Article View: sci.physics
Article #15306Re: New Year question from Leo
From: Bilge
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 02:06
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 02:06
36 lines
2949 bytes
2949 bytes
Harry: > >"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.netcom.ca> wrote in message >news:ZjfKb.74347$by2.859190@wagner.videotron.net... >> "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message >> news:3ff969fe$1@epflnews.epfl.ch... >> > >> > "Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message >> > news:btbcc0$qri$5@titan.btinternet.com... >> > > >> > > "Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message >> > > news:a42650fc.0401041424.31edb781@posting.google.com... >> > > >> > > [snip >> > > >> > > . This theorem is >> > > > incompatible with the current system of Maxwell equations. >> > > >> > > Then you are a crackpot. >> > >> > Your logic labels Einstein a crackpot... >> >> Einstein's equations are wholly compatible with Maxwell's. > >Except for low velocities, Einstein's theorems are incompatible with >Newton's equations. >Similarly, Ampere's equations are partially incompatible with those of >Maxwell. That's non-sense. Newtonian physics is a limiting case of relativity. Ampere's law is a limiting case of maxwell's equations (i.e., quasi- static fields). A theory which is a limiting case of another theory indicates compatibility and specifies why one is the limit of the other. Two theories which are incompatible make different predictions about the same phenomena in a way that the difference cannot be resolved in terms of a domain of applicability.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<slrnbvmv8g.93j.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!dubiousReferences:
<a42650fc.0312231529.65b841bd@posting.google.com> <a42650fc.0312281440.1ee617e7@posting.google.com> <2a0cceff.0312281924.7853d32f@posting.google.com> <a42650fc.0401041424.31edb781@posting.google.com> <btbcc0$qri$5@titan.btinternet.com> <3ff969fe$1@epflnews.epfl.ch> <ZjfKb.74347$by2.859190@wagner.videotron.net> <3ffa73fa$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10b271,ef7eb0d662ead2d4 X-Google-Attributes: gid10b271,public X-Google-Thread: 1038c2,ef7eb0d662ead2d4 X-Google-Attributes: gid1038c2,public X-Google-Thread: 10f545,ef7eb0d662ead2d4 X-Google-Attributes: gid10f545,public X-Google-Thread: 1110fe,ef7eb0d662ead2d4 X-Google-Attributes: gid1110fe,public X-Google-Thread: 106ae0,ef7eb0d662ead2d4 X-Google-Attributes: gid106ae0,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-06 18:06:31 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!dubious From: dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,fj.sci.matter,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: New Year question from Leo Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 02:06:27 -0000 Organization: k lnOmega Message-ID: <slrnbvmv8g.93j.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> References: <a42650fc.0312231529.65b841bd@posting.google.com> <a42650fc.0312281440.1ee617e7@posting.google.com> <2a0cceff.0312281924.7853d32f@posting.google.com> <a42650fc.0401041424.31edb781@posting.google.com> <btbcc0$qri$5@titan.btinternet.com> <3ff969fe$1@epflnews.epfl.ch> <ZjfKb.74347$by2.859190@wagner.videotron.net> <3ffa73fa$1@epflnews.epfl.ch> Reply-To: cranks@fghfgigtu.com X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.5.6 UNIX) X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 38