sci.physics.electromag

"nade" wrote in message
news:f00983f4-f3e4-4617-87dc-2ffd1501a674@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm

What do you make of it? Author has doctorate in nuclear physics
and has over 40 publications in physics journals.

http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm

from the web site:

"Now let me consider the (for me) perfectly commonsensical
view that the practicalities of the measurement process
must play an unambiguously prominent role in the
theorizing process: As an example of a theory where this
was not done (with hugely signi?cant consequences), we
need look no further than classical Maxwell electrodynamics.
In this case, the formalism absolutely requires that the detectors
used by (inertial) observers to measure ?eld quantities be at
rest in the observer's frame. Thus, if we have two observers,
each in his own inertial frame, then, since their instruments
are physical objects and unable to occupy the same place
at the same time, it is absolutely impossible for these two
observers to make simultaneous measurements of the
same ?eld point. In other words, certain choices made
at the theorizing level have rendered impossible a
perfectly reasonable thing-that distinct observers
can have direct knowledge of conditions occurring at a
particular place at a given time. Phipps' answer to this
conundrum is simple: there is no reason on Earth why
the detector measuring ?eld quantities should be ?xed
in the (inertial) observer's frame. After all, the source
currents which generate the ?eld are not, so why should
the test particles (which comprise the detectors) be?
And since the detector need not be ?xed in one observer's
inertial frame, why should it be ?xed in any inertial frame?

Following this logic, if we allow the detector to have free
motion, then the formalism of electrodynamics which follows
must somehow allow for the parameterization of the detector's
motion. A natural candidate for this formalism already exists
in the equations of Hertz's electromagnetic theory (the
known failure of his theory was the fault not of his equations
but of his physical interpretation) and these are easily
written down: just take Maxwell's equations and replace all
appearances of by . This replacement introduces a convective
velocity which must be interpreted, and Phipps' solution is
to use this convective velocity to describe the motion of the
free detector. A simple and elegant idea, don't you think? ...
but now comes the crux: by this simple process, which
is driven by the idea that there is no reason on God's Earth
why an observer cannot use a freely moving detector,
the equations of electromagnetism become Galilean
invariant; thus, at a stroke, solving one of the great
conundrums of 19th century physics and, in removing
the primary raison d'être of Special Relativity (SRT),
putting a huge question mark over a large chunk of 20th
century theoretical physics."

---------------

| I'd like to know if the above has any merit or if they are already
| dealt with or counterargued. If so. What are the counterarguments?
| Thanks!

| nade

Don't you know how to judge for yourself?

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif


Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.

"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."

In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.

Troll kooks such as

Uncle Schwartzschit,
Blind Poe,
Moron McCullough,
Humpty Roberts,
Phuckwit Duck Draper,
Sad and Lonely sal Lawrence,
Tusseladd ASSistant professor Andersen,
Shrine to Spirits Nieminen,
Ghost ewill,
Goosey Gisse,
Wanker Olson,
Minor Crank Tom & Jeery,
Fecal Jekyll,
Bilewacky,
Dork Van de merde et. al.
fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism

between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif

Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.

Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'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' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.


http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif

Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.

You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif

Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton


["tj Frazir"]
If you pushed a rod 1 light year long the other end wont move for 1 year.

["CWatters"]
Suppose you apply a small displacement by compressing one end with a
hammer.
Does the shock wave still travel at the speed of light?

[Androcles]
Clearly the extrapolation (increasing rigidity yields increasing speed
of sound) indicates either there is limit to rigidity or there is a limit to
the speed of sound in a material body.
Given that a material body is made of atoms then atoms are
not rigid... but we do not expect them to be anyway, the model of
an atom is that of a nucleus surrounded by a mantle of empty
space and a shell (or shells) of electrons. By compressing the
atom we force the electrons into the nucleus, the charges cancel
and we are left with a nucleus of incompressible neutrons where
the limit to rigidity has been reached; for either the neutron is totally
rigid or the speed of sound in neutrons exceeds the speed of light.

"Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we
have settled what is to be understood by"[1] neutron stars and proven
black holes do not exist, the extrapolation has gone too far.

[1] Einstein's verbal diaorreah to impress neanderthals and gorillas.