Prev: 3x10^10 cm/sec uniquely linked to the end of Finiteness #560 Correcting Math
Next: Falling Physical pendulum Q - correction to 2nd reply
From: Koobee Wublee on 2 Apr 2010 16:15
On Mar 29, 8:11 am, Tom Adams <tadams...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Stop mystifying yourself.

Einstein’s 1905 paper was an attempt on plagiarism of Poincare’s
work. In that paper, you can find tons of mistakes. The center piece
is the Lorentz transform bastardized by Poincare from Larmor’s
transform. In the Lorentz transform, due to mutual time dilation and
the principle of relativity, simultaneity becomes relative. Several
events happening cannot be coherently put together in a precise
timeline agreed by all the observers. Relative simultaneity is not
how the real world works. Given the coherent results of any
interference patterns, the world must obey absolute simultaneity.

Larmor’s transform does not have this problem. All observations must
reference back to the absolute frame of reference. Thus, the
principle of relativity is not generally holding. It does so only at
very low speeds. This always is true for the Voigt transform which
influenced Larmor to build his transform. Both Larmor’s transform and
the Voigt transform satisfy the null results of the MMX.

The Lorentz transform is a special case to Larmor’s transform. In
general, the Lorentz transform does not possibly apply to the real
world. For more information, consult the link below.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c540aaf23412f1e2?hl=en
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 2 Apr 2010 16:23
Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
e2ed1d51-e32d-4c7c-9e08-b89d0409e2cd(a)x3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com
> On Mar 29, 8:11 am, Tom Adams <tadams...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> Stop mystifying yourself.
>
> Einstein�s 1905 paper was an attempt on plagiarism of Poincare�s
> work. In that paper, you can find tons of mistakes. The center piece
> is the Lorentz transform bastardized by Poincare from Larmor�s
> transform. In the Lorentz transform, due to mutual time dilation and
> the principle of relativity, simultaneity becomes relative. Several
> events happening cannot be coherently put together in a precise
> timeline agreed by all the observers. Relative simultaneity is not
> how the real world works. Given the coherent results of any
> interference patterns, the world must obey absolute simultaneity.
>
> Larmor�s transform does not have this problem. All observations must
> reference back to the absolute frame of reference. Thus, the
> principle of relativity is not generally holding. It does so only at
> very low speeds. This always is true for the Voigt transform which
> influenced Larmor to build his transform. Both Larmor�s transform and
> the Voigt transform satisfy the null results of the MMX.
>
> The Lorentz transform is a special case to Larmor�s transform. In
> general, the Lorentz transform does not possibly apply to the real
> world. For more information, consult the link below.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c540aaf23412f1e2?hl=en

For a first class character assassination, consult the link below:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Search/searchresult.html?sw=koobee

Dirk Vdm

From: Sam Wormley on 2 Apr 2010 16:56
On 4/2/10 3:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Einstein�s 1905 paper was an attempt on plagiarism of Poincare�s
> work. In that paper, you can find tons of mistakes. The center piece
> is the Lorentz transform bastardized by Poincare from Larmor�s
> transform. In the Lorentz transform, due to mutual time dilation and
> the principle of relativity, simultaneity becomes relative. Several
> events happening cannot be coherently put together in a precise
> timeline agreed by all the observers. Relative simultaneity is not
> how the real world works. Given the coherent results of any
> interference patterns, the world must obey absolute simultaneity.

In the 1800s Michael Faraday discovered, or I should say
formalized, electromagnetic induction. Given a coil of
wire and a bar magnet...


F = qE + qv x B


Holding the coil stationary and moving the bar magnet
produced an electric current in the coil. Similarly
holding the bar magnet stationary and moving the coil
also produced an electric current in the coil.

But in the language of electrodynamics of the day the two
cases were distinct independent phenomena that had
completely different explanations.

When Albert Einstein saw that, he said "Look guys, you've
just got to be kidding--Any yo-yo can see that these are
the same thing".

So it was this little experiment that was really the
start of relativity, not the Michelson-Morley
Experiment--not some exotic experiment to detect the
motion of the earth through the aether.

With this simple little phenomenon, that of course
everybody knew about, disturbed nobody else, but Albert
Einstein.

This led him to write a paper that landed on the desks of
Annalen der Physik on 30 June, and would go on to
completely overhaul our understanding of space and time.
Some 30 pages long and containing no references, his
fourth 1905 paper was titled "On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies" (Ann. Phys., Lpz 17 891-921).

From: spudnik on 2 Apr 2010 18:19
couldn't Poincare have done it without Larmor?

Michelson and Morley (and their refiners) did
not get this mythical null result!

thus quoth:
One methodological aspect of the paper on magnetism proved defining
for physics to this day. As also for his later work with Wilhelm
Weber, in connection with electrical measurement, Gauss determined
that the measure of magnetic force must be consistent with the units
of measure of mass, length, and time, already in use in other branches
of physics. Owing to the philosophical and historical illiteracy of
most contemporary physics teaching, however, Gauss’s intention is
nearly always misconstrued, to assume that these units are meant to be
self-evident scalar quantities. Rather, as a familiarity with Gauss’s
immediately preceding work on the subject of curvature would show
(and, as was made perfectly explicit in the famous 1854 Habilitation
thesis of his leading student, Bernhard Riemann,4) Gauss had already
introduced a fully relativistic conception into the framework of
experimental physics. His 1828 description of the attempt to use state-
of-the-art surveying techniques to measure the angular defect of a
large terrestrial triangle should make this point evident5: As
elaborated 26 years later by Riemann, it is the principal task of
physics to determine the nature of the non-constant curvature of the
non-Euclidean, multiply-connected geometric manifold which defines the
action of physical processes.

We will shortly see how, in the joint work with Weber on the
determination of the fundamental electrical law, Gauss again
introduces an actually relativistic conception, this time in
connection with the measure of force.
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html

>    So it was this little experiment that was really the
>    start of relativity, not the Michelson-Morley
>    Experiment--not some exotic experiment to detect the
>    motion of the earth through the aether.

--les OEuvres!
http://wlym.com
From: Don Stockbauer on 2 Apr 2010 21:49
On Apr 2, 3:15 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 8:11 am, Tom Adams <tadams...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> Stop mystifying yourself.
>
> Einstein’s 1905 paper was an attempt on plagiarism of Poincare’s
> work.  In that paper, you can find tons of mistakes.  The center piece
> is the Lorentz transform bastardized by Poincare from Larmor’s
> transform.  In the Lorentz transform, due to mutual time dilation and
> the principle of relativity, simultaneity becomes relative.  Several
> events happening cannot be coherently put together in a precise
> timeline agreed by all the observers.  Relative simultaneity is not
> how the real world works.  Given the coherent results of any
> interference patterns, the world must obey absolute simultaneity.
>
> Larmor’s transform does not have this problem.  All observations must
> reference back to the absolute frame of reference.  Thus, the
> principle of relativity is not generally holding.  It does so only at
> very low speeds.  This always is true for the Voigt transform which
> influenced Larmor to build his transform.  Both Larmor’s transform and
> the Voigt transform satisfy the null results of the MMX.
>
> The Lorentz transform is a special case to Larmor’s transform.  In
> general, the Lorentz transform does not possibly apply to the real
> world.  For more information, consult the link below.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c540aaf2341...

But civilization is advancing at FTL speed even with all these
horrible mistakes Einstein made.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: 3x10^10 cm/sec uniquely linked to the end of Finiteness #560 Correcting Math
Next: Falling Physical pendulum Q - correction to 2nd reply