🚀 go-pugleaf

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 équations de Maxwell prévoyaient la propagation de la lumière à
> > la vitesse de 300.000 km/s par rapport à l'éther. Or, si l'on cherche
> > à calculer la vitesse de la lumière par rapport à un référentiel qui
> > est lui-même mobile dans l'éther, on observe que la lumière se propage
> > avec une vitesse différente..."
>
> >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 François 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: "Même s'il était conscient de l'intérêt de la
> > théorie de l'émission, Einstein n'a pas pris le chemin, totalement
> > oublié, de Michell, de Blair, des Principia en somme. Le contexte de
> > découverte de la relativité ignorera le XVIIIème siècle et ses racines
> > historiques plongent au coeur du XIXème siècle. Arago, Fresnel,
> > Fizeau, Maxwell, Mascart, Michelson, Poincaré, Lorentz en furent les
> > principaux acteurs et l'optique ondulatoire le cadre dans lequel ces
> > questions sont posées. Pourtant, au plan des structures physiques,
> > l'optique relativiste des corps en mouvement de cette fin du XVIIIème
> > est infiniment plus intéressante - et plus utile pédagogiquement - que
> > le long cheminement qu'a imposé l'éther."
>
> > 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?