How can the MMx math be corrected?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
Next: Dark Matter hipotessis
From: eric gisse on 2 Jun 2010 01:31 Paul Stowe wrote: [...] > > You should REALLY READ > > http://www.archive.org/details/historyoftheorie00whitrich > http://www.vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf > > I'm pretty sure you won't bother but your gross ignorance of this > topic is glaring... > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersolid > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid [...] It seems like the overwhelming majority of your physics knowledge consists of what you read on Wikipedia, and stuff done in the 19th century. It is 2010, Paul. Did you know that? Perhaps you could catch up to where physics is today, instead of in 1890.
From: harald on 2 Jun 2010 03:51 On Jun 2, 3:01 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: [..] > You have it backwards .. what people used to think was a substance (the > aether), is actually just the results of the 'fabric' > (ie geometry) of spacetime. Talking about backwards! Poincare explained (in an overly elaborated way) how our geometric concepts are based on the physical world, and I add a link to his article on that topic as it directly relates to the topic of this thread. - http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/poincare.htm Note: he evidently misunderstood the meaning of the expression "absolute space" but intelligent readers won't have a problem with that; and he makes a doubtful claim about possible 4D space that he next waters down, but which isn't relevant here. [..] > Then Lorentz came along and also gave it the > properties that it must compress all matter moving within it, Amazing, still the same nonsense about "compression"! - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compression - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox Harald
From: whoever on 2 Jun 2010 05:27 "harald" <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message news:ee08ac5c-336f-4408-8c07-fe834106b89f(a)s41g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 2, 3:01 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > [..] > >> You have it backwards .. what people used to think was a substance (the >> aether), is actually just the results of the 'fabric' >> (ie geometry) of spacetime. > > Talking about backwards! Indeed it is > Poincare explained (in an overly elaborated > way) how our geometric concepts are based on the physical world, Of course they are .. I didn't say otherwise > and I > add a link to his article on that topic as it directly relates to the > topic of this thread. > > - > http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/poincare.htm Do you have a point? > Note: he evidently misunderstood the meaning of the expression > "absolute space" but intelligent readers won't have a problem with > that; and he makes a doubtful claim about possible 4D space that he > next waters down, but which isn't relevant here. > > [..] > >> Then Lorentz came along and also gave it the >> properties that it must compress all matter moving within it, > > Amazing, still the same nonsense about "compression"! Blame Lorentz .. I'm not saying it is correct. > - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compression > - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox And your point is? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: harald on 2 Jun 2010 07:56 On Jun 2, 11:27 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > "harald" <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message > > news:ee08ac5c-336f-4408-8c07-fe834106b89f(a)s41g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jun 2, 3:01 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > [..] > > >> You have it backwards .. what people used to think was a substance (the > >> aether), is actually just the results of the 'fabric' > >> (ie geometry) of spacetime. > > > Talking about backwards! > > Indeed it is > > > Poincare explained (in an overly elaborated > > way) how our geometric concepts are based on the physical world, > > Of course they are .. I didn't say otherwise You appeared to disagree with "Mathematical form comes directly from physical properties & substance." However, if everyone agrees on that fact, then that's nice. :-) > > and I > > add a link to his article on that topic as it directly relates to the > > topic of this thread. > > > - > >http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/poincar... > > Do you have a point? Again, two points: - It elaborates on the fact that geometrical "space" is a concept that is based on our physical world, and not the other way round - It also provides commentary on the first message of this thread. > > Note: he evidently misunderstood the meaning of the expression > > "absolute space" but intelligent readers won't have a problem with > > that; and he makes a doubtful claim about possible 4D space that he > > next waters down, but which isn't relevant here. > > > [..] > > >> Then Lorentz came along and also gave it the > >> properties that it must compress all matter moving within it, > > > Amazing, still the same nonsense about "compression"! > > Blame Lorentz .. I'm not saying it is correct. You don't stop saying that he stated such nonsense. Where? Androcles failed to find it, but maybe you can. ;-) > > -http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compression > > -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox > > And your point is? You keep on repeating the same nonsense about Lorentz contraction implying "compression". Harald
From: Paul Stowe on 2 Jun 2010 21:08
On Jun 2, 4:56 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jun 2, 11:27 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > > > [..] > > > >> You have it backwards .. what people used to think was a substance (the > > >> aether), is actually just the results of the 'fabric' > > >> (ie geometry) of spacetime. > > > > Talking about backwards! > > > Indeed it is > > > > Poincare explained (in an overly elaborated > > > way) how our geometric concepts are based on the physical world, > > > Of course they are .. I didn't say otherwise > > You appeared to disagree with "Mathematical form comes directly from > physical properties & substance." However, if everyone agrees on that > fact, then that's nice. :-) > > > > and I > > > add a link to his article on that topic as it directly relates to the > > > topic of this thread. > > > > - > > >http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/poincar... > > > Do you have a point? > > Again, two points: > - It elaborates on the fact that geometrical "space" is a concept that > is based on our physical world, and not the other way round > - It also provides commentary on the first message of this thread. > > > > Note: he evidently misunderstood the meaning of the expression > > > "absolute space" but intelligent readers won't have a problem with > > > that; and he makes a doubtful claim about possible 4D space that he > > > next waters down, but which isn't relevant here. > > > > [..] > > > >> Then Lorentz came along and also gave it the > > >> properties that it must compress all matter moving within it, > > > > Amazing, still the same nonsense about "compression"! > > > Blame Lorentz .. I'm not saying it is correct. > > You don't stop saying that he stated such nonsense. Where? Androcles > failed to find it, but maybe you can. ;-) > > > > -http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compression > > > -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox > > > And your point is? > > You keep on repeating the same nonsense about Lorentz contraction > implying "compression". > > Harald Hi Harald, Let's recap this portiob shall we. No one (not you or I) is disputing the observational apspects of SR, GR,or, in fact anything else. Instead the whole debate is about what causes the observed behavior. IOW, were debating the philosophical basis not the actual science. Boiling down my position on this succinctly as follows, 1. I take as given Maxwell's was on the right track when he posited a perfect (inviscid) fluid state with predominant vorticity. 2. I note the fact GR is founded upon a hydrodynamical expression for just such a perfect fluid. 3. We accept QM and SM Tenets that all material systems are nothing more that some form of complex oscillatory wave patterns and interacting fields. 4. Therefore given 1, 2, 3 above all material systems would, by their very nature, be completely dependent upon the local perfect fluid properties in which they exist. This, in turn, would make their properties appear and measuably, locally invariant. In other words, the EVERYTHING changes equally making everything measure invariant. It truly is, Dirac's dilemna... 5. Because of 1,2,3,4 Lorentz's postulates would simply be the natural behavior of such a system (the perfect fluid). No compression is required, or present. Fields simply conform to that shape as as Uno Ingard states so elequently in his article in Condon & Odishaw's "Handbook of Physics" So natured card not about what people thought they should see and behaved precisely as a perfect fluid medium should have. YES UNCLE AL, the perfect fluid of the aether has NO LORENTZ VIOLATION!!!! Paul Stowe |