sci.physics.electromag

On Mar 19, 12:35 am, PD wrote:
> On Mar 18, 4:56 pm, ulrich wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 3:30 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > > nade wrote:
> > > >http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
> > > > What do you make of it?
>
> > > The excerpt you posted is mostly nonsense.
>
> > > Specifically:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > Sure. We know quite well how to do that -- the detector has a
> > > 4-velocity, and the quantities it measures are basically the field(s)
> > > dotted into its 4-velocity.
>
> > > This isn't anything new, but Phipps seems to think it is.
>
> > > > 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;
>
> > > This is not true (but I believe Phipps uses a nonstandard meaning of
> > > "Galilean invariant"; I use the usual meaning). Moreover, if the
> > > observer uses arbitrarily-moving detectors, then the measurements are
> > > not projected onto the observer's (local) inertial frame. This is not
> > > wrong, but is different from the usual treatment of the theory, in whi=
ch
> > > the observer does use detectors at rest in her inertial frame, and thu=
s
> > > does project the field quantities onto that frame. This is a GREAT
> > > simplification: physics becomes much simpler in a (local) inertial
> > > frame. By abandoning that simplification, Phipps became confused....
>
> > > Juan R. Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez wrote (possibly quoting Phipps):
>
> > > > Clocks do not define time no matter how many times Einstein said the=

> > > > contrary thing.
>
> > > This merely depends on how one chooses to use words (specifically
> > > "time"). But this DOES NOT MATTER, because clocks most definitely do
> > > represent the time coordinate used by real experimenters.
>
> > > nade wrote (to Juan R. Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez):
>
> > > > Say, are you a normal or a crackpot?
>
> > > He often acts like a crackpot (name shifting, posting articles that ar=
e
> > > pure insults, ignoring well-known mainstream results, using dense spew=
s
> > > of undefined jargon in an attempt to stifle criticism...).
>
> > > About the only way to distinguish knowledgeable people from crackpots =
is
> > > that the former often recommend textbooks,
>
> > in stead of posting brain, is proof on
> > stoopidity
>
> > > but the latter never do. For
> > > general knowledge of SR I recommend: Taylor and Wheeler,
> > > _Spacetime_Physics_. For a discussion of the invariance of Maxwell's
> > > equations: Jackson, _Classical_Electrodynamics_, and also the Feynman
> > > _Lectures_ Vol 2.
>
> > > Tom Roberts
>
> > you post so many book titles
>
> > what abot postin brain?
>
> It makes no sense to try to post in a few short paragraphs what it
> takes many pages to explain in one of the books.

sure it does, thats tha whole poing,

few lines in stead of reading and replication

> Moreover, it is no
> one's obligation to replicate what is written in books by transcribing
> it into Usenet,

not replicate fool, thats tha whole poing

yo are contradicting your foken self

> just to make it free and easy for some amateurs and
> cranks.

you?

> That would be spoonfeeding. If you want to hunt buffalo, be
> prepared to spend some effort making the arrowheads first, and stop
> asking people to escort you to a dead buffalo.

its a dead buffalo in that book or
what you would have tp say about
that book is a dead buffalo

>
> PD

you violate tha unwritten rules of usenet
promoting books you wan ta sell

if that books have pictures then is okay

but if it has math, then you read one
page a day,

for instance 5 books times 200 pages
takes 1000 days,

three years, fool, in order for a moron
ta unswer a simple question