| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Keith Stein" |
| Date: |
26 Jan 2004 07:31:34 AM |
| Object: |
What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
POSTULATE 1 : l' = l
POSTULATE 2 : t' = t
This amounts to postulating that neither
length nor time (a clock readings eh!)
are modified by the velocity of the OBSERVER.
It was left as an exercise for the student to show
1. Relative Velocity is an invariant
and
2. c' = c + V
where c is the velocity of light relative to the medium
V is the velocity of that medium relative to an observer
and c' is the velocity of light relative to that observer.
.
|
|
| User: "Keith Stein" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
26 Jan 2004 07:39:05 AM |
|
|
CORRECTION !
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uE8Rb.1211$e52.1121@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
POSTULATE 1 : l' = l
POSTULATE 2 : t' = t
This amounts to postulating that neither
length nor time (a clock readings eh!)
are modified by the velocity of the OBSERVER.
It was left as an exercise for the student to show
1. Relative Velocity is an invariant
and
2. c' = c + V
where c is the velocity of light relative to the medium
V is the velocity of that medium relative to an observer
and c' is the velocity of THE light relative to that observer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
26 Jan 2004 08:06:48 AM |
|
|
Dear Keith Stein:
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yL8Rb.1222$e52.878@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
CORRECTION !
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uE8Rb.1211$e52.1121@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
POSTULATE 1 : l' = l
POSTULATE 2 : t' = t
This amounts to postulating that neither
length nor time (a clock readings eh!)
are modified by the velocity of the OBSERVER.
It was left as an exercise for the student to show
1. Relative Velocity is an invariant
and
2. c' = c + V
where c is the velocity of light relative to the medium
V is the velocity of that medium relative to an observer
and c' is the velocity of THE light relative to that observer.
It is limited.
It is limited to things you can only measure with a stopwatch and a tape
measure.
It is limited to measurements in your frame.
It is limited to the surface of the Earth.
We have enough limits if we're going to attain the stars. Join us in the
20th century, won't you? Eh?
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Stein" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
26 Jan 2004 08:45:53 AM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:0a9Rb.12757$bg1.2718@fed1read05...
Dear Keith Stein:
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yL8Rb.1222$e52.878@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
CORRECTION !
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uE8Rb.1211$e52.1121@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
POSTULATE 1 : l' = l
POSTULATE 2 : t' = t
This amounts to postulating that neither
length nor time (a clock readings eh!)
are modified by the velocity of the OBSERVER.
It was left as an exercise for the student to show
1. Relative Velocity is an invariant
and
2. c' = c + V
where c is the velocity of light relative to the medium
V is the velocity of that medium relative to an observer
and c' is the velocity of THE light relative to that observer.
It is limited.
It is limited to things you can only measure with a stopwatch and a tape
measure.
It is limited to measurements in your frame.
It is limited to the surface of the Earth.
We have enough limits if we're going to attain the stars. Join us in the
20th century, won't you? Eh?
David A. Smith
So you think just 'cos everyone else says
c + V = c
I should join in the madness, Dr Smith ?
(It is Doctor, i presume :-)
keith stein
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
26 Jan 2004 05:48:14 PM |
|
|
Dear Keith Stein:
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9K9Rb.1390$e52.515@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:0a9Rb.12757$bg1.2718@fed1read05...
Dear Keith Stein:
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yL8Rb.1222$e52.878@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
CORRECTION !
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uE8Rb.1211$e52.1121@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
POSTULATE 1 : l' = l
POSTULATE 2 : t' = t
This amounts to postulating that neither
length nor time (a clock readings eh!)
are modified by the velocity of the OBSERVER.
It was left as an exercise for the student to show
1. Relative Velocity is an invariant
and
2. c' = c + V
where c is the velocity of light relative to the medium
V is the velocity of that medium relative to an observer
and c' is the velocity of THE light relative to that observer.
It is limited.
It is limited to things you can only measure with a stopwatch and a
tape
measure.
It is limited to measurements in your frame.
It is limited to the surface of the Earth.
We have enough limits if we're going to attain the stars. Join us in
the
20th century, won't you? Eh?
So you think just 'cos everyone else says
c + V = c
No, only because it agrees with experiment. It isn't because everyone says
so, but because that is what is measured.
I should join in the madness, Dr Smith ?
(It is Doctor, i presume :-)
No. I cannot even publicly claim to be an engineer, as I cannot get enough
on-job hours to take the PE exam.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
28 Jan 2004 02:54:27 AM |
|
|
No, only because it agrees with experiment. It isn't because everyone says
so, but because that is what is measured.
I should join in the madness, Dr Smith ?
(It is Doctor, i presume :-)
No. I cannot even publicly claim to be an engineer, as I cannot get enough
on-job hours to take the PE exam.
That's capitalism for you (or against you). The influx of cheap
foreign slave labour will really screw you up though.
JS
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
28 Jan 2004 08:36:19 AM |
|
|
Dear John Schoenfeld:
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0401280054.28aa5e56@posting.google.com...
No, only because it agrees with experiment. It isn't because everyone
says
so, but because that is what is measured.
I should join in the madness, Dr Smith ?
(It is Doctor, i presume :-)
No. I cannot even publicly claim to be an engineer, as I cannot get
enough
on-job hours to take the PE exam.
That's capitalism for you (or against you). The influx of cheap
foreign slave labour will really screw you up though.
In this case, manufacturing jobs went overseas, and I live in a
manufacturing-depleted area. I am an ME.
job #01: fired because I was an idiot
job #02: left for better opportunity (company folded about 1 year later)
job #03: left to complete degree (company folded about 1 year later)
job #04: left for better opportunity (division folded about 6 months later)
job #05: closed down operations and shipped equipment to Sri Lanka ($30 per
month fully absorbed labor cost, for one man, also a very high per capita
PhD rate)
job #06: closed down operations and shipped all to another city (into the
cold and snow)
job #07: left because I could no longer stand continually being away from
W&K
job #08: still here, but it isn't engineering (SALES, yecch!)
But I'm still glad I did not get into electrical engineering...
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
28 Jan 2004 03:44:10 PM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<DNPRb.1701$1O.1385@fed1read05>...
Dear John Schoenfeld:
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0401280054.28aa5e56@posting.google.com...
No, only because it agrees with experiment. It isn't because everyone
says
so, but because that is what is measured.
I should join in the madness, Dr Smith ?
(It is Doctor, i presume :-)
No. I cannot even publicly claim to be an engineer, as I cannot get
enough
on-job hours to take the PE exam.
That's capitalism for you (or against you). The influx of cheap
foreign slave labour will really screw you up though.
In this case, manufacturing jobs went overseas, and I live in a
manufacturing-depleted area. I am an ME.
job #01: fired because I was an idiot
job #02: left for better opportunity (company folded about 1 year later)
job #03: left to complete degree (company folded about 1 year later)
job #04: left for better opportunity (division folded about 6 months later)
job #05: closed down operations and shipped equipment to Sri Lanka ($30 per
month fully absorbed labor cost, for one man, also a very high per capita
PhD rate)
job #06: closed down operations and shipped all to another city (into the
cold and snow)
job #07: left because I could no longer stand continually being away from
W&K
job #08: still here, but it isn't engineering (SALES, yecch!)
But I'm still glad I did not get into electrical engineering...
Job #09: "Would you like fries with that? Yes, Dr Smith." :-).
I got into Software Engineering which has recently turned down that
same path. At least with your field, you actually need to be on-site
doing something observably physical, with software, anyone can do
write it any place any time - which lends itself very easily for
slave-outsourcing.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
28 Jan 2004 09:17:24 PM |
|
|
Dear John Schoenfeld:
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0401281344.cab857a@posting.google.com...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:<DNPRb.1701$1O.1385@fed1read05>...
....
In this case, manufacturing jobs went overseas, and I live in a
manufacturing-depleted area. I am an ME.
job #01: fired because I was an idiot
job #02: left for better opportunity (company folded about 1 year
later)
job #03: left to complete degree (company folded about 1 year later)
job #04: left for better opportunity (division folded about 6 months
later)
job #05: closed down operations and shipped equipment to Sri Lanka ($30
per
month fully absorbed labor cost, for one man, also a very high per
capita
PhD rate)
job #06: closed down operations and shipped all to another city (into
the
cold and snow)
job #07: left because I could no longer stand continually being away
from
W&K
job #08: still here, but it isn't engineering (SALES, yecch!)
But I'm still glad I did not get into electrical engineering...
Job #09: "Would you like fries with that? Yes, Dr Smith." :-).
I got into Software Engineering which has recently turned down that
same path. At least with your field, you actually need to be on-site
doing something observably physical, with software, anyone can do
write it any place any time - which lends itself very easily for
slave-outsourcing.
There are still some good opportunities in Visual Assembly Language (aka
PLC coding). It is still a pretty rough-and-tumble career, as no one even
thinks about the computer code until the "machine" is sitting on the
shipping dock. AB has done some really nice stuff with their language,
allowing definitions of data structures. And then you get to get into
network architectures, synchronization, redundancy, and hot backups. These
guys are pretty well sought after. I wouldn't encourage anyone to start
out with it as a career, but it might have room for some *real* talent.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
27 Jan 2004 11:03:32 AM |
|
|
In article <9K9Rb.1390$e52.515@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Keith Stein <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:0a9Rb.12757$bg1.2718@fed1read05...
So you think just 'cos everyone else says
c + V = c
I should join in the madness, Dr Smith ?
They don't say that. That would violate the rules of addition, unless
V=0. But for a rule f( , ) of composition of velocities, f(c,V)=c.
--
"The preferred method of entering a building is to use a tank main gun
round, direct fire artillery round, or TOW, Dragon, or Hellfire missile to
clear the first room." -- THE RANGER HANDBOOK U.S. Army, 1992
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
26 Jan 2004 09:26:36 AM |
|
|
Keith Stein wrote:
So you think just 'cos everyone else says
c + V = c
I should join in the madness, Dr Smith ?
(It is Doctor, i presume :-)
Velocities do not add that that.
compsite velocity of c with V is
(c + V)/(1 +c*V/c^2) = (c + V)/(1 + V/c) = c*(c + V)/(c + V) = c. As
advertised.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
27 Jan 2004 10:17:38 AM |
|
|
Keith Stein wrote:
[snip]
So you think just 'cos everyone else says
c + V = c
Err, people don't say this. People say only that if observer A measures
object B traveling with c, and observer C travels with v with respect to
A, then he will measure object B traveling with c, too.
Hint: velocities are relative. They depend on the observer. (even in
Galilian mechanics!).
c + V
is obviously greater than c - however, this is *not* the speed which
observer B measures. Why should it be?
I should join in the madness, Dr Smith ?
No madness. Just plain, tested physics.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
26 Jan 2004 09:22:55 AM |
|
|
Keith Stein wrote:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:0a9Rb.12757$bg1.2718@fed1read05...
Dear Keith Stein:
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yL8Rb.1222$e52.878@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
CORRECTION !
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uE8Rb.1211$e52.1121@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
POSTULATE 1 : l' = l
POSTULATE 2 : t' = t
This amounts to postulating that neither
length nor time (a clock readings eh!)
are modified by the velocity of the OBSERVER.
It was left as an exercise for the student to show
1. Relative Velocity is an invariant
and
2. c' = c + V
where c is the velocity of light relative to the medium
V is the velocity of that medium relative to an observer
and c' is the velocity of THE light relative to that observer.
It is limited.
It is limited to things you can only measure with a stopwatch and a tape
measure.
It is limited to measurements in your frame.
It is limited to the surface of the Earth.
We have enough limits if we're going to attain the stars. Join us in the
20th century, won't you? Eh?
David A. Smith
So you think just 'cos everyone else says
c + V = c
I should join in the madness, Dr Smith ?
(It is Doctor, i presume :-)
keith stein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
27 Jan 2004 10:45:33 PM |
|
|
<snip>
Newtonian dynamics are for v << c.
Describe the proton at v ~ c.
Snip this twaddle in the bud, you are utterly incapable of learning.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Cardinale" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
27 Jan 2004 05:42:32 PM |
|
|
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<uE8Rb.1211$e52.1121@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
POSTULATE 1 : l' = l
POSTULATE 2 : t' = t
This amounts to postulating that neither
length nor time (a clock readings eh!)
are modified by the velocity of the OBSERVER.
It was left as an exercise for the student to show
1. Relative Velocity is an invariant
and
2. c' = c + V
where c is the velocity of light relative to the medium
V is the velocity of that medium relative to an observer
and c' is the velocity of light relative to that observer.
The short answer to the question in the title is: It makes predictions
that are contradicted by experiments.
Paul Cardinale
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
02 Feb 2004 11:16:54 AM |
|
|
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<uE8Rb.1211$e52.1121@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
[snip]
2. c' = c + V
See the Fizeau experiment. What's that phrase Al uses?
Boring, ineducable, crank, troll.
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Stein" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
02 Feb 2004 01:38:51 PM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0061_01C3E9C4.2F6CFF00
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<puppet_sock@hotmail.com> wrote in=20
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote=20
[snip]
2. c' =3D c + V
=20
See the Fizeau experiment.=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------------------------
29th sept. 96
Thanks for your reply Steve. You make a valid point. The theory i am
advocating (i.e.Maxwell's Theory, with normal Galilean transformations),
is indeed in conflict with Fizeau's claim to have confirmed Fresnel's
(1818) "PARTIAL DRAG" formula.
In the Galilean world, the net light speed though the material is
clearly c/n + v (assuming negligible dependence of n on frequency)
In the Lorentz world, the net speed is
(c/n+v)/(1+cv/nc^2)
Fizeau's results were considered surprising at the time,
BUT HERE YOU CHEAT SIR !=20
FAR FROM BEING SUPRISING TO 'THOSE IN THE KNOW', FIZEAU'S CLAIM WAS=20
THE 'LOOKED FOR' CONFIRMATION OF FRESNEL'S 'PARTIAL DRAG' FORMULAE.=20
=20
Now as every physics student knows, it is very much easier to obtain an
experimental result which confirms a theoretical formulae if you know
what the formulae which you are trying to confirm is, than if you don't. =
=20
Essentially i am saying that i do not beleive Fizeau's results, and
anyone who hangs their theory on Fizeau's 1851 results is on very thin
ground. Even today these experiments would not be easy to reproduce,but
our equipment is very much better than anything Fizeau could get his
hands on, so i think it's time someone had another look at this.
Personally i don't doubt that if you make the tubes wide enough and long
enough (i admit i don't know what 'enough' is), then the normal Galilean
transforms would apply. If you think about it "partial drag" really does
not make sense. Partial relative to what ? I would certainly want to
see some much better evidence than anything Fizeau could have obtained
in 1851, before i would beleive that light actually does behave in the
unlikely manner proposed by Fresnel in 1818.=20
--=20
Keith Stein
------=_NextPart_000_0061_01C3E9C4.2F6CFF00
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:puppet_sock@hotmail.com"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>puppet_sock@hotmail.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>> wrote in=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> "Keith Stein" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>> wrote=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> [snip]<BR>> >=20
2.  =
; =20
c' =3D c + V<BR>> <BR>> See the Fizeau experiment. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>----------------------------------------------------------------=
----------------------------------</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>29th sept. 96<BR><BR>Thanks for your =
reply Steve.=20
You make a valid point. The theory i am<BR>advocating (i.e.Maxwell's =
Theory,=20
with normal Galilean transformations),<BR>is indeed in conflict with =
Fizeau's=20
claim to have confirmed Fresnel's<BR>(1818) "PARTIAL DRAG"=20
formula.<BR><BR>>In the Galilean world, the net light speed though =
the=20
material is<BR>>clearly c/n + v (assuming negligible dependence of n =
on=20
frequency)<BR>><BR>>In the Lorentz world, the net speed=20
is<BR>><BR>> =20
(c/n+v)/(1+cv/nc^2)<BR>><BR>>Fizeau's results were considered =
surprising=20
at the time,<BR><BR>BUT HERE YOU CHEAT SIR ! <BR><BR> FAR FROM =
BEING=20
SUPRISING TO 'THOSE IN THE KNOW', FIZEAU'S CLAIM WAS <BR> THE =
'LOOKED FOR'=20
CONFIRMATION OF FRESNEL'S 'PARTIAL DRAG' FORMULAE. <BR> <BR>Now as =
every=20
physics student knows, it is very much easier to obtain =
an<BR>experimental=20
result which confirms a theoretical formulae if you know<BR>what the =
formulae=20
which you are trying to confirm is, than if you don't. =
<BR><BR>Essentially=20
i am saying that i do not beleive Fizeau's results, and<BR>anyone who =
hangs=20
their theory on Fizeau's 1851 results is on very thin<BR>ground. Even =
today=20
these experiments would not be easy to reproduce,but<BR>our equipment is =
very=20
much better than anything Fizeau could get his<BR>hands on, so i think =
it's time=20
someone had another look at this.<BR><BR>Personally i don't doubt that =
if you=20
make the tubes wide enough and long<BR>enough (i admit i don't know what =
'enough' is), then the normal Galilean<BR>transforms would apply. If you =
think=20
about it "partial drag" really does<BR>not make sense. Partial =
relative to=20
what ? I would certainly want to<BR>see some much better evidence =
than=20
anything Fizeau could have obtained<BR>in 1851, before i would beleive =
that=20
light actually does behave in the<BR>unlikely manner proposed by Fresnel =
in=20
1818. <BR><BR>-- <BR>Keith Stein<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0061_01C3E9C4.2F6CFF00--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
03 Feb 2004 02:21:35 AM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0243_01C3E9E4.F1ED9380
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Don't post in HTML, you stupid nerd.
It makes it impossible to reply in a structured way.
This is an old trick of yours when you are trying to opt out.
If you want me to show how shallow your knowledge of the Fresnel/Fizeau =
situation is, you will repost your note in plain text, as you are =
supposed to do in a newsgroup contribution.
Franz
------=_NextPart_000_0243_01C3E9E4.F1ED9380
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1264" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Don't post in HTML, you stupid =
nerd.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It makes it impossible to reply in a =
structured=20
way.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>This is an old trick of yours when you =
are trying=20
to opt out.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If you want me to show how shallow your =
knowledge=20
of the Fresnel/Fizeau situation is, you will repost your note in plain =
text, as=20
you are supposed to do in a newsgroup contribution.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Franz</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0243_01C3E9E4.F1ED9380--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arfur Dogfrey" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
27 Jan 2004 11:24:24 AM |
|
|
(sings)
Gimme that Old-Time Physics,
Gimme that Old-Time Physics
Gimme that Old-Time Physics
It's good enough for me.
It was good enough for Newton,
The orbits they're disputin'
And the space shots that they're shootin'
And it's good enough for me.
(Chorus)
It was good enough for Legendre,
When the world he did ponder,
Staring at the great, blue yonder,
And it's good enough for me.
(Chorus)
I will praise Maxwell's Equations,
For they laid the foundations,
They will live for generations,
And that's good enough for me.
(Chorus)
I'll accept Maxwell's demon,
And maybe Bernhard Riemann,
But at Einstein I am screamin'
And that's good enough for me.
(Chorus)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
27 Jan 2004 10:48:03 PM |
|
|
(Arfur Dogfrey) wrote in message news:<b8a07d3f.0401270924.6d4b2984@posting.google.com>...
Nice double slam of irony.
I remember the source song being sung in a movie about...the scopes trial.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
26 Jan 2004 10:48:57 AM |
|
|
In article <uE8Rb.1211$e52.1121@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Keith Stein <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
POSTULATE 1 : l' = l
POSTULATE 2 : t' = t
The real world just doesn't seem to work that way. Even Lorentz's aether
theory has length and time translations that don't match what you've
written above, and he didn't propose those transformations just because he
got bored with the old ones.
--
"In any case, don't stress too much--cortisol inhibits muscular
hypertrophy. " -- Eric Dodd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Stein" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
26 Jan 2004 11:41:01 AM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:bv3gdp$g27$4@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <uE8Rb.1211$e52.1121@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Keith Stein <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
POSTULATE 1 : l' = l
POSTULATE 2 : t' = t
This amounts to postulating that neither
length nor time (a clock reading eh!)
are modified by the velocity of the OBSERVER
The real world just doesn't seem to work that way.
This amounts to postulating that neither
length nor time (a clock reading eh!)
are modified by the velocity of the OBSERVER
Even Lorentz's aether
theory has length and time translations that don't match what you've
written above, and he didn't propose those transformations just because he
got bored with the old ones.
He certainly had no proof that the old ones were wrong.
In fact Lorentz transformations are silly, because the velocity
of light can no more be frame independent than can any other
velocity.
keith stein
--
"In any case, don't stress too much--cortisol inhibits muscular
hypertrophy. " -- Eric Dodd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
26 Jan 2004 11:48:30 AM |
|
|
In article <kicRb.2024$e52.1400@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Keith Stein <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:bv3gdp$g27$4@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <uE8Rb.1211$e52.1121@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Keith Stein <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
POSTULATE 1 : l' = l
POSTULATE 2 : t' = t
This amounts to postulating that neither
length nor time (a clock reading eh!)
are modified by the velocity of the OBSERVER
The principle of relativity is a postulate of special relativity, too.
The real world just doesn't seem to work that way.
This amounts to postulating that neither
length nor time (a clock reading eh!)
are modified by the velocity of the OBSERVER
Even Lorentz's aether
theory has length and time translations that don't match what you've
written above, and he didn't propose those transformations just because he
got bored with the old ones.
He certainly had no proof that the old ones were wrong.
Yes he did; they gave the wrong answers.
In fact Lorentz transformations are silly, because the velocity
of light can no more be frame independent than can any other
velocity.
Nature doesn't seem to work the way you want it to work.
--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Stein" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
26 Jan 2004 12:01:49 PM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:bv3jte$hvs$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <kicRb.2024$e52.1400@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Keith Stein <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:bv3gdp$g27$4@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <uE8Rb.1211$e52.1121@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Keith Stein <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
POSTULATE 1 : l' = l
POSTULATE 2 : t' = t
This amounts to postulating that neither
length nor time (a clock reading eh!)
are modified by the velocity of the OBSERVER
The principle of relativity is a postulate of special relativity, too.
The real world just doesn't seem to work that way.
This amounts to postulating that neither
length nor time (a clock reading eh!)
are modified by the velocity of the OBSERVER
Even Lorentz's aether
theory has length and time translations that don't match what you've
written above, and he didn't propose those transformations just because
he
got bored with the old ones.
He certainly had no proof that the old ones were wrong.
Yes he did; they gave the wrong answers.
They gave the right answer for the laser light on the train eh!
At time T a laser situated at R (the rear of the train) is fired, and
L/c seconds later this signal is received at the front of the train F.
The times are as determined by the clocks situated at R and F, and all
observers will agree on the journey time as recorded by these clocks.
At time 'T' laser fires At time 'T + L/c'
from R light arrives F
|<----------------------- L meters ------------------------->|
O<-------------------Syncronised clocks--------------------->O
T R A I N >>>>>>>
(velocity = V m/s)
Experimentally the result is found to be independent of the velocity of
the train'V',and in this sense,the velocity of light is indeed constant.
However to an observer outside the train the distance travelled by the
light is not constant. Between the time that the light leaves R and
arrives at F, the point F will have moved on a distance = V * L/c
Therefore:-
To outside observer: DISTANCE TRAVELLED BY LIGHT R>F = L + (V * L/c).
TIME FOR JOURNEY R>F = L/c
VELOCITY OF LIGHT between R and F = DISTANCE/TIME
= c + V
In fact Lorentz transformations are silly, because the velocity
of light can no more be frame independent than can any other
velocity.
Nature doesn't seem to work the way you want it to work.
To an outside observer the velocity of light is NOT constant but rather
it will vary with the velocity of the train 'V', and that in exactly the
same way that the speed of sound,(or the speed of the guard, or indeed
the speed of anything on the train) varies with the speed of the train eh!
keith stein
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
26 Jan 2004 05:52:14 PM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen
To an outside observer the velocity of light is NOT constant but rather
it will vary with the velocity of the train 'V', and that in exactly the
same way that the speed of sound,(or the speed of the guard, or indeed
the speed of anything on the train) varies with the speed of the train eh!
If that was the case then the velocity of light would not be independent of
the velocity of the source as required by Maxwell's equations. So which is
it - your view of how you think light should behave or Maxwell's equations?
Come on say which is correct. If you choose your view then please explain
how Maxwell's equations can be wrong - no experiment in the classical domain
has ever found the slightest problem with them.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Stein" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
27 Jan 2004 02:07:27 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <billhobba@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4015a7d0$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
keith stein wrote
To an outside observer the velocity of light is NOT constant but rather
it will vary with the velocity of the train 'V', and that in exactly the
same way that the speed of sound,(or the speed of the guard, or indeed
the speed of anything on the train) varies with the speed of the train
eh!
If that was the case then the velocity of light would not be independent
of
the velocity of the source as required by Maxwell's equations.
Of course the speed of light would be independent of the speed of the
source,
but NOT independent of the speed of the medium eh!
So which is
it - your view of how you think light should behave or Maxwell's
equations?
According to Maxwell's theory a medium is essential for the transmission of
light,
and Maxwell's primary example of a medium for e-m waves was 'air'.
Come on say which is correct. If you choose your view then please explain
how Maxwell's equations can be wrong
My view IS Maxwell's view too - and if you doubt that READ HIS TREATISE eh!
- no experiment in the classical domain
has ever found the slightest problem with them.
Maxwell's equations, as written by Maxwell, predict that the speed of light
on
the train will be " c + V ", where V is the velocity of the AIR on the
train.
keith stein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
27 Jan 2004 08:41:01 PM |
|
|
Keith Stein wrote:
'Of course the speed of light would be independent of the speed of the
source, but NOT independent of the speed of the medium eh!'
And the location of the peer reviewed paper proving the existence of such a
medium is located at? Unless you can produce such then you assertion is
seen as the ridicules rubbish it is.
Keith Stein
'According to Maxwell's theory a medium is essential for the transmission of
light, and Maxwell's primary example of a medium for e-m waves was 'air'.'
Only Maxwell's EM equations have ever had experimental confirmation - his
aether remains just a dream.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
27 Jan 2004 09:24:50 AM |
|
|
In article <4%oRb.1921$MS3.1388@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Keith Stein <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
"Bill Hobba" <billhobba@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4015a7d0$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
- no experiment in the classical domain
has ever found the slightest problem with them.
Maxwell's equations, as written by Maxwell, predict that the speed of light
on
the train will be " c + V ", where V is the velocity of the AIR on the
train.
If that were true, then Maxwell's equations would be Just Plain Wrong,
disproven more than a hundred years ago by Fizeau. The speed of light in
moving water was not c+v, an aether drag coefficient was used to explain
it.
But Maxwell's equations don't specify the transformation rules to be used.
You can use Galilean transformations, you can use Lorentz transformations,
you can use whatever transformations please you. Lorentz transformations
match the real world, that's why Lorentz proposed them. It's not like
Lorentz and others never thought of trying Galilean transformations before
they made up astonishing new things, you know. They were aware of a body
of experimental work that seems to have escaped your attention.
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong."
-- Henry Louis Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
27 Jan 2004 10:10:20 AM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
But Maxwell's equations don't specify the transformation rules to be used.
You can use Galilean transformations, you can use Lorentz transformations,
you can use whatever transformations please you. Lorentz transformations
match the real world, that's why Lorentz proposed them. It's not like
Lorentz and others never thought of trying Galilean transformations before
they made up astonishing new things, you know. They were aware of a body
of experimental work that seems to have escaped your attention.
A Gallelean transformation of the Maxwell wave equations produce terms
which do not correspond to observables. The Maxwell Equations we know
and love only hold in a completely relatively motionless aether. But
that possibility is negated by the null results of experiments like the
MMX. If aether exists, then no matter how we move, it must appear
motionless, but that is precluded by the experiment you mentioned.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Stein" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
27 Jan 2004 06:18:56 PM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:M3wRb.166001$xy6.786193@attbi_s02...
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
But Maxwell's equations don't specify the transformation rules to be
used.
You can use Galilean transformations, you can use Lorentz
transformations,
you can use whatever transformations please you. Lorentz
transformations
match the real world, that's why Lorentz proposed them. It's not like
Lorentz and others never thought of trying Galilean transformations
before
they made up astonishing new things, you know. They were aware of a
body
of experimental work that seems to have escaped your attention.
A Gallelean transformation of the Maxwell wave equations produce terms
which do not correspond to observables. The Maxwell Equations we know
and love only hold in a completely relatively motionless aether.
That ain't what Maxwell said.
Maxwell said they hold in any non conducting medium of "finite density",
such as "air", or "paraffin", and he insisted that such a medium was
"necessary".
Read Maxwell's Treatise on Electricty and Magnetism, Mr Kolker, you won't
find any mention of "aether" from Maxwell, although he certainly does insist
"A MEDIUM NECESSARY"
keith stein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: What was wrong with the OLD PHYSICS ? |
28 Jan 2004 10:02:50 AM |
|
|
In article <QdDRb.819$Pw5.736@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Keith Stein <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:M3wRb.166001$xy6.786193@attbi_s02...
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
But Maxwell's equations don't specify the transformation rules to be
used.
You can use Galilean transformations, you can use Lorentz
transformations,
you can use whatever transformations please you. Lorentz
transformations
match the real world, that's why Lorentz proposed them. It's not like
Lorentz and others never thought of trying Galilean transformations
before
they made up astonishing new things, you know. They were aware of a
body
of experimental work that seems to have escaped your attention.
A Gallelean transformation of the Maxwell wave equations produce terms
which do not correspond to observables. The Maxwell Equations we know
and love only hold in a completely relatively motionless aether.
That ain't what Maxwell said.
Maxwell said they hold in any non conducting medium of "finite density",
such as "air", or "paraffin", and he insisted that such a medium was
"necessary".
Read Maxwell's Treatise on Electricty and Magnetism, Mr Kolker, you won't
find any mention of "aether" from Maxwell, although he certainly does insist
"A MEDIUM NECESSARY"
I get the impression that was the last and possibly only work you've ever
read on physics.
Why should I care what Maxwell said?
--
"A good plan executed right now is far better than a perfect plan
executed next week."
-Gen. George S. Patton
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
