"Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1123961893.764317.323310@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Scismgenie" <Scismgenie@adelphia.net> wrote in message
| > news:1123949394.495795.251870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | Since my science (formal) education os forty years ago, I am stuck
| > with
| > | teh concepts based on that base, s please excuse my asking "crap".
But
| > | declaring my questions crap leaves me no closer to understanding
WHY
| > | they are Crap.
| > |
| > | (Thanks for the link to Einstien, but I am at this point unable to
| > | understand his formulae references)
| >
| > What would you like to know?
| >
| > Looking at your earlier post, we can indeed refer to
| > http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
| > or better,
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| > which is not a pdf file, where you will find
| >
| > 1) Galilean Relativity in the form of the reciprocal electrodynamic
| > action of
| > a conductor and a magnet,
| > 2) the correct conclusion
| > "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
| > when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
| > and
| > 3) we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to
| > travel
| > from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
| >
| > The third is where Einstein stamps his foot and says
| > "It is because I say it is!"
| >
| > There is no magic to it, it is a hoax, plain and simple.
| >
| > That is what you are missing from the questions you have, and
| > the moron "uncle" Alan Schwartz has not read or understood
| > what he so blindly believes, hence his bluster.
| >
| > Androcles
|
|
| So please explain how Maxwell's equations can remain invariant under
| Galilean relativity?

Which one? Maxwell's equations are not Maxwell's.
Faraday's equation and Gauss's equation complement each other,
Ampere's equation is different. They are called Maxwell's
equations because he clustered them. Two of Newton's three laws
rightfully belong to Galileo, so it's been done before.
Maxwell believed in aether, and if we take the permittivity and
permeability
of matter we get the speed of light in the matter, such as diamond,
water,
glass, air etc an equation:
c_substance = 1/sqrt (mu_substance * epsilon_substance)
What was done (I'm not sure by whom, Weber perhaps) was
to extrapolate a table
mu4, epsilon4 gives c4
mu3, epsilon3 gives c3
mu2, epsilon2 gives c2
mu1, epsilon1 gives c1 so the next obvious step was
mu0, epsilon0 gives c0, the speed of light in aether.

Then the aether vanished with MMX, but someone forgot that the
permeability (mu0) and permittivity (epsilon0) of free space should
go along with it, and they still linger in Maxwell's equations.
Gauss and Faraday's equations do not contain the terms and need no
modification.
What we actually have is
c0 = 1/sqrt(0*0) = undefined.
c is really the ejection velocity of a photon from an atom,
uncontrolled by the space around it, that space doesn't
control the speed of a bullet either.
But we still have and must have
c_air = 1/sqrt (mu_air * epsilon_air),
as seen by refraction.
It isn't so much that light is a particle in a wave as it is a wave in
a particle.
The particle is the quantity of energy an atom emits.
The solutions to Gauss and Faraday's equations are cos(theta)
and sin(theta), the energy is sqrt ( cos^2 + sin^2) and constant.
Two waves, not one, are emitted, playing leapfrog over each other.
One is the magnetic field and the other is the magnetic.
When a magnet field grows at a constant RATE, the electric field
is constant, but the magnetic field cannot grow forever, it has to
stop sometime. When it stops growing it is still there, but the
electric field isn't, that depends on the growth, not the amount.
No electric field for a bar magnet, it isn't changing,
*unless* you move a conductor through it.
Now the magnetic field collapses because that too only exists
when the electric field is changing, the E-field goes negative
and the B-field falls to zero. And so the cycle repeats,
(+)(N)(-)(S)(+)
and we have a wavicle.
With radio, TV, microwave ovens and cell phones we get to choose
the frequency we want.
Nature chooses what our eyes can see for us.
Rattlesnakes can see in the infrared to hunt smal mammals,
bees can see in the ultraviolet to be guided by flowers to the nectar.

We can with instruments see in the long wave of radio snd the short
wave of x-rays, we have artificial eyes.
http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/apod/ap001006.html.
You'll see Sirius in the winter sky.

W can prove Einstein was wrong quite easily, just by having
a race between a photon and a cosmic muon. The muon wins.

http://web.mit.edu/rsi/www/pdfs/papers/98/mthrashe.pdf


"With a lifetime of 2176 ns, the muon would be required to travel faster
than light to reach the Earth's surface in any detectable quantities."
"Because the muon is traveling at .9661c - .9778c, the distance from the
earth to the muon is Lorentz contracted by a factor of 15 from 9
kilometers in the Earth's frame to 600 meters in the muon's frame"

This is abject nonsense that we always get from relativists. We see the
muon travel 9 kilometers in 2176 ns, that's its speed and that's all
there is
to it. We don't hear about the length contraction and time dilation of
a
photon, so the playing field isn't level.


Androcles.

"Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote in message news:1123961893.764317.323310@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Androcles wrote:

"Scismgenie" <Scismgenie@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:1123949394.495795.251870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Since my science (formal) education os forty years ago, I am stuck
with
| teh concepts based on that base, s please excuse my asking "crap". But
| declaring my questions crap leaves me no closer to understanding WHY
| they are Crap.
|
| (Thanks for the link to Einstien, but I am at this point unable to
| understand his formulae references)

What would you like to know?

Looking at your earlier post, we can indeed refer to
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
or better,
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
which is not a pdf file, where you will find

1) Galilean Relativity in the form of the reciprocal electrodynamic
action of
a conductor and a magnet,
2) the correct conclusion
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
and
3) we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.

The third is where Einstein stamps his foot and says
"It is because I say it is!"

There is no magic to it, it is a hoax, plain and simple.

That is what you are missing from the questions you have, and
the moron "uncle" Alan Schwartz has not read or understood
what he so blindly believes, hence his bluster.

Androcles

So please explain how Maxwell's equations can remain invariant under
Galilean relativity?

Asking an idiot to explain something, usually makes it worse.
Asking a malicious idiot to explain something, always makes
it worse.
As you just have witnessed :-)

Dirk Vdm