sci.physics.electromag

On Mar 18, 3:30 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
> nade wrote:
> >http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
> > What do you make of it?
>
> The excerpt you posted is mostly nonsense.
>
> Specifically:
>
> > 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.
>
> Sure. We know quite well how to do that -- the detector has a
> 4-velocity, and the quantities it measures are basically the field(s)
> dotted into its 4-velocity.
>
> This isn't anything new, but Phipps seems to think it is.
>
> > 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;
>
> This is not true (but I believe Phipps uses a nonstandard meaning of
> "Galilean invariant"; I use the usual meaning). Moreover, if the
> observer uses arbitrarily-moving detectors, then the measurements are
> not projected onto the observer's (local) inertial frame. This is not
> wrong, but is different from the usual treatment of the theory, in which
> the observer does use detectors at rest in her inertial frame, and thus
> does project the field quantities onto that frame. This is a GREAT
> simplification: physics becomes much simpler in a (local) inertial
> frame. By abandoning that simplification, Phipps became confused....
>
> Juan R. Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez wrote (possibly quoting Phipps):
>
> > Clocks do not define time no matter how many times Einstein said the
> > contrary thing.
>
> This merely depends on how one chooses to use words (specifically
> "time"). But this DOES NOT MATTER, because clocks most definitely do
> represent the time coordinate used by real experimenters.
>
> nade wrote (to Juan R. Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez):
>
> > Say, are you a normal or a crackpot?
>
> He often acts like a crackpot (name shifting, posting articles that are
> pure insults, ignoring well-known mainstream results, using dense spews
> of undefined jargon in an attempt to stifle criticism...).
>
> About the only way to distinguish knowledgeable people from crackpots is
> that the former often recommend textbooks,

in stead of posting brain, is proof on
stoopidity

> but the latter never do. For
> general knowledge of SR I recommend: Taylor and Wheeler,
> _Spacetime_Physics_. For a discussion of the invariance of Maxwell's
> equations: Jackson, _Classical_Electrodynamics_, and also the Feynman
> _Lectures_ Vol 2.
>
> Tom Roberts

you post so many book titles

what abot postin brain?