BINGO: This work appears to support my views and opens the concepts to actual testing which should in the near future either directly confirm Relativity or cause its outright demise. A lot of material here, particularily in the second link. It covers invariance of light, time dilation and contraction. It covers the ability to directly determine the Quasar FTL question and many other topics that I hve tried to advance here but without the credentials have been simply trashed, ignored and/or phoo-pooed. Lets see how you handle this guy since what he is saying is precisely what I have been saying. Have fun. I am. It is called RCM theory. I post it here for two good reasons: 1 - It conforms to my own view of the invariance of light being a function of an energy gradient. That is light being produced is percieved as a function of energy of the observer to the source. Which has provided physics with a false premis for the development of the Theory of Relativity. 2 - It proposes tests which can determine which view is valid SR or RCM. http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/german1/german1.doc Antimated illustrations of functions of Relativity and RCM along with test proposals. http://renshaw.teleinc.com/ "Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien
I have opened the link and the first sentence that I have read was: "Maxwell's equations do not in themselves predict a specific value for the constant (or variable) c which appears in them." Maxwell's equation do predict that there exist em waves which propagate at the speed of light c. Maxwell's equation give the value of this speed and it is indeed c. Next in the paper it is said that :"On the basis of this model, a Galilean invariant form of Maxwell's equations is obtained.". Where are these Galilean invariant form of Maxwell's equations? Then it is said that the "problem" with SR is there exist no preferd inertial frame. Well, I don't see what is the problem with that. And it goes on and on and on...
Yeah right, this is going to bring the downfall of SR. If you believe these pretty pictures actually depict real physics, then you will also believe that there is a galaxy far, far away
Lets see how you handle this guy since what he is saying is precisely what I have been saying. If so, then simply have him read our responses to your threads and he’ll see his own misunderstandings, errors, etc.
Q, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Actually I can't say this guy is right, I just hope he is. But one could also suggest that you read his work and you might find that all those replies were premature. I know it isn't your favorite journal but he is published several times in IEEE and has been asked to give lectures on this to other scientists, so he isn't just some UniKEF boob off the street. What I especially like is that he proposes actual direct tests of Relavistic affects that are doable today (so he claims).
MacM, So I assume that you believe that the principle of invariance of light is valid, even though Dayton Miller's experimental results don't support it?
Is there proff My question is has Relativity ever been proven. I am trying to think back to science class but dont remember any talk of its proof just what it ment. If there has been please reply this question. Check out my idea www.geocities.com/mdhislaer Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Prosoothus, ANS: No, not at all. I believe that the MMX and MIller did show a correlation to velocity but it simply wasn't that which was predicted and shows only that for some reason we were not getting a full strength affect; which some say is because the ether may be pulled along by a massive graviting body. I believe in absence of that that one will measure light to be constant regardless of velocity to the light source; which is in general accordance with experiment and observation. However, I also believe that this is an affect of the production (or perception) of light and not that "a " photon has a variable speed as a function of any number of observers at different relative velocities at the same time to it. "Invariance of light" as it is commonly stated or used in Relativity is based on a false premis and that is the failure to understand the nature of light and not actual variation of light speed to remain constant to a moving observer. If this is n't clear let me know and I'll try to restate it. Better yet look at the link I provided. It describes the affect very nicely, with graphics.
Q, ANS: Actually I find this comment only to typical when Relativists are cornered. I would be more impressed by an actual reply that states valid disqualifiction of the concept.
You have already been supplied with one: I'll answer his question for you: There is no Galilean invariant form of Maxwell's equations. I have told you this at least a half dozen times. I even referred you to the relevant discussion in Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics. It is in Chapter 11, in which SR is first discussed. He explicitly presents the EM wave equation under a Galilean transformation, and it is manifestly not invariant, and neither can any transformation of the fields themselves be done to restore the equation (as can be done with the Schrodinger equation). You don't have to take my word for it, check it out for yourself. If the claims of SR are wrong, then so are the claims of Maxwellian electrodynamics (although the converse is not true).
Tom2, ANS: Perhaps but certainly not by the relply that follows and that was the point I was addressing.
That's right. Using the boldface ∂ for the "del" operator, Maxwell's equations in vacuo are: ∂xE+(1/c)∂E/∂t.....(1) ∂xB-(1/c)∂E/∂t.....(2) ∂<sup>.</sup>E=0.....(3) ∂<sup>.</sup>B=0.....(4) Making use of the vector identity: ∂x∂xA=∂(∂<sup>.</sup>A)-∂<sup>2</sup>A, We can take the curl of equation (1) to obtain: ∂x∂xE+(1/c)(∂/∂t)∂xB=0 ∂(∂<sup>.</sup>E)-∂<sup>2</sup>E+(1/c)(∂/∂t)∂xB=0 The part in blue vanishes by virtue of equation (3), and the part in red can be rewritten as -(1/c)∂E/∂t, by virtue of equation (2). This gives us: ∂<sup>2</sup>E-(1/c<sup>2</sup>)∂<sup>2</sup>E/∂t<sup>2</sup>=0, which is a wave equation. Taking the curl of equation (2) and following a similar path will show you that B satisfies the exact same wave equation. Right again. The components of the plane wave solutions of the wave equation are of the form: A<sub>i</sub>(x,t)=A<sub>i0</sub>sin(k<sup>.</sup>x-wt+f) where w/|k|=c. Since the solutions have constant phase, we can derive the speed of the waves to be c. The answer is that they do not exist. If electrodynamics is to be reformulated so that it is Galilean invariant, then the resulting equations will not be Maxwell's equations. Here's what the reference from Jackson has to say about it. First, assume Galilean relativity. For a moving frame S' and a stationary frame S, we have: x'=x-vt t'=t Let the wave equation hold in frame S. What does it look like in S'? We can derive that as follows: ∂/∂x=(∂x'/∂x)∂/∂x'=∂/∂x' ∂/∂y=(∂y'/∂y)∂/∂y'=∂/∂y' ∂/∂z=(∂z'/∂z)∂/∂z'=∂/∂z' ∂/∂t=(∂x'/∂/t)(∂/∂x')+(∂y'/∂t)(∂/∂y')+(∂z'/∂t)(∂/∂z')+(∂t'/∂t)(∂/∂t') ∂/∂t=v<sup>.</sup>∂'-(1/c)∂/∂t' Squaring each operator and writing the equation in the coordinates of S' yields: (∂'<sup>2</sup>-(1/c<sup>2</sup>)(∂<sup>2</sup>/∂t'<sup>2</sup>-(2/c<sup>2</sup>)v<sup>.</sup>∂'(∂/∂t')-(1/c<sup>2</sup>)(v<sup>.</sup>∂)<sup>2</sup>)A<sub>i</sub>=0 where A<sub>i</sub> is any component of either the E or B field. Notice that the above equation is not a wave equation. That means that, if Galilean relativity is correct, then radio waves emitted from towers should become non-waves when you are driving in your car. If Galilean relativity is correct, then you should not be able to listen to the radio in your car. The Lorentz transformation, on the other hand, does preserve the form of the EM wave equation. This is what none of the preachers of the Anti Relativity Religion understand. Einstein did not pull length contraction and time dilation out of thin air. They are logically derived consequences of the requirement that the EM wave equation and the speed of light be the same in every frame. The original paper was not even called, "Intro to Special Relativity", it was called, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". Like it or not folks, relativity is correct. If any of you wants to convince thinking persons otherwise, then you will have to argue on these terms, because these are the terms in which relativity was formulated. edit: fixed various bracket errors.
