Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.



Re: Einstein used the wrong equations for relativity
Posted:
Mar 21, 2013 3:32 AM


On Mar 20, 5:07 pm, "T.M. Sommers" wrote: > On 3/20/2013 8:46 AM, rbwi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Well, I certainly would not have told Maxwell that, but I will tell > > you. I took physics in high school, and if you say you are a real > > physicist, all I can tell you is that you don't know what you are > > doing. Maxwell obviously could not have used any other equations but > > the Galilean transformation equations in deriving his because in > > 1889, the year he died, there were no other equations around. > > What Maxwell and his contemporaries thought is irrelevant. What matters > is the math.
Dude, get a clue. Physics is about mathematical models, and it is all about the math, the math, and the math. Only with the math, you can predict things that carefully and impartially designed experiments can test your predictions based on the mathematics. Maxwell?s works were all based on math as well. <shrug>
> > It > > does not surprise me that the people you call real physicists were > > able to adapt Maxwell's equations to the Lorentz equations. > > No adaptation was necessary. Maxwell's equations transform quite nicely > under the Lorentz transformation.
Nonsense, if you are able to define a set of rules on transformation of coordinate systems, anything can be transformed according to your rules whether they are totally absurd or not. This is all in the mathematics. In the past, a few selfstyled physicists were able to show that Maxwell?s equations do satisfy the principle of relativity when the coordinate system is transformed according to the Lorentz transform. Have you gone through the math to fully accept that bullshit? <shrug>
> They do not transform under the Galilean transformation.
Maxwell?s equations + Galilean transform = Prediction of the Aether, and there is nothing wrong mathematically with that. The only thing to falsify the consequence is to show experimentally the converse. So far, no experiments have adequately shown so including the null results of the MMX. <shrug>
> Maxwell's equations and the wave equation are differential equations.
More nonsense from a mathilliterate individual. Are you a prostitute doing lip service for selfstyled physicists? In free space (vacuum), Maxwell?s equations directly lead to wave equations that predict a whole bunch of solutions. One of these solutions allows light to propagate through a medium with definitive permittivity and permeability as its properties. The predicted medium is now called the Aether which before the MMX, 100% of the physicists believed the full existence of the Aether with no doubts. <shrug>
> You would > not even understand the notation. But if you insist, look at page 505 > of Jackson (2nd ed.), or chapter 15 of Panofsky and Phillips.
You need to understand chapter 1 of all the textbooks you are tossing around first. <shrug>
> I will quote here what Jackson has to say: > > <quote> > When Einstein began to think about these matters there existed several > possibilities: > > 1) The Maxwell equations were incorrect. The proper theory of > electromagnetism was invariant under Galilean transformation.
No, this is not the case. Maxwell?s equations with the Galilean transform predict the existence of the Aether. That means any transformations have to somehow refer back to the absolute frame of reference. So, Maxwell?s equations cannot be shown incorrect just because some nitwit does claim so. Maxwell?s equations can only be shown invalid through experimentations. <shrug>
> 2) Galilean relativity applied to classical mechanics, but > electromagnetism had a preferred reference frame, the frame in which the > luminiferous ether was at rest.
Yes, this is true considering Maxwell?s equations. This shows how you have misunderstood 1) above. <shrug>
> 3) There existed a relativity principle for both classical mechanics and > electromagnetism, but it was not Galilean relativity, This wou.d imply > that the laws of mechanics ere in need of modification. > </quote>
Well, you can always define any model of coordinate transformations to Maxwell?s equations. The results would suggest mathematical validities in any endeavors. Again, you can only prove the validity of your mathematical coordinate transformation through experimentations. <shrug>
> > The Lorentz equations are really just a special case of the Galilean > > transformation equations. > > You have that backwards.
In thorough mathematical investigations, you both are wrong. The Lorentz transform manifests all sorts of contradictions (including the twins? paradox) while the Galilean transform does not. The Lorentz transform has no chance of being right while the Galilean transform must be valid under ?weak? conditions. An example of a ?weak? condition is low speeds. <shrug>
> > Sorry if this doesn't help you. If it > > doesn't, maybe there are some nice real physicists you can talk to > > about it. > > I repeat: I was not asking for your help. I was trying, unsuccessfully, > to help you understand why you are wrong.
Man, you have admitted to be very illiterate in physics and mathematics. Just what sensible arguments can you conjure up to help someone understand the subject? You are an illiterate clown in physics who thinks he has understood everything. You and David Waite really belong to each other. You two are a joke. <shrug>
> You need to study lots of math, and lots of physics, before you can hope > to talk intelligently about these matters.
When are you going to start doing just that? <shrug>



