🚀 go-pugleaf

"Sebastian Garth" <sebastiangarth@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:dde88733-5a88-4eaa-a653-075ca31fbd1b@x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 2, 4:32 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_x> wrote:
> "Sebastian Garth" <sebastianga...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1f98cc79-ec52-40be-a241-602ecb1a6286@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 1, 4:18 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > According to Maxwell's theory, (1) the speed of light is independent
> > of the speed of the emitter but (2) it does depend on the speed of the
> > observer:
>
> >http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
> > John Norton: "Einstein's second postulate, the light postulate,
> > asserts that "light is always propagated in empty space with a
> > definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
> > emitting body." Einstein gave no justification for this postulate in
> > the introduction to his paper. Its strongest justification came from
> > Maxwell's electrodynamics. That theory had identified light with waves
> > propagating in an electromagnetic field and concluded that just one
> > speed was possible for them in empty space, c = 300,000 km/sec, no
> > matter what the motion of the emitter."
>
> >http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/doc/t/physique/d/relativite-restrei...
> > "Les �quations de Maxwell pr�voyaient la propagation de la lumi�re �
> > la vitesse de 300.000 km/s par rapport � l'�ther. Or, si l'on cherche
> > � calculer la vitesse de la lumi�re par rapport � un r�f�rentiel qui
> > est lui-m�me mobile dans l'�ther, on observe que la lumi�re se propage
> > avec une vitesse diff�rente..."
>
> >http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/58
> > "Maxwell's theory of electricity and magnetism provides a successful
> > framework with which to study light. In this theory light is an
> > electromagnetic wave. Using Maxwell's equations one can compute the
> > speed of light. One finds that the speed of light is 300,000,000
> > meters (186,000 miles) per second. The question arises: which inertial
> > observer is this speed of light relative to? As in the previous
> > paragraph, two inertial observers traveling relative to each other
> > should observe DIFFERENT SPEEDS FOR THE SAME LIGHT WAVE."
>
> > In 1905 Einstein adopted the former assertion of Maxwell's theory (the
> > speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter) and, by
> > applying the principle of relativity, inferred that the speed of light
> > is independent of the speed of the observer as well.
>
> > Einstein could have adopted the latter assertion of Maxwell's theory
> > (the speed of light does depend on the speed of the observer). Then,
> > by applying the principle of relativity, he would have inferred that
> > the speed of light does depend on the speed of the emitter as well.
> > This would have been a return to Newton's emission theory of light:
>
> >http://www.mfo.de/programme/schedule/2006/08c/OWR_2006_10.pdf
> > Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension
> > of Newton's dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten.
> > A body of works completed the Principia with a relativistic optics of
> > moving bodies, the discovery of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some sixty
> > years before Doppler, and many other effects and ideas which represent
> > a fascinating preamble to Einstein relativities. It was simply
> > supposed that 'a body-light', as Newton named it, was subject to the
> > whole dynamics of the Principia in much the same way as were material
> > particles; thus it was subject to the Galilean relativity and its
> > velocity was supposed to be variable. Of course it was subject to the
> > short range 'refringent' force of the corpuscular theory of light --
> > which is part of the Principia-- but also to the long range force of
> > gravitation which induces Newton's theory of gravitation. The fact
> > that the 'mass' of a corpuscle of light was not known did not
> > constitute a problem since it does not appear in the Newtonian (or
> > Einsteinian) equations of motion. It was precisely what John Michell
> > (1724-1793), Robert Blair (1748-1828), Johann G. von Soldner
> > (1776-1833) and Fran�ois Arago (1786-1853) were to do at the end of
> > the 18th century and the beginning the 19th century in the context of
> > Newton's dynamics. Actually this 'completed' Newtonian theory of light
> > and material corpuscle seems to have been implicitly accepted at the
> > time. In such a Newtonian context, not only Soldner's calculation of
> > the deviation of light in a gravitational field was understood, but
> > also dark bodies (cousins of black holes). A natural (Galilean and
> > thus relativistic) optics of moving bodies was also developed which
> > easily explained aberration and implied as well the essence of what we
> > call today the Doppler effect. Moreover, at the same time the
> > structure of -- but also the questions raised by-- the Michelson
> > experiment was understood. Most of this corpus has long been
> > forgotten. The Michell-Blair-Arago effect, prior to Doppler's effect,
> > is entirely unknown to physicists and historians. As to the influence
> > of gravitation on light, the story was very superficially known but
> > had never been studied in any detail. Moreover, the existence of a
> > theory dealing with light, relativity and gravitation, embedded in
> > Newton's Principia was completely ignored by physicists and by
> > historians as well. But it was a simple and natural way to deal with
> > the question of light, relativity (and gravitation) in a Newtonian
> > context."
>
> >http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/...
> > Jean Eisenstaedt: "M�me s'il �tait conscient de l'int�r�t de la
> > th�orie de l'�mission, Einstein n'a pas pris le chemin, totalement
> > oubli�, de Michell, de Blair, des Principia en somme. Le contexte de
> > d�couverte de la relativit� ignorera le XVIII�me si�cle et ses racines
> > historiques plongent au coeur du XIX�me si�cle. Arago, Fresnel,
> > Fizeau, Maxwell, Mascart, Michelson, Poincar�, Lorentz en furent les
> > principaux acteurs et l'optique ondulatoire le cadre dans lequel ces
> > questions sont pos�es. Pourtant, au plan des structures physiques,
> > l'optique relativiste des corps en mouvement de cette fin du XVIII�me
> > est infiniment plus int�ressante - et plus utile p�dagogiquement - que
> > le long cheminement qu'a impos� l'�ther."
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> Alright, let's just recap here. When an object is accelerated, we find
> that (relative to us) it occupies both less space (length contraction)
> *and* time (dialation).
> ===============================================
> Ok, let's just recap here.
> The time for the resting object is t and the time for the moving obbject 
> is
> tau
> The length for the resting object is x' and the length for the moving 
> object
> is xi.
> According to SR,
> tau = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> Ref:
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif
> and sqrt(1- <anything>) is less than 1, so tau < t.
> xi = x'/ sqt(1-v^2/c^2)
> so xi > x.
> Why are you calling Einstein's length dilation a contraction?
> Why are you calling Einstein's time contraction a dialation?
> Are not able to read algebra?
>
> =============================================
> Acceleration causes space-time curvature
> (relativistic effects)
> =============================================
> Alright, let's just recap here.
> Fuckin' bullshit, you drooling cretin!

Eh? Well, I'd address your damned arguments if you would just
communicate with a little decency. And to think that future
generations will have to wade through all of that offensive drivel
that you have produced over the years! Proud of that, aren't you?
==============================================

Previous generations have had to wade through Einstein's offensive
drivel that sheep like you have reproduced over the last 105 years.
Proud of that, aren't you?  Eh?

Typical arrogant shithead, produces a load of bullshit he's heard
of but never thought about, can't read algebra and attacks the
person that corrects him. Proud of that, aren't you?

Why are you calling Einstein's length dilation a contraction?
Fuckin' wanker!
Proud of that, aren't you? Eh?
Why are you calling Einstein's time contraction a dialation?
Ignorant moron!
Proud of that, aren't you? Eh?
You don't have any decency or integrity, you are just another
stooopid jerk-off.
Proud of that, aren't you? Eh?
Someone needs to hit you alongside the ear with a 2x4 and
knock some sense in, the best I can manage is to be deliberately
offensive. And yes, I'm proud that I can read algebra!
You can't be bothered to learn.
Proud of that, aren't you? Eh?