MAXWELL developed his Equations based on his “MODEL”, a mental, imaginary, conceptual STORY that helped him develop his Mathematical equations, which he found were useful in the practical aspects of working with Electricity and Magnetism.
For instance, his Model says that Electrons move in the wire but nowadays we do not believe this is an accurate way to explain current flow. Now we say its all to do with the “electric field” that surrounds the wire. Either way, these are still just MODELS, Stories that help explain things that we cant actually physically observe.
We don’t need a MODEL of a car engine to help explain how it works, because we have real engines that we can see exactly what’s happening. No physicist is going to develop a mental Model of a Car engine where he imagines the fuel is converted to energy on the outside surface of the engine, or in some invisible “Field” surrounding the Engine block. We don’t need to because its directly evident what occurring.. But with Electricity and Magnetism, and Gravity and Radiation, we dream in terms of mental Models that probably don’t have any actual counterpart in reality. But the Models can still be very useful for Mathematical calculations.
Conversely these Models can also mislead us into drawing totally incorrect conclusions if we place ABSOLUTE faith in their perfection.
So here we are with Maxwell having workable equations that allow the prediction of what we will actually measure in real physical experience.
But as everyone knew, there was some issues that under certain imagined conditions, the equations that worked fine in practice, would not give predictable results in alternative applications of the same Model.

The Maxwell equations were not “invariant” under all conditions.
What did this mean? Or why did they think that there was actually this issue?
Well, turns out its really quite easy to explain from whence the confusion arises, and it is really just a confusion as opposed to an actual problem that requires a Physics and Mathematical solution.
To be blunt, the claimed “invariance issue” that caused Academia to overturn the perfectly solid equations of Galileo and Newton, in favor of Einstein’s version of reality, where Time, distances and Mass are now able to shrink or increase just because of someone’s relative velocity, was based on a misconception, not a fact.

This can be best visualized in a Model we will now create in out minds, because the claimed issue of invariance is also just based on a similar mental model. And Einstein himself exclusively employed such mental images as models in all his life’s work.
So my model will reveal the nature of the misconception, but express it in a way that can be easily understood by everyone.

But first, lest consider Maxwells model which involved only a few objects.
There was a magnet with its associated magnetic field, a piece of copper wire, maybe in the form of a coil, and the air surrounding these objects. Not often mentioned, but present anyway, is the very necessary central object, namely it is US, WE are the “other” component in Maxwells mental model. We are playing the part of the origin of the experiment that about to be run, using the wire and the magnet and run in the air.
Everything we observe or imagine is relative to our point of view in Maxwell’s model.

And its this exact Model that Einstein in his Paper of 1905, refers to directly.
Einstein, Quote: “It is known that Maxwell’s electrodynamics—as usually understood at the present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena.
Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor.
The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion.
For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated.
But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet.” End Quote.

We will revisit these opening sentences of Einstein later in this document, but for now, its very clear that Einstein is referring to the claimed problem that Maxwells equations were not “invariant”.
Meaning they were only good when applied from one point of view, but not the opposite.
Ok, that is Maxwell’s and Einstein’s mental Model, now we will use mine just to make it crystal clear what the fuss was about and why it’s a misconception, not a real problem that needs Time and Distance to warp in order to solve it.
In my model we have also three objects and air.
We have the observer, that’s us, me, you the reader, and we have the left hand, and the right hand held out in front, because the hands are clapping in the air.
This creates a “field” of sound waves that radiate out from the location where the hands met.
Now conventional logic might say that both hands were moving, but its also equally correct to say that we can imagine that the LEFT hand is to be considered as “the stationary hand” and so the motion is all being done by the RIGHT hand. This should work exactly the same, giving the exact same results on the sound wave in the air, from a Physics and Mathematical point of view according to Galilean and Newtonian Physics.
And it’s this point of view that Maxwell took when he considered the motion of the electrons inside the wire. He derived his equations based on that point of view.
Now some Physicists or rather Mathematicians like Lorentz and Einstein, noted that the resulting sound of the clap would radiate at a calculable velocity from the HAND that was considered as “stationary” (Left hand) and by inference that speed was also relative to the Air surrounding that “stationary” hand. The air was also stationary with respect to that Left hand.
But when they thought about what the math would look like if they applied their same equations, but this time calculated using the moving RIGHT hand as the new “origin of the sound wave”, the results were not the same! Because in one point of view, the original “stationary” LEFT hand was also in the Air that was also “stationary”, but by swapping to the moving RIGHT hand for all calculations, they were not at liberty to also claim that now the very Air would naturally also follow to the motion of the RIGHT Hand.
You can see immediately that the whole confusion was simply about the Maxwell equations were only applicable to “Left hand stationary model”, and not applicable to “right hand model” use.
Now imagine that we start the same experiment, of the two hands clapping, and again label the Left hand as the stationary one. But thins time, the owner of the hands (that’s us) runs sideways, say, to the to the right.. Still clapping, still imagining that his left hand is stationary, so then can Maxwells equations STILL be considered useful now?
Well, depends on your mental model, which is based not on facts, but your beliefs about what can be considered as “stationary”. Just because you LABLE your Left Hand as the Stationary hand, is it really so? Because still, while running, I am also at liberty to claim that its my RIGHT hand that is stationary…..
But because the effect, (the sound wave) does not depend on which hand I have decided to call stationary, sound will always only radiate outward from the location IN THE AIR, where it was first generated. It doesn’t matter at all which hand was stationary, or moving, all that mattered all this time was the Air.
Now is the AIR actually “stationary”. No its not. First, Air has internal turbulence, that is, parts of it move differently to other parts, and then there is a bigger picture that shows that the whole Atmosphere is rotating along with the Planet Earth, which is also orbiting the Sun, so the Air is not “stationary”.
And despite all this, Physics is very settled on matters that involve calculation and theories about Air movement, and about the travel of Sound Waves..
So, despite having no “absolute frame of reference” for the Air in which sound waves travel, we still can do useful Physics and apply equations of Mathematicians with great accuracy for Sound waves.
Now Sound waves and Light waves share one very important attribute. The both have finite speed.
If we are happy to ignore the fact that we can’t locate any truly stationary reference point in the Air for sound waves, and yet still do excellent Physics, why then are some (Einstein) claiming that now it’s a massive problem if we want to consider Light and its finite speed?

Do I need a fixed, absolute “location” that is attached or related to something solid in order to “do science” to do Physics and to do mathematics, with regard to several moving objects and also Light?
Einstein says yes, we must have a fixed absolute reference point in space to be able to truly call my Left Hand “stationary”. And because we cant find that absolute origin, we can also call the right hand stationary. But as explained, that leads to the invariance of Maxwells equations.
Now there is no equivalent of Air when it comes to Light. Light travels without any medium through a vacuum, so we can’t say that Air is the stationary object.
But can I still do Physics and study light’s speed if I don’t have an origin from which to do measurements?

In the actual Universe, there is always a great number of ways to tell if you are moving, and to measure how far and how fast you are travelling, seafarers have been doing just that for thousands of years, they use distant stars which provide a stationary background for us. (for all practical purposes, they can be considered as stationary)
But what if we are in Einstein’s imaginary space where I am just the only object, there is no universe of stars to give any clue? Well Ill use my imaginary massless light Marker, and I place one outside my spaceship, every minute. As my marker is based on Light, has no Mass, then its not affected by the motion of my ship, (Einstein and Galileo’s postulate was that Light speed is not affected by the motion of the source, and this is correct)
So those lights will serve as markers to show where I was in space one minute ago, two minutes ago etc. Thus I can measure my speed and direction referenced to them.
In reality, we don’t need to do this, because the universe is full of other objects from which to gain perspective and judge speed and orientation. And it doesn’t matter if the whole Universe is spinning, or itself is travelling somewhere. Physics for Humans involves our relationships with those objects that can and do affect us, not hypothetical pretend objects that are figments of imagination.
The meaning of all this speculation about why Maxwells equations were not invariant if we call our left hand stationary or the right hand stationary, is now clear. It all boils down to a BELIEF that for Light, and ONLY for light, we MUST establish a reference that is absolute, IF we can expect to keep Galileo’s and Newtons Physics.

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:

> MAXWELL developed his Equations based on his "MODEL", a mental,
> imaginary, conceptual STORY that helped him develop his Mathematical
> equations...

Yes, and the definitive answer to all that "model" kind of thing
was provided by Heinrich Hertz:

"Maxwell's theory is nothing but Maxwell's equations"
All the rest is nonsense,

Jan

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> MAXWELL developed his Equations based on his “MODEL”, a mental,
> imaginary, conceptual STORY that helped him develop his Mathematical
> equations, which he found were useful in the practical aspects of working
> with Electricity and Magnetism.

I’m pretty sure you have no idea what his model is. Start with fields. Do
you know what a field is, in Maxwell’s ideas?

> For instance, his Model says that Electrons move in the wire but nowadays
> we do not believe this is an accurate way to explain current flow. Now we
> say its all to do with the “electric field” that surrounds the wire.

No, this is mangled. Fields are different than charge sources and they are
both part of the model.

> Either way, these are still just MODELS, Stories that help explain things
> that we cant actually physically observe.
> We don’t need a MODEL of a car engine to help explain how it works,
> because we have real engines that we can see exactly what’s happening.

Really? Why does a gas expand when heated by ignition of fuel? I’m pretty
sure you don’t know the first thing about the physics of engines.

> No physicist is going to develop a mental Model of a Car engine where he
> imagines the fuel is converted to energy on the outside surface of the
> engine, or in some invisible “Field” surrounding the Engine block. We
> don’t need to because its directly evident what occurring. But with
> Electricity and Magnetism, and Gravity and Radiation, we dream in terms
> of mental Models that probably don’t have any actual counterpart in reality.

Maxwell would disagree. Why do you think fields don’t exist in reality?

> But the Models can still be very useful for Mathematical calculations.
> Conversely these Models can also mislead us into drawing totally
> incorrect conclusions if we place ABSOLUTE faith in their perfection.
> So here we are with Maxwell having workable equations that allow the
> prediction of what we will actually measure in real physical experience.
> But as everyone knew, there was some issues that under certain imagined
> conditions, the equations that worked fine in practice, would not give
> predictable results in alternative applications of the same Model.

Ok, such as what?

>
> The Maxwell equations were not “invariant” under all conditions.

Does that matter? What conditions SHOULD they be invariant under?

One of Galileo’s main points, by the way, was invariance under certain
“conditions”.

> What did this mean? Or why did they think that there was actually this issue?
> Well, turns out its really quite easy to explain from whence the
> confusion arises, and it is really just a confusion as opposed to an
> actual problem that requires a Physics and Mathematical solution.
> To be blunt, the claimed “invariance issue” that caused Academia to
> overturn the perfectly solid equations of Galileo and Newton, in favor of
> Einstein’s version of reality, where Time, distances and Mass are now
> able to shrink or increase just because of someone’s relative velocity,
> was based on a misconception, not a fact.
>
> This can be best visualized in a Model we will now create in out minds,
> because the claimed issue of invariance is also just based on a similar
> mental model. And Einstein himself exclusively employed such mental
> images as models in all his life’s work.
> So my model will reveal the nature of the misconception, but express it
> in a way that can be easily understood by everyone.

Ah, YOUR model. Fun.

>
> But first, lest consider Maxwells model which involved only a few objects.
> There was a magnet with its associated magnetic field, a piece of copper
> wire, maybe in the form of a coil, and the air surrounding these objects.
> Not often mentioned, but present anyway, is the very necessary central
> object, namely it is US, WE are the “other” component in Maxwells mental
> model. We are playing the part of the origin of the experiment that
> about to be run, using the wire and the magnet and run in the air.
> Everything we observe or imagine is relative to our point of view in Maxwell’s model.

This actually is not true of his model but proceed.

You are also omitting large parts of Maxwell’s model. Gauss’ law, for
example, which has nothing to do with magnets.

>
> And its this exact Model that Einstein in his Paper of 1905, refers to directly.
> Einstein, Quote: “It is known that Maxwell’s electrodynamics—as usually
> understood at the present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to
> asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena.
> Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor.
> The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the
> conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
> distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of
> these bodies is in motion.
> For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises
> in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain
> definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the
> conductor are situated.
> But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric
> field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet.” End Quote.
>
> We will revisit these opening sentences of Einstein later in this
> document, but for now, its very clear that Einstein is referring to the
> claimed problem that Maxwells equations were not “invariant”.
> Meaning they were only good when applied from one point of view, but not the opposite.
> Ok, that is Maxwell’s and Einstein’s mental Model, now we will use mine
> just to make it crystal clear what the fuss was about and why it’s a
> misconception, not a real problem that needs Time and Distance to warp in
> order to solve it.
> In my model we have also three objects and air.
> We have the observer, that’s us, me, you the reader, and we have the left
> hand, and the right hand held out in front, because the hands are clapping in the air.
> This creates a “field” of sound waves that radiate out from the location
> where the hands met.

So you don’t know what a field is.

> Now conventional logic might say that both hands were moving, but its
> also equally correct to say that we can imagine that the LEFT hand is to
> be considered as “the stationary hand” and so the motion is all being
> done by the RIGHT hand. This should work exactly the same, giving the
> exact same results on the sound wave in the air, from a Physics and
> Mathematical point of view according to Galilean and Newtonian Physics.

Well, except in this case, it is the motion of the air molecules caused by
the hands colliding that is what causes the propagating wave we call sound.
There is no medium of molecules in the case of electric or magnetic fields.
The latter persist in a vacuum, sound does not.

> And it’s this point of view that Maxwell took when he considered the
> motion of the electrons inside the wire. He derived his equations based
> on that point of view.
> Now some Physicists or rather Mathematicians like Lorentz and Einstein,
> noted that the resulting sound of the clap would radiate at a calculable
> velocity from the HAND that was considered as “stationary” (Left hand)
> and by inference that speed was also relative to the Air surrounding that
> “stationary” hand. The air was also stationary with respect to that Left hand.

Not so. In the case of sound, it’s clear the speed is always relative to
the material medium and does not depend in any way on the motion of the
hands. And everyone at the time knew it. You don’t, I guess.

In the reference frame where the left hand is stationary, the air is
moving. The speed of sound in air will be different than in the frame in
which both hands are moving.

See? This is what happens when you try to think about physics just by using
your own intuition and thinking powers. You screw things up in no time.

There is a GOOD reason why physics is taught in courses.

> But when they thought about what the math would look like if they applied
> their same equations, but this time calculated using the moving RIGHT
> hand as the new “origin of the sound wave”, the results were not the
> same! Because in one point of view, the original “stationary” LEFT hand
> was also in the Air that was also “stationary”, but by swapping to the
> moving RIGHT hand for all calculations, they were not at liberty to also
> claim that now the very Air would naturally also follow to the motion of the RIGHT Hand.
> You can see immediately that the whole confusion was simply about the
> Maxwell equations were only applicable to “Left hand stationary model”,
> and not applicable to “right hand model” use.
> Now imagine that we start the same experiment, of the two hands clapping,
> and again label the Left hand as the stationary one. But thins time, the
> owner of the hands (that’s us) runs sideways, say, to the to the right.
> Still clapping, still imagining that his left hand is stationary, so then
> can Maxwells equations STILL be considered useful now?
> Well, depends on your mental model, which is based not on facts, but your
> beliefs about what can be considered as “stationary”. Just because you
> LABLE your Left Hand as the Stationary hand, is it really so? Because
> still, while running, I am also at liberty to claim that its my RIGHT
> hand that is stationary…..
> But because the effect, (the sound wave) does not depend on which hand I
> have decided to call stationary, sound will always only radiate outward
> from the location IN THE AIR, where it was first generated. It doesn’t
> matter at all which hand was stationary, or moving, all that mattered all
> this time was the Air.

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
>> MAXWELL developed his Equations based on his “MODEL”, a mental,
>> imaginary, conceptual STORY that helped him develop his Mathematical
>> equations, which he found were useful in the practical aspects of working
>> with Electricity and Magnetism.
>
> I’m pretty sure you have no idea what his model is. Start with fields. Do
> you know what a field is, in Maxwell’s ideas?
>
>> For instance, his Model says that Electrons move in the wire but nowadays
>> we do not believe this is an accurate way to explain current flow. Now we
>> say its all to do with the “electric field” that surrounds the wire.
>
> No, this is mangled. Fields are different than charge sources and they are
> both part of the model.
>
>> Either way, these are still just MODELS, Stories that help explain things
>> that we cant actually physically observe.
>> We don’t need a MODEL of a car engine to help explain how it works,
>> because we have real engines that we can see exactly what’s happening.
>
> Really? Why does a gas expand when heated by ignition of fuel? I’m pretty
> sure you don’t know the first thing about the physics of engines.
>
>> No physicist is going to develop a mental Model of a Car engine where he
>> imagines the fuel is converted to energy on the outside surface of the
>> engine, or in some invisible “Field” surrounding the Engine block. We
>> don’t need to because its directly evident what occurring. But with
>> Electricity and Magnetism, and Gravity and Radiation, we dream in terms
>> of mental Models that probably don’t have any actual counterpart in reality.
>
> Maxwell would disagree. Why do you think fields don’t exist in reality?
>
>> But the Models can still be very useful for Mathematical calculations.
>> Conversely these Models can also mislead us into drawing totally
>> incorrect conclusions if we place ABSOLUTE faith in their perfection.
>> So here we are with Maxwell having workable equations that allow the
>> prediction of what we will actually measure in real physical experience.
>> But as everyone knew, there was some issues that under certain imagined
>> conditions, the equations that worked fine in practice, would not give
>> predictable results in alternative applications of the same Model.
>
> Ok, such as what?
>
>>
>> The Maxwell equations were not “invariant” under all conditions.
>
> Does that matter? What conditions SHOULD they be invariant under?
>
> One of Galileo’s main points, by the way, was invariance under certain
> “conditions”.
>
>> What did this mean? Or why did they think that there was actually this issue?
>> Well, turns out its really quite easy to explain from whence the
>> confusion arises, and it is really just a confusion as opposed to an
>> actual problem that requires a Physics and Mathematical solution.
>> To be blunt, the claimed “invariance issue” that caused Academia to
>> overturn the perfectly solid equations of Galileo and Newton, in favor of
>> Einstein’s version of reality, where Time, distances and Mass are now
>> able to shrink or increase just because of someone’s relative velocity,
>> was based on a misconception, not a fact.
>>
>> This can be best visualized in a Model we will now create in out minds,
>> because the claimed issue of invariance is also just based on a similar
>> mental model. And Einstein himself exclusively employed such mental
>> images as models in all his life’s work.
>> So my model will reveal the nature of the misconception, but express it
>> in a way that can be easily understood by everyone.
>
> Ah, YOUR model. Fun.
>
>>
>> But first, lest consider Maxwells model which involved only a few objects.
>> There was a magnet with its associated magnetic field, a piece of copper
>> wire, maybe in the form of a coil, and the air surrounding these objects.
>> Not often mentioned, but present anyway, is the very necessary central
>> object, namely it is US, WE are the “other” component in Maxwells mental
>> model. We are playing the part of the origin of the experiment that
>> about to be run, using the wire and the magnet and run in the air.
>> Everything we observe or imagine is relative to our point of view in Maxwell’s model.
>
> This actually is not true of his model but proceed.
>
> You are also omitting large parts of Maxwell’s model. Gauss’ law, for
> example, which has nothing to do with magnets.
>
>>
>> And its this exact Model that Einstein in his Paper of 1905, refers to directly.
>> Einstein, Quote: “It is known that Maxwell’s electrodynamics—as usually
>> understood at the present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to
>> asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena.
>> Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor.
>> The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the
>> conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
>> distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of
>> these bodies is in motion.
>> For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises
>> in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain
>> definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the
>> conductor are situated.
>> But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric
>> field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet.” End Quote.
>>
>> We will revisit these opening sentences of Einstein later in this
>> document, but for now, its very clear that Einstein is referring to the
>> claimed problem that Maxwells equations were not “invariant”.
>> Meaning they were only good when applied from one point of view, but not the opposite.
>> Ok, that is Maxwell’s and Einstein’s mental Model, now we will use mine
>> just to make it crystal clear what the fuss was about and why it’s a
>> misconception, not a real problem that needs Time and Distance to warp in
>> order to solve it.
>> In my model we have also three objects and air.
>> We have the observer, that’s us, me, you the reader, and we have the left
>> hand, and the right hand held out in front, because the hands are clapping in the air.
>> This creates a “field” of sound waves that radiate out from the location
>> where the hands met.
>
> So you don’t know what a field is.
>
>> Now conventional logic might say that both hands were moving, but its
>> also equally correct to say that we can imagine that the LEFT hand is to
>> be considered as “the stationary hand” and so the motion is all being
>> done by the RIGHT hand. This should work exactly the same, giving the
>> exact same results on the sound wave in the air, from a Physics and
>> Mathematical point of view according to Galilean and Newtonian Physics.
>
> Well, except in this case, it is the motion of the air molecules caused by
> the hands colliding that is what causes the propagating wave we call sound.
> There is no medium of molecules in the case of electric or magnetic fields.
> The latter persist in a vacuum, sound does not.
>
>> And it’s this point of view that Maxwell took when he considered the
>> motion of the electrons inside the wire. He derived his equations based
>> on that point of view.
>> Now some Physicists or rather Mathematicians like Lorentz and Einstein,
>> noted that the resulting sound of the clap would radiate at a calculable
>> velocity from the HAND that was considered as “stationary” (Left hand)
>> and by inference that speed was also relative to the Air surrounding that
>> “stationary” hand. The air was also stationary with respect to that Left hand.
>
> Not so. In the case of sound, it’s clear the speed is always relative to
> the material medium and does not depend in any way on the motion of the
> hands. And everyone at the time knew it. You don’t, I guess.
>
> In the reference frame where the left hand is stationary, the air is
> moving. The speed of sound in air will be different than in the frame in
> which both hands are moving.
>
> See? This is what happens when you try to think about physics just by using
> your own intuition and thinking powers. You screw things up in no time.
>
> There is a GOOD reason why physics is taught in courses.
>
>> But when they thought about what the math would look like if they applied
>> their same equations, but this time calculated using the moving RIGHT
>> hand as the new “origin of the sound wave”, the results were not the
>> same! Because in one point of view, the original “stationary” LEFT hand
>> was also in the Air that was also “stationary”, but by swapping to the
>> moving RIGHT hand for all calculations, they were not at liberty to also
>> claim that now the very Air would naturally also follow to the motion of the RIGHT Hand.
>> You can see immediately that the whole confusion was simply about the
>> Maxwell equations were only applicable to “Left hand stationary model”,
>> and not applicable to “right hand model” use.
>> Now imagine that we start the same experiment, of the two hands clapping,
>> and again label the Left hand as the stationary one. But thins time, the
>> owner of the hands (that’s us) runs sideways, say, to the to the right.
>> Still clapping, still imagining that his left hand is stationary, so then
>> can Maxwells equations STILL be considered useful now?
>> Well, depends on your mental model, which is based not on facts, but your
>> beliefs about what can be considered as “stationary”. Just because you
>> LABLE your Left Hand as the Stationary hand, is it really so? Because
>> still, while running, I am also at liberty to claim that its my RIGHT
>> hand that is stationary…..
>> But because the effect, (the sound wave) does not depend on which hand I
>> have decided to call stationary, sound will always only radiate outward
>> from the location IN THE AIR, where it was first generated. It doesn’t
>> matter at all which hand was stationary, or moving, all that mattered all
>> this time was the Air.
>
> Right, because the sound wave depends on the properties and motion of the
> air. This is not true for light, for which there is no material medium.
>
> Note that light can get here from the sun, through space. Sound cannot.
> Wonder why?
>
>> Now is the AIR actually “stationary”. No its not. First, Air has
>> internal turbulence, that is, parts of it move differently to other
>> parts, and then there is a bigger picture that shows that the whole
>> Atmosphere is rotating along with the Planet Earth, which is also
>> orbiting the Sun, so the Air is not “stationary”.
>> And despite all this, Physics is very settled on matters that involve
>> calculation and theories about Air movement, and about the travel of Sound Waves.
>> So, despite having no “absolute frame of reference” for the Air in which
>> sound waves travel, we still can do useful Physics and apply equations of
>> Mathematicians with great accuracy for Sound waves.
>> Now Sound waves and Light waves share one very important attribute. The
>> both have finite speed.
>> If we are happy to ignore the fact that we can’t locate any truly
>> stationary reference point in the Air for sound waves, and yet still do
>> excellent Physics, why then are some (Einstein) claiming that now it’s a
>> massive problem if we want to consider Light and its finite speed?
>>
>> Do I need a fixed, absolute “location” that is attached or related to
>> something solid in order to “do science” to do Physics and to do
>> mathematics, with regard to several moving objects and also Light?
>> Einstein says yes, we must have a fixed absolute reference point in space
>> to be able to truly call my Left Hand “stationary”. And because we cant
>> find that absolute origin, we can also call the right hand stationary.
>> But as explained, that leads to the invariance of Maxwells equations.
>> Now there is no equivalent of Air when it comes to Light. Light travels
>> without any medium through a vacuum, so we can’t say that Air is the stationary object.
>> But can I still do Physics and study light’s speed if I don’t have an
>> origin from which to do measurements?
>>
>> In the actual Universe, there is always a great number of ways to tell if you are moving,
>
> Really? How fast are you going now?
>
>> and to measure how far and how fast you are travelling, seafarers have
>> been doing just that for thousands of years, they use distant stars which
>> provide a stationary background for us. (for all practical purposes, they
>> can be considered as stationary)
>
> Tell me how a seafarer knows how fast the earth is going around the sun,
> using the fixed stars. Go ahead, I’m waiting.
>
> Ok, I’m tired of this nonsense. You are trying to rewrite physics from the
> ground up, just using your common sense and “thinking about things”. In the
> process you are screwing things up royally. It might entertain you, but
> it’s not physics.
>
>> But what if we are in Einstein’s imaginary space where I am just the only
>> object, there is no universe of stars to give any clue? Well Ill use my
>> imaginary massless light Marker, and I place one outside my spaceship,
>> every minute. As my marker is based on Light, has no Mass, then its not
>> affected by the motion of my ship, (Einstein and Galileo’s postulate was
>> that Light speed is not affected by the motion of the source, and this is correct)
>> So those lights will serve as markers to show where I was in space one
>> minute ago, two minutes ago etc. Thus I can measure my speed and
>> direction referenced to them.
>> In reality, we don’t need to do this, because the universe is full of
>> other objects from which to gain perspective and judge speed and
>> orientation. And it doesn’t matter if the whole Universe is spinning, or
>> itself is travelling somewhere. Physics for Humans involves our
>> relationships with those objects that can and do affect us, not
>> hypothetical pretend objects that are figments of imagination.
>> The meaning of all this speculation about why Maxwells equations were not
>> invariant if we call our left hand stationary or the right hand
>> stationary, is now clear. It all boils down to a BELIEF that for Light,
>> and ONLY for light, we MUST establish a reference that is absolute, IF we
>> can expect to keep Galileo’s and Newtons Physics.
>>
>> Should we not be able to define what the Absolute reference location is,
>> then Einstein’s claims we must discard Newton, and embrace another belief
>> system that involves additional Mathematics so that we get to keep
>> Maxwells Equations, at the expense of loosing three tiny things that were
>> core to Galileo Newton and Natural Philosophy in general, that is the
>> belief that a Meter rule does not change with speed, that Time is the
>> same here or there, and that Mass remains the same regardless of speed or location.
>> These three things ARE PHYSICS. With rubbery stretchy rulers, warping
>> Time periods, and Mass that changes all the time, we simply can’t have
>> stable Physics. There remains no reliable means to take any comparative measurements.
>> The NEW Physics is just a bunch of complex equations without any
>> demonstrable counterpart in reality.
>> By this I mean that I can physically demonstrate empirically using toy
>> cars that velocities of objects relative to each other conform exactly to
>> Newton, but never has anyone even shown as a demonstrable model using toy
>> cars, what supposed to be happening with relative velocities when Light
>> and objects are involved. That is, the basic principal of Einstein’s
>> “relative addition of velocities” SHOULD be demonstrable using simple toy cars.
>> The Einstein’s claim is that the car called light, always moving at a set
>> speed, will always be measured at that same speed for ANY observer,
>> (that’s any other toy car) regardless of that toy cars own speed, or even
>> it direction! So that toy car will measure the approach of the car
>> called “light” at say 100 units, while another toy car that’s moving at
>> 20units to the first will ALSO get a reading of 100 for light, and then
>> ALSO STILL get 100 even when that car turns 180 degrees and heads off in
>> the opposite direction!
>> I want to see how this could be possible. Demonstrated with toy cars,
>> like can be done for every other objects that have relative motions.
>> It is clearly demonstrable that Einstein’s claims for Light, is
>> impossible for everything in the universe that moves, but not for Light,
>> even though Light is just another thing that is moving.
>> So Einstein has a special Law of Physics that only applies to Light, and
>> it flies directly in the face of all other laws of Physics.
>> And to this day, not one Physicist has even explained how this could
>> actually be correct. Not only is it breaking all known laws of Physics,
>> without any reason, it also defies rational analysis. In other words its
>> an irrational claim, Irrational means its insane to think that this could be correct.
>> So what have we solved with Einstein’s relativity?
>> The sum total benefits amount to mathematically fiddling with Maxwells
>> equations so that they can now be considered invariant.
>> The downside is that we lost a stable rational Universe where solid
>> things remain as expected, (and always measured) and we lost consistency
>> of time, and of an objects Mass.
>>
>> So rather than simply admit that we cant locate an absolute origin and
>> direction in Space, and also admit that this DOESN’T MATTER for actual
>> Physics, we instead tossed out all that was good with Physics, and
>> swapped it for a bit of extra mathematics equation that fudged the
>> previous answers, forcing all results to have to same answer regardless
>> of individual circumstances.
>>
>> So what’s more likely? That Things shrink, grow more Massive and Time
>> warps simply on account of someone moving past another object at speed?
>> Or perhaps it’s more likely that a grave misconception has been made. And
>> that the universe is as we see it, and Newton is correct, Einstein mistaken.
>>
>> Please note, that every experiment ever done that claims to be supporting
>> Einstein, can have alternative explanations, every one of them. That’s
>> why science says that Evidence can never be considered as “Proof”.
>>
>>
>> Now some have said that there is a big difference between a “Galilean
>> inertial frame of reference” and a “Lorentz Inertial frame of reference”,
>> and this is true, they are polar opposites. In fact, according to
>> Einstein, the Galilean frame is invalid totally.
>> In fact, there is no such thing in Galilean Physics, as a “translation
>> between two observers”, because for Galileo, everything was in the one
>> big frame, called the universe. For Galileo, it was just a matter of
>> simple arithmetic, not any “translation”.
>> According to Einstein’s STR, the ONLY possible “inertial frame of
>> reference” that can be used in Physics is the one where “Lorentz
>> relativity” provides the base on which all other Laws of Physics is built.
>>
>> So if we take that at face value, then there can be no practical
>> application for a equation that “converts” between two observers frames
>> of reference, if one is actually trying to use Galilean Physics rules for
>> one observer, but Lorentz frames for the other.
>> But this is the very purpose of the Lorentz transformation found in
>> Einstein’s theory of special relativity.
>> It takes measurements observed by a person in a Galilean frame of
>> reference, and converts it into “real measurements”, by applying the
>> Lorentz transformation equation. Those real Lorentz measurements are what
>> the second observer will record.
>>
>> But as Einstein has previously stated, there can be no actual validity of
>> any measures taken by an observer from a “Galilean Inertial frame of
>> reference” because such incorrect views of physics is preventing any
>> actual valid recordings of any actual measurements.
>>
>> The poor Galilean observer who foolishly thinks he is taking valid
>> measurements is deluding himself, because there can exist no such
>> reference frame that is conforming to the Galilean Laws.
>> The universe can ONLY contain Lorentz relativistic inertial frames of reference.
>> At ANY speed, even a snail’s pace, that motion must be in a Lorentz frame
>> because to claim otherwise is to say that Maxwells equations are again NOT INVARIANT.
>> ONLY in Lorentz relativistic frames are Maxwells equations invariant.
>> Which according to Einstein is the one true condition of the universe.
>> So there can be no use for a translation equation between a Galilean
>> measurement to the “correct’ Lorentz measurement. Because there can exist
>> no such thing as a Galilean frame of reference. Physics only applies in
>> the Lorentz universe.
>> In any translation between two differently moving observers, its only
>> possible that BOTH observers are in Lorentz inertial frames, as no other
>> possibilities frame types exist in the Lorentz/Einstein universe.
>> Therefore any equation in such a Universe MUST have the Lorentz Gamma
>> factor included for BOTH observers. But that’s like just adding a set
>> number to the results of each observer, in other words , we can ignore
>> it, as its done the exact same thing mathematically to both observers
>> measurements. And thus the measures taken by both observers will always
>> be identical anyway. A pointless exercise.
>>
>> I earlier mentioned that we need to comment further on Einstein’s opening
>> sentences of his 1905 Paper. Please note what Einstein says regarding the
>> explanation of the generation of a current in a coil and by a relatively
>> moving magnet. (or vice versa)
>> He notes that it does not matter if the left hand (magnet) moves or the
>> right hand (coil of wire) or both move, the current still flows in the
>> wire. His problem is in explaining how to define what “stationary “ means.
>> Consider carefully to what he actually says about the “issue” he is having.
>> Quote: “For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there
>> arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a
>> certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of
>> the conductor are situated.”
>> But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric
>> field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet..”
>> Well this is quite a silly attempt to explain what is occurring here.
>> Move the magnet, then that makes an electric field around the magnet?
>> Really? That’s exactly what he claims, but this is totally incorrect.
>> A moving magnet creates no such electric field.
>> The Magnetic field surrounding the Magnet, (moving anywhere the magnet is
>> moved) causes changes in the wire coil, generating an energy we know as
>> electricity. It’s the energy of the motion converted into electric current.
>> Next to make his incorrect explanation even worse, Einstein continues…
>> “But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric
>> field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet..”
>> Well, here we see he has no real idea about how electricity is created.
>> Really? “no electric field arises in WHAT? In the Magnet! Now that just
>> silly. The electric field is only associated with the wire coil, and
>> never the Magnet. The Magnet is the object with the Magnetic field, and
>> the wire coil has the Electric field and current flow.
>> But this is the MAIN reason to claim that Maxwells Equations are not invariant?
>> That’s like saying that the Left hand creates a sound wave if its
>> stationary, and struck by the right hand, but if we keep the right hand
>> stationary, no sound is comes from the Left hand, so “HUSTON we have a Problem”.
>> The “Problem” that Einstein offers to solve does not even exist.
>> The Newtonian Physics he sweeps away, was correct all along, but was
>> replaced by a Mathematical fudge that has no direct link to reality.
>>
>> To recap, that condition of a Lorentz only Universe is one where Light
>> speed remains at c regardless of the speed of the observer.
>>
>> And to remind the reader what was thrown out, the Galilean view was that
>> finite speeds of objects are additive.
>>
>> And the provided reason to discard Galilean physics was because no one
>> could make up their mind how to locate an imaginary origin for an
>> imaginary frame of reference, so that they could do lots of Mathematics.
>> Apparently by throwing up their hands and giving up, over having no
>> obvious concrete origin for a frame of reference, the Physicists and
>> Mathematicians found an acceptable solution that only provides a Math
>> fudge for Maxwells equations, while not being based on any real
>> observable demonstrable events in the natural universe, where we are
>> supposed to be trying to understand Physics.
>> Recall that no-one to this day, not Einstein nor anyone since, has even
>> attempted to explain how it might actually work that a finitely moving
>> object could possibly still be measured at the same velocity regardless
>> of the speed or direction of the one doing the measuring, relative to that object.
>> Explaining the mathematics of the Lorentz Equation is NOT explaining how
>> such a feat could be possible. Because Mathematics can not actually
>> “explain” anything, let alone Physics.
>> Not one of the “millions” of Experiments that are routinely done that are
>> supposed to provide supporting evidence for Relativity, is beyond
>> critical review, and none are providing a better more accurate picture of
>> reality than properly done Physics that is Newtonian.
>> Not GPS, not Atomic Planes on Aircraft, not the Moon of IO, or star light
>> past the sun during an eclipse, or Muons or the Large Hadron Collider, is
>> above criticism. Always a better, far simpler explanation is available.
>> Meanwhile there remains only one rational, logical and demonstrable model
>> that covers relative velocities, and that is the Galilean/Newtonian
>> model. And it works just fine, even without having to locate a master
>> origin for the air that surrounds our clapping hands.
>> With that ovation, I can conclude my presentation.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:36:44 AM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> MAXWELL says that Electrons move in the wire but nowadays we say its
> all to do with the “electric field” that surrounds the wire.

First, electrons were not known during Maxwell's lifetime (nor even whether electric charge was continuous or discrete), and second, the modern understanding of current involving the fields surrounding the wire is a result of Maxwell's equations.

> The Maxwell equations were not “invariant” under all conditions. What did this mean?

The correct statement is that Maxwell's equations are not invariant under Galilean transformations, but they are invariant under Lorentz transformations. Conversely, Newton's equations are invariant under Galilean transformations but not under Lorentz transformations. Therefore, if both sets of equations were true, we would be able to detect the difference by means of "ether drift" experiments... but all such attempts to detect the difference came up empty. So the real equations governing electromagnetism and mechanics (whatever they are) must be invariant under the same transformations. The question is, are they both Galilean or both Lorentzian? Experiment shows they are both locally Lorentz invariant.

> Do I need a fixed, absolute “location” that is attached or related to something solid
> in order to “do science”... Einstein says yes...

To the contrary, special relativity is not a relational theory, i.e., it does not entail any "Mach's principle" attributing inertia-based systems of reference to the relations with other bodies. But physics does entail some kind of coordinate systems (implicit or explicit) in order to consistently quantify our statements, and these systems must have clear operational definitions. For example, construct a grid of standard rulers, and place standard inertially-synchronized clocks at each node. We can then describe the times and places of events in terms of the readings on these rulers and clocks.

> In the actual Universe, there is always a great number of ways to tell if you are moving...

That isn't the point. The point is that all the (known) laws of physics take exactly the same form in terms of any local system of inertia-based coordinates, as defined above, regardless of the state of uniform motion of the "grid". This is an important symmetry of nature, that makes the phenomena intelligible.

> With rubbery stretchy rulers, warping Time periods, and Mass that changes all
> the time, we simply can’t have stable Physics.

That's an odd thing to say (even aside from the cartoonishly inaccurate descriptions), because we manifestly have "stable physics" that is locally Lorentz invariant. This is no less "stable" than a hypothetical physics that is Galilean invariant. Indeed, early workers in the field suggested that Einstein's theory should be called Invariant Theory, or (as Minkowski suggested) the Theory of the Absolute World". It acquired the name "Relativity Theory" just for technical reasons.

> There remains no reliable means to take any comparative measurements.

That is not true at all. See the definition of the standard system of inertia-based coordinates, using standard rulers and clocks, all mutually not moving relative to each other. There is nothing unreliable about this. Indeed it's the very same systems of measurement used by Galileo and Newton.

> I can physically demonstrate empirically using toy cars that velocities of
> objects relative to each other conform exactly to Newton...

No you can't - at least, not if you are talking about velocities in terms of coordinate systems in which the equations of physics take their standard form. In terms of such coordinate systems, the speeds of your toy cars in terms of different systems of coordinates are not related by simple addition, they are related by the relativistic composition formula, because of how such coordinate systems are related to each other (which is the result of the inertia of energy). Remember the ball and carriage?

> So Einstein has a special Law of Physics that only applies to Light, and it flies
> directly in the face of all other laws of Physics.

No, it applies to everything, including toy cars.

> To this day, not one Physicist has even explained how this could actually be correct.

That's not true. I believe it's been explained to you several times. Remember you claimed that relativity can't possibly be correct because it implies a<b and b<a, and I explained your mistake by describing the two rows of clocks. When I first explained it, you replied "I will show you what's wrong with your explanation in my next sitting"... and then.... crickets. Until you make good on your promise, the explanation stands unchallenged.

> the provided reason to discard Galilean physics was because no one could make
> up their mind how to locate an imaginary origin for an imaginary frame of reference...

No, the flaw in Newtonian physics is that it did not account for the inertia of energy, which has immense consequences for physical phenomena (e.g., if it weren't true, the Sun wouldn't shine). According to Newtonian physics, in terms of a standard system of coordinates as described above, if we continually push on an object, doing work and increasing its kinetic energy, the objects speed will increase without limit, but when it became possible to perform experiments at extremely high speeds it was discovered that as the kinetic of an object increases, so too does its inertia, so that as we increase its kinetic energy more and more, it's speed doesn't increase indefinitely, it asymptotically approaches a fixed speed of about 3*10^8 m/sec. Newtonian mechanics fails completely, because it doesn't account for the inertia associated with that kinetic energy. And this same thing happens in terms of any system of inertia-based coordinates, so the asymptotic speed is the same in all of them. To understand how this is logically possible, see the two rows of clocks discussed above.

Also, as explained above, Maxwell's equations are evidently valid (in their standard form) in terms of the same systems of coordinates in which the laws of mechanics are valid, and Maxwell's equations imply that light propagates in vacuum at speed c = 3*10^8 m/sec in terms of any coordinates in which the equations take their standard form. Hence, this speed has the same value in terms of all these systems. So from the standpoint of both mechanics and electromagnetism, we find the same thing. And, again, the logical explanation is the two rows of clocks.

> Recall that no-one to this day, not Einstein nor anyone since, has even attempted to
> explain how it might actually work that a finitely moving object could possibly still be
> measured at the same velocity regardless of the speed or direction of the one doing
> the measuring, relative to that object.

That is not true., I've explained it to you very clearly.

> Explaining the mathematics of the Lorentz Equation is NOT explaining how such a
> feat could be possible.

Well, the explanation doesn't just consist of the mathematics of the Lorentz transformation, it consists of first noting the composition for speeds in terms of coordinate systems related by Lorentz transformations, but then it goes on to explain why this physically represents the speeds in terms of inertia-based coordinates. In other words, the explanation requires us to explain why inertia-based coordinates are related by Lorentz transformations rather than (say) Galilean transformations. The physical explanation is the inertia of energy.

You see, from the most basic logic and Galilean principles it can be shown that the relationship between relatively moving systems of inertia-based coordinates has just a single degree of freedom, that can be characterized by a constant we can call k. This is also the constant that relates energy E to inertia k*E. If k=0 then energy has no inertia and physics is Newtonian and inertia-based coordinate systems are related by Galilean transformations. However, if k=1/c^2, then energy has inertia and physics is Lorentzian and inertia-based coordinates are related by Lorentz transformations. Many careful experiments have been performed to measure k, and it invariably is found to have the value 1/c^2 to within measurement accuracy.

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 5:36:44 AM UTC-5, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> MAXWELL developed his Equations based on his “MODEL”, a mental, imaginary, conceptual STORY that helped him develop his
<crap snipped>

Once again you need to learn how to write.
Can you summarize everything that was written here in one or two small paragraphs? Because that is what you're supposed to do, that is what smart people do. So try again.

Or, are you just spamming?

Einstein overlooked relative size appearance in distance.
He also overlooked that real motion everywhere creates its opposite appearance.
Look at the sky turning opposite the Earth... this is the rule for motion that
is the real causing its opposite appearance.

Mitchell Raemsch

Den 29.01.2022 11:36, skrev everything isalllies:
> We don’t need a MODEL of a car engine to help explain how it works, because we have real engines that we can see exactly what’s happening.

You are designing a new car engine. You have specifications
for power, fuel consumption, NOx emission etc. etc.

How do you do it?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Bodkin,
Everything you said just missed the point.
You pick on details instead of see the big picture.
My stories are just metaphors, i'm not trying to state exact detailed facts, just telling a story.
And in that story, you can see that the story that Einstein spun, is not rational.

And why do you keep saying stupid things like, "you don't know what a field is", that's silly talk unless you first, state what you believe I'm saying a field is, then counter that with what you think a field is.

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 4:57:00 AM UTC+11, Townes Olson wrote:
>Remember you claimed that relativity can't possibly be correct because it implies a<b and b<a, and I explained your mistake by describing the two rows of clocks. When I first explained it, you replied "I will show you what's wrong with your explanation in my next sitting"... and then.... crickets. Until you make good on your promise, the explanation stands unchallenged.
<

Watch this video, that shows clearly and simply that its not possible for moving clocks to change in relation to a stationary grid of clocks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK0XpKKnLkw&t=243s

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 5:54:42 AM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:
> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 5:36:44 AM UTC-5, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> > MAXWELL developed his Equations based on his “MODEL”, a mental, imaginary, conceptual STORY that helped him develop his
> <crap snipped>
>
> Once again you need to learn how to write.
> Can you summarize everything that was written here in one or two small paragraphs? Because that is what you're supposed to do, that is what smart people do. So try again.
>
> Or, are you just spamming?

Summary:
Einstein is wrong. His story as written m]by him to justify his belief is nonsensical.

Shame you have the attention span of a 14 yo , and cant read more than a sentence at a sitting.

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 6:54:38 AM UTC+11, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 29.01.2022 11:36, skrev everything isalllies:
> > We don’t need a MODEL of a car engine to help explain how it works, because we have real engines that we can see exactly what’s happening.
> You are designing a new car engine. You have specifications
> for power, fuel consumption, NOx emission etc. etc.
>
> How do you do it?
>
> --
> Paul

You are sidetracking, and demonstrating that you fail to comprehend the meaning of my words.
You are being pedantic. Don't concentrate on details when all i'm dong is telling a story using metaphor to illustrate a point.
A water wheel would serve the same purpose in my story as well as a car engine. You miss the point always. I'm beginning to think you do this on purpose, to sidetrack from the issues I raise.

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 6:15:52 PM UTC-3, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:

> Bodkin,

<snip>

> And why do you keep saying stupid things like, "you don't know what a field is", that's silly talk unless you first, state what you believe I'm saying a field is, then counter that with what you think a field is.

I just rescue this paragraph, disregarding what are you discussing about.

The point is that you are wrong, itsalllies. Bodkin doesn't have a fucking clue about what a FIELD is.
You'll see that he NEVER tell about his understanding of concepts, unless he's cornered.

Then, he will resort to his LIBRARY in pdf, cut&paste some concept AND MODIFY the words and order of terms to pass it as its own.

Because he's a MF plagiarist, like Einstein, to whom he worship.

I caught him yesterday, plagiarizing gobbledygook about quantum eigenvalues, CHANGING IT "a la Einstein" and passing it as his OWN
knowledge. Bodkin is a FARCE, a continuous farce here since he started. He's born a deceiver and have no shame about it.

But Bodkin pretend to be above everyone here. His behavioral pattern has been detected early on, by 2014, and received a HUGE AMOUNT
of criticism. But, as a cretin with no consciousness, he perseveres trusting that people forget or forgive. Not my case.

Maybe, one of these days, I'll post his past shames here, which he carefully keep in the closet with other stuff.

I'm tired of this shill/troll and his 10,000 posts/year. I know why he's here and which are his tactics to hide his agenda.

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 4:57:00 AM UTC+11, Townes Olson wrote:
>Well, the explanation doesn't just consist of the mathematics of the Lorentz transformation, it consists of first noting the composition for speeds in terms of coordinate systems related by Lorentz transformations..<

Ok, briefly state how you can prove or derive the equation of Lorentz translation. But first, you must describe WHY its necessary.

How do you get from nowhere, to the belief that a Lorentz transformation was a thing?

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:11:02 AM UTC+11, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 6:15:52 PM UTC-3, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Bodkin,
>
> <snip>
> > And why do you keep saying stupid things like, "you don't know what a field is", that's silly talk unless you first, state what you believe I'm saying a field is, then counter that with what you think a field is.
> I just rescue this paragraph, disregarding what are you discussing about.
>
> The point is that you are wrong, itsalllies. Bodkin doesn't have a fucking clue about what a FIELD is.
> You'll see that he NEVER tell about his understanding of concepts, unless he's cornered.
>
> Then, he will resort to his LIBRARY in pdf, cut&paste some concept AND MODIFY the words and order of terms to pass it as its own.
>
> Because he's a MF plagiarist, like Einstein, to whom he worship.
>
> I caught him yesterday, plagiarizing gobbledygook about quantum eigenvalues, CHANGING IT "a la Einstein" and passing it as his OWN
> knowledge. Bodkin is a FARCE, a continuous farce here since he started. He's born a deceiver and have no shame about it.
>
> But Bodkin pretend to be above everyone here. His behavioral pattern has been detected early on, by 2014, and received a HUGE AMOUNT
> of criticism. But, as a cretin with no consciousness, he perseveres trusting that people forget or forgive. Not my case.
>
> Maybe, one of these days, I'll post his past shames here, which he carefully keep in the closet with other stuff.
>
> I'm tired of this shill/troll and his 10,000 posts/year. I know why he's here and which are his tactics to hide his agenda.

You said, " He's born a deceiver". You really think he is a Jew? ( "jew"= religious nutter, who believes he is a member of a master Race , that are destined to rule the earth, you know, Israelite's are "gods chosen people" and all that...)
Jesus called them "born deceivers"... I'm just poking sticks at people who are way to sensitive about themselves.
It is a fact that Israel military have thousands of shills scanning forums to counter anything they think is offensive to themselves. Paid shills.

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 1:26:43 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Remember you claimed that relativity can't possibly be correct because it implies a<b and b<a, and I explained your mistake by describing the two rows of clocks. When I first explained it, you replied "I will show you what's wrong with your explanation in my next sitting"... and then.... crickets.. Until you make good on your promise, the explanation stands unchallenged.
> <
> Watch this [youtube] video...

So, you have no substantive reply to the detailed deconstruction of every one of your claims? And you still can't even provide your promised explanation of why the relativistic behavior of the two rows of clocks is impossible? Remember, for two clocks moving relative to each other at speed v, each clock runs slow by the factor sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which the other clock is at rest. Do you dispute this?

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:23:17 AM UTC+11, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 1:26:43 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> So, you have no substantive reply to the detailed deconstruction of every one of your claims? And you still can't even provide your promised explanation of why the relativistic behavior of the two rows of clocks is impossible? Remember, for two clocks moving relative to each other at speed v, each clock runs slow by the factor sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which the other clock is at rest. Do you dispute this?

Your "detailed" deconstructions amount to nothing but dodging about the issues I raised.
You call upon Lorentz continuously and this idea that "Energy has Inertia", for every one of your "detailed counters".
But both of these concepts is deeply flawed.
If you are going to counter my story, you need to counter its rational logic, not its metaphorical instances.

The video clearly shows that Einsteins claims about grids of clock getting out of sync, is NONSENSE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK0XpKKnLkw&t=243s

Tell me where you think its wrong. Cough up your own video as a counter.

And yes, absolutely I dispute your claim that "two clocks moving relative to each other at speed v, each clock runs slow by the factor sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which the other clock is at rest. "

Its rubbish and runs counter to rational logic. You have to be delusional to accept such a claim.

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 10:08:12 PM UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > MAXWELL developed his Equations based on his "MODEL", a mental,
> > imaginary, conceptual STORY that helped him develop his Mathematical
> > equations...
>
> Yes, and the definitive answer to all that "model" kind of thing
> was provided by Heinrich Hertz:
>
> "Maxwell's theory is nothing but Maxwell's equations"
>
> All the rest is nonsense,
>
> Jan

And so your final conclusions then?
Is STR correct Physics or just mathematical nonsense?

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:15:04 PM UTC-3, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>
> Ok, briefly state how you can prove or derive the equation of Lorentz translation. But first, you must describe WHY its necessary.
>
> How do you get from nowhere, to the belief that a Lorentz transformation was a thing?

I try not the meddle with threads where forum members are playing with rockets at 0.8c and Lorentz's transforms. But your comment:
"WHY it's necessary" moved me to post the following CLARIFICATIONS:

1. The so called "Lorentz Transforms" are not from him, but were born in the imaginative mind of an illustrious physicist: Woldemar Voigt,
who, in his 1898 paper (yes, 16 years before Lorentz's final paper in 1904) stated the following question:

What are the expressions for a set of transform equations that, changing a reference (x,y,z,t) to another reference (x', y', z', t') moving
inertially at speed χ MAKE INVARIANT the wave equations on an elastic incompressible medium:

∂²u/dt² = ω² ∆u
∂²v/dt² = ω² ∆v
∂²w/dt² = ω² ∆w

provided that it is satisfied the relationship: ∂u/∂x + ∂v/∂y + ∂w/∂z = 0

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Principle_of_Doppler

Even when it was not his intention, he's proclaimed as the father of relativity.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/First-Proposal-of-the-Universal-Speed-of-Light-by-Ernst-Hsu/e47e5ee5b8c9f7cb54a0eddb5f7a9b86a4406b2e
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02498974
https://fondationlouisdebroglie.org/AFLB-441/aflb441m900.pdf

2. He was the first to obtain the expression q = √(1 - χ²/ω²), local time τ = t (1 - χ x/ω²) and the relations between (x,y,z,t) and (x', y', z', t').

3. His work, forgotten at that epoch, was plagiarized and transformed by Lorentz since 1894, while seeking how to get
a length contraction in the order of (v/c)². Only in 1911 Lorentz apologized to Voigt (face to face) telling him that he wasn't aware
of his paper nor his concept of local time OR GAMMA FACTOR, which is a fucking LIE for anybody who analyze Lorentz 1904 paper.

4. Your question about WHY these transforms are necessary is answered with a simple phrase: Because a CRETIN, by 1905, saw the
opportunity to profit from Voigt and Lorentz work, IN PARTICULAR, with the METAPHYSICS of time dilation.

The rest is history written by the MF who won this deception war. And a new generation of retarded physicists adopted it, because OLD
PHYSICS was already written and was BORING. This new world allowed to write the MOST STUPID CONCEPTS and make a living of it.

Op 29-jan.-2022 om 23:31 schreef everything isalllies:
> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:23:17 AM UTC+11, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 1:26:43 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> So, you have no substantive reply to the detailed deconstruction of every one of your claims? And you still can't even provide your promised explanation of why the relativistic behavior of the two rows of clocks is impossible? Remember, for two clocks moving relative to each other at speed v, each clock runs slow by the factor sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which the other clock is at rest. Do you dispute this?
>
> Your "detailed" deconstructions amount to nothing but dodging about the issues I raised.
> You call upon Lorentz continuously and this idea that "Energy has Inertia", for every one of your "detailed counters".
> But both of these concepts is deeply flawed.
> If you are going to counter my story, you need to counter its rational logic, not its metaphorical instances.
>
> The video clearly shows that Einsteins claims about grids of clock getting out of sync, is NONSENSE.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK0XpKKnLkw&t=243s
>
> Tell me where you think its wrong. Cough up your own video as a counter.
>
> And yes, absolutely I dispute your claim that "two clocks moving relative to each other at speed v, each clock runs slow by the factor sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which the other clock is at rest. "
>
> Its rubbish and runs counter to rational logic. You have to be delusional to accept such a claim.
>
>

Entirely as predicted, back in your personal heaven.
And they're completely at your service again.

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

>> And yes, absolutely I dispute your claim that "two clocks moving
>> relative to each other at speed v, each clock runs slow by the factor
>> sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which the
>> other clock is at rest. "
>> Its rubbish and runs counter to rational logic. You have to be
>> delusional to accept such a claim.
>
> Entirely as predicted, back in your personal heaven.
> And they're completely at your service again.

entirely nonsense. Clocks are never at rest. As minimum, it requires
repetitive state transitions and propagation delays from a place to
another. You relativists have to relearn physics from the beginning. Even
Einstine could not see that his mechanical clocks are never at rest. An
idiot. Married in his family.

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:31:13 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The explanation doesn't just consist of the mathematics of the Lorentz transformation,
>> it consists of first noting the composition for speeds in terms of coordinate systems
>> related by Lorentz transformations, but then it goes on to explain why this physically
>> represents the speeds in terms of inertia-based coordinates.
>
> Briefly state how you can prove or derive the equation of Lorentz translation.
> But first, you must describe WHY its necessary.

The objective is to accurately describe the laws of physics, and as has been explained to you repeatedly, the equations of Newtonian physics are experimentally incorrect, essentially because they don't account for the inertia of energy. For example, in Newtonian mechanics, the kinetic energy of a mass m moving at speed v is (1/2)mv^2, but experimentally it is actually mc^2[1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - 1]. The correct expression is actually predicted by special relativity. This is just one example. In general, all the laws of Newtonian mechanics are wrong... and for the same reason... and they are all fixed by correcting them to account for the inertia of energy.

> How do you get from nowhere, to the belief that a Lorentz transformation was a thing?

It isn't that difficult. Up to one degree of freedom, it's entirely implicit in the existence of inertia-based coordinate systems, as first posited by Galileo and Newton long ago. This implies that relatively moving such systems are related by linear transformations, and if you carefully work out the logical requirements (which requires only grade school reasoning), you arrive at the general form that any such transformation must have, and it has just one free parameter, which we can call "k". It's clear from everyday experience (playing with toy cars, etc.) that k must either be zero or else extremely small. It was natural for Newton to assume (implicitly) k=0, which implies Galilean invariance. But with more refined instruments it became known in the late 1800s that k actually has a very slightly non-zero value... to be precise, it equals 1/c^2, which implies Lorentz invariance.

> The video clearly shows... Tell me where you think its wrong.

That video is an embarrassment to the human race. If you have something substantive defense of your claims, go ahead and make it. Pointing to braindead youtube videos is not useful.

> I dispute your claim that "two clocks moving relative to each other at speed v,
> each clock runs slow by the factor sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of the inertia-based
> coordinates in which the other clock is at rest. " Its rubbish and runs counter to
> rational logic.

That isn't a substantive argument. Again, you claimed that it implies a<b and b<a, but that was thoroughly debunked (remember?), so you have no rational basis now for denying the plain facts.

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 10:04:20 AM UTC+11, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:15:04 PM UTC-3, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Ok, briefly state how you can prove or derive the equation of Lorentz translation. But first, you must describe WHY its necessary.
> >
> > How do you get from nowhere, to the belief that a Lorentz transformation was a thing?
> I try not the meddle with threads where forum members are playing with rockets at 0.8c and Lorentz's transforms. But your comment:
> "WHY it's necessary" moved me to post the following CLARIFICATIONS:
>
> 1. The so called "Lorentz Transforms" are not from him, but were born in the imaginative mind of an illustrious physicist: Woldemar Voigt,
> who, in his 1898 paper (yes, 16 years before Lorentz's final paper in 1904) stated the following question:
>
> What are the expressions for a set of transform equations that, changing a reference (x,y,z,t) to another reference (x', y', z', t') moving
> inertially at speed χ MAKE INVARIANT the wave equations on an elastic incompressible medium:
>
> ∂²u/dt² = ω² ∆u
> ∂²v/dt² = ω² ∆v
> ∂²w/dt² = ω² ∆w
>
> provided that it is satisfied the relationship: ∂u/∂x + ∂v/∂y + ∂w/∂z = 0
>
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Principle_of_Doppler
>
> Even when it was not his intention, he's proclaimed as the father of relativity.
>
> https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/First-Proposal-of-the-Universal-Speed-of-Light-by-Ernst-Hsu/e47e5ee5b8c9f7cb54a0eddb5f7a9b86a4406b2e
> https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02498974
> https://fondationlouisdebroglie.org/AFLB-441/aflb441m900.pdf
>
> 2. He was the first to obtain the expression q = √(1 - χ²/ω²), local time τ = t (1 - χ x/ω²) and the relations between (x,y,z,t) and (x', y', z', t').
>
> 3. His work, forgotten at that epoch, was plagiarized and transformed by Lorentz since 1894, while seeking how to get
> a length contraction in the order of (v/c)². Only in 1911 Lorentz apologized to Voigt (face to face) telling him that he wasn't aware
> of his paper nor his concept of local time OR GAMMA FACTOR, which is a fucking LIE for anybody who analyze Lorentz 1904 paper.
>
> 4. Your question about WHY these transforms are necessary is answered with a simple phrase: Because a CRETIN, by 1905, saw the
> opportunity to profit from Voigt and Lorentz work, IN PARTICULAR, with the METAPHYSICS of time dilation.
>
> The rest is history written by the MF who won this deception war. And a new generation of retarded physicists adopted it, because OLD
> PHYSICS was already written and was BORING. This new world allowed to write the MOST STUPID CONCEPTS and make a living of it.

OK, Voit was a great Mathematician. His Translation equations (Dopler wave propagation) are apparently correct.
BUT the KEY words are: "moving inertially at speed χ MAKE INVARIANT the wave equations on an elastic incompressible medium:
>

So as vacuum has no properties like "elasticity" and its not a substance that can be thought of as "incompressable".. Voit's equations have to be placed in a context that is appropriate to the assumptions used.
That is, a "wave moving through a MEDIUM", and two different observations of that wave, one from a location that is not moving with respect to that medium, and the other form the perspective of one that is moving in that medium.

But you cant go from here to Einstein's claim that Time, Distances and Mass must move to one side, just so that a fabricated equation can be kept intact.

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 10:46:59 AM UTC+11, Townes Olson wrote:
>Newtonian physics are experimentally incorrect, essentially because they don't account for the inertia of energy. In general, all the >laws of Newtonian mechanics are wrong... and for the same reason... and they are all fixed by correcting them to account for the >inertia of energy.

There is only such a thing as "Energy has Inertia", IF you have already accepted Einsteins theories.
We have yet to prove his theory is sane.

>>any such transformation must have, and it has just one free parameter, which we can call "k". It's clear from everyday experience (playing with toy cars, etc.) that k must either be zero or else extremely small. It was natural for Newton to assume (implicitly) k=0, which implies Galilean invariance. But with more refined instruments it became known in the late 1800s that k actually has a very slightly non-zero value... to be precise, it equals 1/c^2, which implies Lorentz invariance.

Ok, explain the need for that one free parameter? Define it, explain where it came from. Use the toy cars as a simple experiment.
>

>
> That video is an embarrassment to the human race.

Oh really? Explain why that video is an embarrassment, but the thousands of of Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Fermilab, ect. videos are all OK? You seem to think that the video is not representing accurately what would rationally happen, on the grounds that it is not supporting your personal beliefs. No scientific explanation is given. Proclaiming it to be just embarrassing, is a personal view, not a very good analysis.

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 4:16:14 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> There is only such a thing as "Energy has Inertia", IF you have already accepted Einsteins theories.

No, it is an empirical fact that the inertia of a body increases by an amount proportional to its increased kinetic energy.

>>any such transformation must have, and it has just one free parameter, which we can call "k". It's clear from everyday experience (playing with toy cars, etc.) that k must either be zero or else extremely small. It was natural for Newton to assume (implicitly) k=0, which implies Galilean invariance. But with more refined instruments it became known in the late 1800s that k actually has a very slightly non-zero value... to be precise, it equals 1/c^2, which implies Lorentz invariance.
>
> Ok, explain the need for that one free parameter? Define it, explain where it
> came from. Use the toy cars as a simple experiment.

The free parameter arises from considering the most general possible (logically self-consistent) transformation that satisfies all the constraints. For example, the transformation between inertia-based systems must, by definition, map inertial trajectories to inertial trajectories, so it must be linear, and the transformation must not favor any arbitrary location or direction locally, and so on. Taking all these constraints into account, simple grade school reasoning shows that the transformation between inertia-based coordinate systems logically must have the form x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-kvx)g, where g = 1/sqrt(1-kv^2) for some arbitrary constant k. Notice that if k=0 this gives the Galilean transformations, whereas if k=1/c^2 it gives the Lorentz transformations. So, the correct result is under-determined by the constraints we have imposed so far. But we can experimentally test the value of k (noting that the inertia of energy E is given by k*E), and we invariably find that it equals 1/c^2. This is covered exhaustively at the beginning of any good book on the foundations of relativity.