<whopkins@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:1109464369.676122.68180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

It is probably incorrect to say that the electric fields in the
neighborhood of a magnet are ever stationary considering
that their force is easily duplicated by charges in motion.

Androcles wrote:

Bar magnet. Iron filings. Brownian motion? Not, eh?

ALL magnetism is created by the motion of charges, as Maxwell,

himself,

was the first to point out.

It is not obvious that that is true in the case of the magnetic moment
of an electron, in view of thevery tight upper limit on the electron
radius.

None of that is relevant to Einstein's dynamics being [sic]

incorrect.

Of course it's not relevant! Nothing's ever relevant to a false
assertion.

I've changed "Maxwell's" to "Einstein's".
He [sic] modified Maxwell's equations

No he didn't. Lorentz did.

--
Franz
"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact."
T.H. Huxley

............ ...First of all, along the principle of a Relativity,
you do have to be a specific, like for instance, along an Electrodynamics of
a moving bodies. However, which is a basically, like all Electrodynamics,
along the Kinematics along any rigid body, because anything along that
matter have to deal with the relationships between the rigid bodies along a
systems of a coordinates, as a clocks and an electrodynamic determinations.
Whether, it would remains a difficulties which are the Electrodynamics of a
moving bodies along anything which it would be encountered in that time of
the procedure.

........... ...First of all, along the principle of a Relativity,
you do have to be a specific, like for instance, along an Electrodynamics

a moving bodies. However, which is a basically, like all Electrodynamics,
along the Kinematics along any rigid body, because anything along that
matter have to deal with the relationships between the rigid bodies along

systems of a coordinates, as a clocks and an electrodynamic

Whether, it would remains a difficulties which are the Electrodynamics of

moving bodies along anything which it would be encountered in that time of
the procedure.

........... ...The ultimate reason, that it should be along a deep
consideration of a two clocks synchronization, along what would follows:

t - t =
t' - t
B A A
B

........... ... Therefore, along the point A of the space, there is a
clock, then an observer should be at the A would be along an ability to
arrive to determine the time values along any immediate nearest events of

simply by finding the exact positions of anything which it has had to be a
simultaneous with those events.

........... ...However, when along the point B of space, there is an
other clock, which it has had to be like the one at the point A, along,

case it would be a possible for an observer at the point B, also to arrive
to determine the time values of an immediate neighbourhood of the point B
along any events. Whether, it would not be out of any comparison according
to the time, along an event at the point A, with an event of the point B.

........... ...Therefore, you would along that matter, determine only,
that you have to define the time along the point A, and the time along the
point B, and you have not arrive to determine a common time for the oint A
and the point B. However, a simply because, it is an impossible matter, at
least you could determine, that the time required by the light along a
traveling from A to B, would, a definitely requires, that the time would
equal along its traveling from B to A.

.......... ...Finally, you do have only to let a ray of a light to

along the point A time which it would be ta from A towards B, and do allow
the point B time tb which it has to give a reflection at B along the
direction of A, and arrive once again at the point A time t'a, and what is
above as an equation would be the configuration, of what we are talking
about, a simply as that, a definitely as a matter a
fact!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.............. ..


--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!



<whopkins@csd.uwm.edu> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1109465037.127344.47420@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Androcles wrote:

The moving magnet is longer than the stationary coil,
xi = (x-vt)/ sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

which has nothing to do with nothing.

They have the SAME length in ALL frames of reference.

In the stationary frame the opposite ends A, B have trajectories and
proper time T in the center of mass frame of the object:
A: xA(T) = 0, tA(T) = T
B: xB(T) = L>0, tB(T) = T
so
length = sqrt(|xA(T)-xB(T)|^2 - c^2 |tA(T)-tB(T)|^2)
= L

In the moving frame
A: xA(T) = vT/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), tA(T) = T/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
B: xB(T) = (L+vT)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), tB(T) = (T+vL/c^2)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
and
|xA(T)-xB(T)|^2 = L^2/(1-(v/c)^2)
c^2 |tA(T)-tB(T)|^2 = (v/c)^2 L^2/(1-(v/c)^2)
and
length = sqrt((L^2 - (v/c)^2 L^2)/(1-(v/c)^2)) = L.

S
Yep... motion in the static coils and motion in the moving coils.

S
So we simply figure how missteps of charge choregraphy manifest
as mass and energy.
The action at a distance problem? simple PFM

A
None of that is relevant to Einstein's dynamics being incorrect.
S
It looks like pretty good evidence aganist a magnetic ether but
still a mechanism for light speed. It isn't infinite ya know, in

of what some of Einstein's clocks might indicate.

A
A bar magnet and coil of the same length when both are at rest
are not of the same length when the two are in relative motion and
exchanging energy of motion to produce a glowing filament.
S
Shrug... Are sliding rulers going out of style.

Einstein's opening statement is
AE
"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 "
A
I've changed "Maxwell's" to "Einstein's".
He modified Maxwell's equations and ended up 15 years later with
AE
"But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity
set forth in Section V.", while babbling about the speed of light.
A
This is in direct conflict with his 1905 statement
AE
" The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion
of
the conductor and the magnet ".
A
The moving magnet is longer than the stationary coil,
xi = (x-vt)/ sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
and the moving coil is longer than the stationary magnet.
A
It follows that both the N and S poles of the moving bar magnet will
lie
outside the extremes of the stationary coil and both poles of the
stationary magnet will lie inside the extremes of the moving coil.
That isn't symmetry and it isn't the PoR.
S
Yes... that isn't the only time he switches the ether on and off
in his narratives.
I see where you are finding fault but I believe you need to look
where Maxwell uses Biot-Savart rather that Ampere to characterize
the "displacement current".

Your illustration, as I read it, is condeming only half of Maxwell's
ether
and ...ahhem... The vargaries of partially cut flux lines aren't
adding
any clarity.
Sigh... you'd rather have a ballistic photon than a Noble prize
wouldn't cha ?
:-)

Dunno 'bout Brownian motion, but E = mc^2 makes der loudenboomer mit
alles kaput.