sci.physics.electromag

nade wrote on Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:37:03 -0700:

> http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
>
> What do you make of it? Author has doctorate in nuclear physics and has
> over 40 publications in physics journals.
>
> http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
>
> from the web site:
>
> "Now let me consider the (for me) perfectly commonsensical view that the
> practicalities of the measurement process must play an unambiguously
> prominent role in the theorizing process: As an example of a theory
> where this was not done (with hugely significant consequences), we need
> look no further than classical Maxwell electrodynamics. In this case,
> the formalism absolutely requires that the detectors used by (inertial)
> observers to measure field quantities be at rest in the observer’s frame.
> Thus, if we have two observers, each in his own inertial frame, then,
> since their instruments are physical objects and unable to occupy the
> same place at the same time, it is absolutely impossible for these two
> observers to make simultaneous measurements of the same field point. In
> other words, certain choices made at the theorizing level have rendered
> impossible a perfectly reasonable thing—that distinct observers can have
> direct knowledge of conditions occurring at a particular place at a
> given time. Phipps’ answer to this conundrum is simple: there is no
> reason on Earth why the detector measuring field quantities should be
> fixed in the (inertial) observer’s frame. After all, the source currents
> which generate the field are not, so why should the test particles (which
> comprise the detectors) be? And since the detector need not be fixed in
> one observer’s inertial frame, why should it be fixed in any inertial
> frame?
>
> Following this logic, if we allow the detector to have free motion, then
> the formalism of electrodynamics which follows must somehow allow for
> the parameterization of the detector’s motion. A natural candidate for
> this formalism already exists in the equations of Hertz’s
> electromagnetic theory (the known failure of his theory was the fault
> not of his equations but of his physical interpretation) and these are
> easily written down: just take Maxwell’s equations and replace all
> appearances of by . This replacement introduces a convective velocity
> which must be interpreted, and Phipps’ solution is to use this
> convective velocity to describe the motion of the free detector. A
> simple and elegant idea, don’t you think? ... but now comes the crux: by
> this simple process, which is driven by the idea that there is no reason
> on God’s Earth why an observer cannot use a freely moving detector, the
> equations of electromagnetism become Galilean invariant; thus, at a
> stroke, solving one of the great conundrums of 19th century physics and,
> in removing the primary raison d’être of Special Relativity (SRT),
> putting a huge question mark over a large chunk of 20th century
> theoretical physics."
>
> ---------------
>
> I'd like to know if the above has any merit or if they are already dealt
> with or counterargued. If so. What are the counterarguments? Thanks!
>
> nade

Phipps’ prose always has impressed me more than his physics.

Phipps has proposed many alternative theories to SR, everything he worked
has been either mathematically wrong or experimentally invalidated (e.g.
Phipps potential). Of course, Einstein also proposed many incorrect
theories (e.g. when developing GR).

However, Phipps recent neo-Hertzian approach is different.

This approach takes Maxwell equations and substitutes partial derivative
on time by absolute ones:

partial X / partial t ---> dX/dT

This convert Lorentz 'covariant' equations into Galilean 'invariant'.

An interesting aspect of this theory is that one can recover Lorentz
invariant theory (such as Maxwell electrodynamics) *from* a Galilean
invariant theory. This is just the inverse of the common relativist claim
(dogma) Galilean equations are less general.

Personally i find many "iffs" in Phipps theory and i doubt that can be a
suitable way of research. Moreover, i did *not* read that popular book
but below i notice some chapters seem to be interesting:

1.3 The problem about Faraday’s observations: d/dt 10

Or why Maxwell equations are actually under revision.

2.3 Invariance vs. covariance: The physics of it 26
2.4 Invariance or covariance: Which is physics? 28

Geometers look for covariance. Physicists for invariance.

5.2 Neo-Hertzian force law 101

Modification of Lorentz law has been tested in several
experiments since plasmas on tokamaks to longitudinal forces on Mercury.

5.3 Evidence of the Marinov motor 108

Yes, that Marinov but his motor works...

5.4 Other electrodynamic force laws 109
5.5 Sick of field theory? … (the Weber alternative) 114

Why field theory is nto fundamental

6.6 Platonic time and simultaneity 150

6.8 Clock rate as an energy state function 155

Clocks do not define time no matter how many times Einstein said the
contrary thing.

7.1 Principles governing proper time 165
7.2 Collective time and relativity principles 167

8.8 Collective time in a nutshell 233



--
I apply http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt