Prev: Doesn't the interpretation of red/blue spectrum shift violate contancy of speed of light?
Next: Moving behind light
From: Stamenin on 26 Feb 2010 18:05
On Feb 26, 11:50 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Uncle Al wrote on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:28:15 -0800:
>
> > "Theories reducing to Newtonian gravity: general relativity doesn't.
> > González-Álvarez, Juan"
>
> > Newton was empirically wrong,
>
> Oh dear!
>
> 1)
> This post is about classical electrodynamics not about gravity. I will
> reply to your idiocies just one time but not more (feel free to reply with
> more idiocies now you know I will not reply more :-D).
>
> 2)
> Physicists learn at the kindergarden than Newtonian theory works well at
> *non-relativistic regimes* and it is used in the laboratory each day by
> astronomers and astrophysicists.
>
> This fact is the reason of why textbooks on GR contains some chapter
> *trying* to derive Newtonian gravity in some weak-field and low velocity
> limit. You would know this if you had took at least a basic course in
> general relativity (stop from trolling and just take one now).
>
> But as showed in the next report, and in the adittional literature on
> Newtonian limits cited, those 'derivations' are wrong
>
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencereports/...
>
> All the experts in general relativity, superstring theory, Newtonian
> limits, numerical relativity and field theory of gravity that reviewed the
> work already agreed that General relativity does *not* reduce to Newtonian
> gravity
>
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/20...
>
> It is typical of this newsgroup that people as you, who lack the most basic
> skills and understanding on some topic tooks over the statements done by
> people who has actually studied the topics with idiotic posts as yours :-D
>
> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>
> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/ca...

Your theory is one more mess in physic. The reality is that the only
correct theory in physics for the description of the motion of the
material bodies is the Galilei-Newton theory. The others are only
wonders in empty space. The electrodynamics have nothing with light
theories, and this two phenomena have nothing with the motion of the
material bodies because have not mass. The light and the
electromagnetic fields are not attracted by gravitational fields and
do not create inertial forces and that is why we can't change theirs
going in a right line. So my conclusion is that too many people create
theories in bases of false suppositions. Stamenin.
From: blackhead on 26 Feb 2010 18:50
On 26 Feb, 18:55, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> The journalist John Horgan became famous by his statements about the
> "End of Science" done on that widely publicited book —with the same
> apocalyptic title—, on talks, and in other places. Amazingly, several
> of the scientists, mathematicians and phylosophers that Horgan
> interviewed for his book warned him about the unpredictability of
> scientific research, where scientific revolutions cannot be predicted,
> as the history of science do not cease to remind us. However, as
> pointed by David Hoffman when Horgan does not like their answers, he
> refutes them with derisive personal comments.
>
> Recent research (Can Sci. Rep. 2009: 20093v1) turns into a historical
> curiosity Horgan premature statements about science.
>
> The Nobel Prize for physics Paul A. M. Dirac —one of the founders of
> quantum mechanics— wrote after formulating quantum electrodynamics by
> the first time:
>
>   "Most physicists are very satisfied with this situation. They argue
>   that if one has rules for doing calculations and the results agree
>   with observation, that is all that one requires. But it is not all
>   that one requires. One requires a single comprehensive theory
>   applying to all physical phenomena. Not one theory for dealing with
>   non relativistic effects and a separate disjoint theory for dealing
>   with certain relativistic effects. Furthermore, the theory has to be
>   based on sound mathematics, in which one neglects only quantities
>   that are small. One is not allowed to neglect infinitely large
>   quantities. The renormalization idea would be sensible only if it
>   was applied with finite renormalization factors, not infinite ones.
>   For these reasons I find the present quantum electrodynamics quite
>   unsatisfactory. One ought not to be complacent about its faults.
>   [...] Quantum electrodynamics [...] was built up from physical ideas
>   that were not correctly incorporated into the theory and it has no
>   sound mathematical foundation. One must seek a new relativistic
>   quantum mechanics and one's prime concern must be to base it on
>   sound mathematics."
>
> In recent years, the mathematician Roman Smirnov-Rueda and the
> physicist Andrew E. Chubykalo were the first to prove —Phys. Rev. E
> (1997, 53, 5373; 1998, 57, 3683) that the classical electrodynamics
> based in fields cannot reproduce all the results obtained by
> Charles-Augustin De Coulomb more than one hundred and ninety years ago!
>
> For example they showed that the Coulomb potential Phi(R(t)) is
> mathematically irreducible to the Liénard-Wiechert scalar potential
> Phi(x‚t). Chubykalo and Smirnov-Rueda analysis has been confirmed and
> extended in this recent research (Can Sci. Rep. 2009: 20093v1).

The author of the standard graduate text Classical Electrodynamics,
J.D Jackson, gave a critism of another paper created by these same two
authors:

---start reference---

Criticism of "Necessity of simultaneous co-existence of instantaneous
and retarded interactions in classical electrodynamics" by Andrew E.
Chubykalo and Stoyan J. Vlaev

The demonstration that the electromagnetic fields derived from the
Liénard-Wiechert potentials do not satisfy the
Maxwell equations is proved to be false. Errors were made in the
computation of the derivatives of retarded
quantities. The subsequent inference of the necessity of both
instantaneous and retarded electromagnetic interactions
cannot be made. Different choices of gauge can lead to a variety of
forms for the scalar and vector potentials, always
with the same retarded fields. Classical electromagnetic theory is
complete as usually expressed. One may choose
to work in the Lorenz gauge in which all quantities are retarded.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0203076

---end reference---

[snipped rest]

From: BURT on 26 Feb 2010 19:40
On Feb 26, 3:50 pm, blackhead <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote:
> On 26 Feb, 18:55, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>
>
>
>
>
> <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> > The journalist John Horgan became famous by his statements about the
> > "End of Science" done on that widely publicited book —with the same
> > apocalyptic title—, on talks, and in other places. Amazingly, several
> > of the scientists, mathematicians and phylosophers that Horgan
> > interviewed for his book warned him about the unpredictability of
> > scientific research, where scientific revolutions cannot be predicted,
> > as the history of science do not cease to remind us. However, as
> > pointed by David Hoffman when Horgan does not like their answers, he
> > refutes them with derisive personal comments.
>
> > Recent research (Can Sci. Rep. 2009: 20093v1) turns into a historical
> > curiosity Horgan premature statements about science.
>
> > The Nobel Prize for physics Paul A. M. Dirac —one of the founders of
> > quantum mechanics— wrote after formulating quantum electrodynamics by
> > the first time:
>
> >   "Most physicists are very satisfied with this situation. They argue
> >   that if one has rules for doing calculations and the results agree
> >   with observation, that is all that one requires. But it is not all
> >   that one requires. One requires a single comprehensive theory
> >   applying to all physical phenomena. Not one theory for dealing with
> >   non relativistic effects and a separate disjoint theory for dealing
> >   with certain relativistic effects. Furthermore, the theory has to be
> >   based on sound mathematics, in which one neglects only quantities
> >   that are small. One is not allowed to neglect infinitely large
> >   quantities. The renormalization idea would be sensible only if it
> >   was applied with finite renormalization factors, not infinite ones.
> >   For these reasons I find the present quantum electrodynamics quite
> >   unsatisfactory. One ought not to be complacent about its faults.
> >   [...] Quantum electrodynamics [...] was built up from physical ideas
> >   that were not correctly incorporated into the theory and it has no
> >   sound mathematical foundation. One must seek a new relativistic
> >   quantum mechanics and one's prime concern must be to base it on
> >   sound mathematics."
>
> > In recent years, the mathematician Roman Smirnov-Rueda and the
> > physicist Andrew E. Chubykalo were the first to prove —Phys. Rev. E
> > (1997, 53, 5373; 1998, 57, 3683) that the classical electrodynamics
> > based in fields cannot reproduce all the results obtained by
> > Charles-Augustin De Coulomb more than one hundred and ninety years ago!
>
> > For example they showed that the Coulomb potential Phi(R(t)) is
> > mathematically irreducible to the Liénard-Wiechert scalar potential
> > Phi(x‚t). Chubykalo and Smirnov-Rueda analysis has been confirmed and
> > extended in this recent research (Can Sci. Rep. 2009: 20093v1).
>
> The author of the standard graduate text Classical Electrodynamics,
> J.D Jackson, gave a critism of another paper created by these same two
> authors:
>
> ---start reference---
>
> Criticism of "Necessity of simultaneous co-existence of instantaneous
> and retarded interactions in classical electrodynamics" by Andrew E.
> Chubykalo and Stoyan J. Vlaev
>
> The demonstration that the electromagnetic fields derived from the
> Liénard-Wiechert potentials do not satisfy the
> Maxwell equations is proved to be false. Errors were made in the
> computation of the derivatives of retarded
> quantities. The subsequent inference of the necessity of both
> instantaneous and retarded electromagnetic interactions
> cannot be made. Different choices of gauge can lead to a variety of
> forms for the scalar and vector potentials, always
> with the same retarded fields. Classical electromagnetic theory is
> complete as usually expressed. One may choose
> to work in the Lorenz gauge in which all quantities are retarded.
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0203076
>
> ---end reference---
>
> [snipped rest]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Fields move with mass.

Mitch Raemsch
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Doesn't the interpretation of red/blue spectrum shift violate contancy of speed of light?
Next: Moving behind light