On 7 fév, 17:57, Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 wrote:



On 7 fév, 01:27, "Timo A. Nieminen" wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, wrote:
On 6 fév, 17:38, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 6, 6:33 am, wrote:

Classical Newtonian mechanics predicts that light will bend with
twice the angle observed.

Relativistic Newtonian mechanics however predicts the correct
angle since it is now understood that only half a photon's energy
is sensitive to transverse interaction.

Uhhhhh....no. General relativity [is NOT "relativistic Newtonian
mechanics] makes the correct prediction

So does relativistic Newtonian mechanics, in perfect harmony
with Maxwell's theory.

OK, I'll bite. What is "relativistic Newtonian mechanics"? How is it in
perfect harmony with Maxwell's theory? To clarify, do you mean _Maxwell's_
theory, or do you mean modern classical electrodynamics?

I mean Maxwell's wave theory.

By which I assume that you mean _Maxwell's_ wave theory of light (if you
mean something else, do say so).

What else do you think this could mean ?


The point is that Maxwell's theory can be seamlessly expanded,
contrary to belief, from a disregarded de Broglie hypothesis,
to directly describe localized photons and by linking it with
classical Newton, to also describe localized massive particles,
moving or not.

Now as to what it is, this media couldn't possibly allow full
explanation. but as an example, if you correct Newton's classical
kinetic energy equation to correctly include the energy he could
know nothing about and that goes into relativistic mass increase
and if you convert it to its correct exponential form, you then
end up with an equation that allows calculating the complete
range of possible velocities, from zero for massive particles
at rest to c for free photons not associated with massive
particles.

Nitpick: _not_ "exponential".

You bet nitpick!

I am telling you what I did. Maybe you can't deal with it,
but this is what I did, whether you like it or not.

How is this new theory "Newtonian"?

Because it involves force acting between all existing
localized particles.

How is it "relativistic"? Reproducing E=mc^2 isn't enough
for a theory to be "relativistic". (Of course, one needs
to say what one means by "relativistic", as ordinary
Newtonian classical mechanics is "relativistic" under
Galilei transformations.)

Bull****. Newtonian classical is not relativistic in any
way shape or form. Applies only at low velocities.

How is this new theory compatible with _Maxwell's_
theory, since you're talking about it being compatible
with some kind of (unspecified) Maxwell-de Broglie
hybrid theory.

No hypridization. Clarification and more precision
being applied in light of deBroglie's theory.

Since I recall that you don't know that it was Galileo
that discovered acceleration, I am not surprised that
you know nothing either about de Broglie.

[cut summary for space, thanks for the details,
but more would be better, even if not posted. Available
on www?]

No www availability.

As I said to Eric, you will have to wait for formal
publication. When ? I have no idea, months, years,
never maybe.

One thing is certain, I think this too important to
ever be submitted for "approval" to any panel of
so-called "experts" as ignorant as the typical
Copenhagen physicists I have seen operate on public
ngs.

Ordinary Newtonian mechanics is in perfect harmony
with Maxwell's theory,

You must be kidding!

Explain to me how straight k=1/2 mv^2 is in harmony with
Maxwell's theory.

Maxwell's wave theory describes light (and other electromagnetic
radiation) as mechanical waves in a mechanical ether, the behaviour and
observable effect of which are described by the Maxwell equations and the
observable effects of electromagnetic forces.

How can Maxwell's wave theory be any less compatible with Newtonian
mechanics than other mechanical wave theories - acoustics, hydrodynamics,
and elastodynamics, for example - in their Newtonian formulations?

In Maxwell's theory, an EM wave is a massless wave, carrying energy
without carrying mass. k=1/2 mv^2 is irrelevant where EM waves, including
light, is concerned. Localised photons are irrelevant as far as Maxwell's
theory is concerned. Discrete quantised electrons are irrelevant as far as
Maxwell's theory is concerned (and it's deeply problematic to try to
incorporate them into a modified version).

Note that:

(a) Maxwell's theory prediction of radiation pressue (Maxwell, Treatise
vol. 2, 1873) implies an energy-momentum relationship of p=E/c for
electromagnetic waves. This is without assuming any mass transport, mass
of light, photons, or suchlike.

(b) c. 1874, Umov showed that, in general, the transport of energy within
a medium, without the transport of mass, must involve the transport of
momentum, with momentum p=E/v, where v is the speed of energy transport.
Heaviside and Poynting show the same thing for the special case of electro

(c) If the energy is proportional to the frequency, for a given amplitude,
the relationship between the change in energy of a wave due to reflection
via the Doppler shift, the work done on the moving reflector (which must
be the same), and the force exerted on the reflector, also gives P=E/v.

(a)-(c) are purely classical derivations, with not a touch of quantum or
relativistic ideas. How can any of them be incompatible with Newtonian
mechanics?

Simply because Newtonian mechanics does not deal with the energy
that goes into relativistic mass increase.

Very simple.

All give the same energy-momentum relationship for light and other EM
waves as given by special relativity and (given by/assumed by?) quantum
mechanics, but so what?

1/2 mv^2 is irrelevant,

1/2 mv^2 is NOT irrelevant. It is the limit non relativistic
expression of kinetic energy at low velocities. Simply because
the energy levels involved are so low that mass increase is
negligible. As soon as it becomes detectable, it is useless.

The one I derived can be used at any velocities.

since Newtonian waves in a mechanical medium don't have mass,
Newtonian heat flow by conduction in a mechanical medium doesn't
involve mass transport, and so on.

Note that _Maxwell's_ theory is not "relativistic",

Wrong. It is fully relativistic.

in the sense of being compatible with special relativity.

You bet, since Maxwell does not admit time nor space dilation.

Lorentz-Larmor-Poincare-Einstein electrodynamics, which
is, is not the same as Maxwell-Hertz-Heaviside electrodynamics.

Agreed. But I am still waiting for en explanation of how
1/2 mv^2, straight out of classical Newton, is relativistic
as you asserted.

André Michaud