|
|
Re: Here's two reasons why Time dilation may not possible
Posted:
Jun 24, 2012 2:28 AM
|
|
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e6209ecd-e309-496c-8a0f-0be93c55626b@oo8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 10:43 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You (peter webb) knows nothing about physics. You (peter webb) are
> > incapable of discussing physics. You (peter webb) has put your foot
> > in your mouth in every posts defecated all over these threads of
> > newsgroups. Get the fvck lost. <middle finger>
>
> For example, in this very thread, you made the following basic errors
> which
> I have corrected:
>
> 1. You claimed that Maxwell's equations require light to have constant
> speed
> against the stationary background frame of referemce.
You are wording it elusively. Maxwell?s equations predict a medium
that allows light to propagate at a speed dependent on the
permittivity and the permeability of that medium. Just like sound
waves, according to Maxwell?s equations, this propagating speed of
light is characterized by the stationary background of the medium.
____________________________________________
Umm, no. Maxwell's equations have a completely different form to those for
sound waves. And unlike sound waves, Maxwell's equations do not include any
propagating medium, stationary or otherwise. And its not even what you said,
which was "The classical Maxwell?s equations require the speed of
light to be constant relative to the stationary background of the medium".
This is also false. You can find Maxwell's equations at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations ; tell us where the
stationary background of the medium appears. For comparison, the completely
different equations for sound waves can be found at
http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/sound-wave-equation.htm - you
will note thay are very different. You should learn some basic physics.
Any observer moving against the stationary background of the medium
will observe a different value in the speed of light. This was what
motivated the MMX. <shurg>
____________________________________________________
ROFL. Disproved by many experiments. But what exactly is the stationary
background? And what is the earth's velocity relative to it? In your
uninformed opinion?
> In fact Maxwell's
> equations don't even reference a "stationary frame".
Wrong, again, as usual. <shrug>
_____________________________________________
Where in Maxwells' equations does a stationary frame appear (you can find
them at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations)
> > [rest of crap snipped]
_______________________________________________
It wasn't crap; it was a list of the basic errors in physics that you have
made. But it doesn't really matter that you snipped them; you have made a
whole swag of new errors in your post to replace them. Seems we will never
be short of basic errors in physics while you are still posting! Maybe you
should stop posting until you learn some basic physics?
|
|
