space
curvature."
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
17 Sep 2005 12:43:56 PM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Sam,
I didn't forget cumulative error. To begin with, any given measurement
from the GPS system does not take more than 5 seconds. You can't
compare a 24 hour "cumulative error" to a 5 second error, unless you
reduce the accumulative error proportionally.
Second, I am not the only one who recognizes that GPS systems cannot
verify SR.
http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm
"At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which
contained the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some
who doubted that relativistic effects were real. A frequency
synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after
launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that
predicted by GR, then the synthesizer could be turned on bringing the
clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. The atomic clock
was first operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before
turning on the synthesizer. The frequency measured during that interval
was +442.5 parts in 1012 faster than clocks on the ground; if left
uncorrected this would have resulted in timing errors of about 38,000
nanoseconds per day. The difference between predicted and measured
values of the frequency shift was only 3.97 parts in 1012, well within
the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a
1% validation of the combined motional and gravitational shifts for a
clock at 4.2 earth radii.
"At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity with the
system because the SV clocks are actively steered to be within 1
microsecond of Universal Coordinated Time (USNO).
"Several relativistic effects are too small to affect the system at
current accuracy levels, but may become important as the system is
improved; these include gravitational time delays, frequency shifts of
clocks in satellites due to earth's quadrupole potential, and space
curvature."
Dave
Dave--Your quotes out of context are either dliberate or you didn't
understand the article(s). I suspect the former.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
17 Sep 2005 01:19:24 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:wBYWe.336692$_o.269227@attbi_s71...
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Sam,
I didn't forget cumulative error. To begin with, any given measurement
from the GPS system does not take more than 5 seconds. You can't
compare a 24 hour "cumulative error" to a 5 second error, unless you
reduce the accumulative error proportionally.
Second, I am not the only one who recognizes that GPS systems cannot
verify SR.
http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm
"At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which
contained the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some
who doubted that relativistic effects were real. A frequency
synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after
launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that
predicted by GR, then the synthesizer could be turned on bringing the
clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. The atomic clock
was first operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before
turning on the synthesizer. The frequency measured during that interval
was +442.5 parts in 1012 faster than clocks on the ground; if left
uncorrected this would have resulted in timing errors of about 38,000
nanoseconds per day. The difference between predicted and measured
values of the frequency shift was only 3.97 parts in 1012, well within
the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a
1% validation of the combined motional and gravitational shifts for a
clock at 4.2 earth radii.
"At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity with the
system because the SV clocks are actively steered to be within 1
microsecond of Universal Coordinated Time (USNO).
"Several relativistic effects are too small to affect the system at
current accuracy levels, but may become important as the system is
improved; these include gravitational time delays, frequency shifts of
clocks in satellites due to earth's quadrupole potential, and space
curvature."
Dave
Dave--Your quotes out of context are either dliberate or you didn't
understand the article(s). I suspect the former.
I suspect both.
Arguing with such people is useless.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
12 Sep 2005 06:10:40 PM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
Hi David--You claim that Einstein's SR was flat wrong...
so it would be splendid if you could cite empirical data
that contradicts a prediction made by Special Relativity.
Special Relativity cannot make a valid prediction.
Special Relativity has made 100 years of perfect predictions in all
venues at all scales, without a single exception. That includes large
color TV picture tubes whose electrons' paths require a relativistic
correction to hit the right phosphor dots. Massing 511 KeV/c^2, an
electron falling through 50 kV is not Newtonian.
It is not based on
sound math.
Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.
[snip crap]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
13 Sep 2005 08:50:37 AM |
|
|
Special Relativity has made 100 years of perfect predictions in all
venues at all scales, without a single exception.
Lies!
That includes large color TV picture tubes whose electrons' paths require
a relativistic correction to hit the right phosphor dots.
The reason why a fudge factor had to be added to the electron path was
because there are two types of charges, the electrostatic charge and
the electromagnetic charge. The misled engineers were trying to design
around the electron's electrostatic charge when they should have been
using the electromagnetic charge. For details, see my paper:
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
13 Sep 2005 12:05:51 PM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
Special Relativity has made 100 years of perfect predictions in all
venues at all scales, without a single exception.
Lies!
you
That includes large color TV picture tubes whose electrons' paths require
a relativistic correction to hit the right phosphor dots.
The reason why a fudge factor had to be added to the electron path was
because there are two types of charges, the electrostatic charge and
the electromagnetic charge. The misled engineers were trying to design
around the electron's electrostatic charge when they should have been
using the electromagnetic charge. For details, see my paper:
Your paper is a bunch of crap. Potential energy is not stored in the
spin. The spin is nonassociative, and the strength of magnetism
doesn't diverge from electricity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
14 Sep 2005 02:21:30 PM |
|
|
Hi Autumn,
Your paper is a bunch of crap. Potential energy is not stored in the
spin. The spin is nonassociative, and the strength of magnetism
doesn't diverge from electricity.
You must have been busy spell checking something. My paper is located
here:
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
Particle spin is most certainly associated with the particle and
magnetism is inseperable from electricity.
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
14 Sep 2005 02:26:47 PM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Autumn,
Your paper is a bunch of crap. Potential energy is not stored in the
spin. The spin is nonassociative, and the strength of magnetism
doesn't diverge from electricity.
You must have been busy spell checking something. My paper is located
here:
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
Particle spin is most certainly associated with the particle and
magnetism is inseperable from electricity.
Dave
Reading comprehension problems noted.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
17 Sep 2005 11:55:21 AM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Autumn,
no Autumn, *****
Particle spin is most certainly associated with the particle and
magnetism is inseperable from electricity.
inseparable
illiterate non sequiturs
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
12 Sep 2005 03:47:41 PM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
Hi David--You claim that Einstein's SR was flat wrong...
so it would be splendid if you could cite empirical data
that contradicts a prediction made by Special Relativity.
Special Relativity cannot make a valid prediction. It is not based on
sound math. Also, the values SR supposedly predicts are so small they
cannot emerge from background noise caused from the environment and
acquiring the data. The burden of proof is on those who make the
claims. Show us that SR predictions have been validated beyond margins
of error.
That's a remarkable statement. You suppose that particle accelerator
design operates within experimental error of nonrelativistic physics?
My theory validates GR, btw, although the actual physics have to be
reinterpreted in terms of charge, instead of mass and "curved space"
(whatever that is).
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
12 Sep 2005 07:56:24 PM |
|
|
Special Relativity cannot make a valid prediction. It is not based on
sound math.
That's a remarkable statement. You suppose that particle accelerator
design operates within experimental error of nonrelativistic physics?
SR begins with an expression with an arbitrarily named variable, which
is mistakenly confused as an equation:
E=mc^2
That is not an equation. It is merely an expression;
m*c^2 = X
X is a variable, there is no gaurantee that X will be in measurements
of joules unless m is specifically in dimensions of mass (as opposed to
electron volts or some other energy expression according to
relativistic physics). Also, there is no such thing as mass existing
separate from matter. Einstein treated the mass dimension as though it
were an objective thing. Mass doesn't accelerate, move a velocity, or
do anything else, other than provide the quality of inertia. There is
mass in the unit of resistance, just as there is in the unit of energy.
Einstein couldn't tell the difference between mass and matter, at
least, not in his theory.
If mass is treated as an independent entity that can be accelerated,
then why can't we count how many of these entities make up an electron?
What is it that differentiates between an electron and its mass?
The foundation of SR, that E=mc^2, is a farce. That is why SR cannot
make a valid prediction. There is no Special Relativity Theory. It's
all fairy dust.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
13 Sep 2005 12:53:28 PM |
|
|
"David Thomson" <google@volantis.org> wrote in message news:1126572984.793287.167350@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Special Relativity cannot make a valid prediction. It is not based on
sound math.
That's a remarkable statement. You suppose that particle accelerator
design operates within experimental error of nonrelativistic physics?
SR begins with an expression with an arbitrarily named variable, which
is mistakenly confused as an equation:
E=mc^2
So you think that this is where "SR begins"?
You haven't even reached the linear algebra part?
That is not an equation. It is merely an expression;
m*c^2 = X
You are joking, right?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
13 Sep 2005 01:00:17 PM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
SR begins with an expression with an arbitrarily named variable, which
is mistakenly confused as an equation:
E=mc^2
You should better read this:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS
OF MOVING BODIES
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
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.
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,''
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They
suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of
small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be
valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics
hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will
hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a
postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only
apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two
postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory
of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for
stationary bodies. The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will
prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will
not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special
properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space
in which electromagnetic processes take place.
The theory to be developed is based--like all electrodynamics--on the
kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory
have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of
co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient
consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties
which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters.
Continue: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Foundation for Physics |
13 Sep 2005 01:06:33 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:RsEVe.327719$_o.249086@attbi_s71...
David Thomson wrote:
SR begins with an expression with an arbitrarily named variable, which
is mistakenly confused as an equation:
E=mc^2
You should better read this:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS
OF MOVING BODIES
NO! Don't do that.
The man is driven insane by ONE SINGLE silly equation,
and you tell him to read *this*?
Are you a sadist?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
