sci.physics.electromag

On Mar 17, 6:27=C2=A0pm, "Juan R." Gonz=C3=A1lez-=C3=81lvarez
wrote:
> 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 signi=EF=AC=81cant consequences), w=
e need
> > look no further than classical Maxwell electrodynamics. In this case,
> > the formalism absolutely requires that the detectors used by (inertial)
> > observers to measure =EF=AC=81eld quantities be at rest in the observer=
=E2=80=99s 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 =EF=AC=81eld poi=
nt. In
> > other words, certain choices made at the theorizing level have rendered
> > impossible a perfectly reasonable thing=E2=80=94that distinct observers =
can have
> > direct knowledge of conditions occurring at a particular place at a
> > given time. Phipps=E2=80=99 answer to this conundrum is simple: there is=
no
> > reason on Earth why the detector measuring =EF=AC=81eld quantities shoul=
d be
> > =EF=AC=81xed in the (inertial) observer=E2=80=99s frame. After all, the =
source currents
> > which generate the =EF=AC=81eld are not, so why should the test particle=
s (which
> > comprise the detectors) be? And since the detector need not be =EF=AC=81=
xed in
> > one observer=E2=80=99s inertial frame, why should it be =EF=AC=81xed 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=E2=80=99s motion. A natural candida=
te for
> > this formalism already exists in the equations of Hertz=E2=80=99s
> > 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=E2=80=99s equations and replace a=
ll
> > appearances of by . This replacement introduces a convective velocity
> > which must be interpreted, and Phipps=E2=80=99 solution is to use this
> > convective velocity to describe the motion of the free detector. A
> > simple and elegant idea, don=E2=80=99t you think? ... but now comes the =
crux: by
> > this simple process, which is driven by the idea that there is no reason=

> > on God=E2=80=99s Earth why an observer cannot use a freely moving detect=
or, 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=E2=80=99=C3=AAtre 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=E2=80=99 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=E2=80=99s 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? =E2=80=A6 (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 applyhttp://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt- Hi=
de quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What do you think of the following paper written by this esteemed
physicist?

http://www.stardrive.org/Jack/PhippsEM.pdf


nad