sci.physics.electromag

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=EF=AC=81cant 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 =EF=AC=81eld quantities be at
rest in the observer=E2=80=99s 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 =EF=AC=81eld point. In other words, certain choices made
at the theorizing level have rendered impossible a
perfectly reasonable thing=E2=80=94that distinct observers
can have direct knowledge of conditions occurring at a
particular place at a given time. Phipps=E2=80=99 answer to this
conundrum is simple: there is no reason on Earth why
the detector measuring =EF=AC=81eld quantities should be =EF=AC=81xed
in the (inertial) observer=E2=80=99s frame. After all, the source
currents which generate the =EF=AC=81eld are not, so why should
the test particles (which comprise the detectors) be?
And since the detector need not be =EF=AC=81xed in one observer=E2=80=99s
inertial frame, why should it be =EF=AC=81xed 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=E2=80=99s
motion. A natural candidate for this formalism already exists
in the equations of Hertz=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=99s equations and replace all
appearances of by . This replacement introduces a convective
velocity which must be interpreted, and Phipps=E2=80=99 solution is
to use this convective velocity to describe the motion of the
free detector. A simple and elegant idea, don=E2=80=99t you think? ...
but now comes the crux: by this simple process, which
is driven by the idea that there is no reason on God=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=99=C3=AAtre 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