"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...


Androcles wrote:

"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...

Androcles wrote:


"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...


Androcles wrote:



"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...




Of course, before Einstein physicists didn't think Maxwell's laws
would be correct in every observer's reference frame--they
thought they would only hold exactly in the rest frame of the
aether. They would have believed that to state the laws of
electromagnetism in a way that would hold in all frames, you'd
have to replace every x in Maxwell's laws with (x - v*t), where v
represents the observer's velocity relative to the rest frame of
the aether...any derivatives of x would have to be replaced in
the same way, like replacing dx/dt with (dx/dt - v). This would
give a new set of electromagnetic laws which would be
Galilei-invariant, and which would reduce to Maxwell's laws in
the case where v=0.

But a prediction of this Galilei-invariant analogue of Maxwell's
laws would be that for an observer in motion relative to the
aether, light will be observed to move at different speeds in
different directions, relative to himself. Unfortunately this was
not supported by the Michelson-Morley experiment.



The speed of light in diamond, water, air, any transparent medium
is
constant with respect to the medium. MMX fails to support aether.
In MMX, the medium is air. It is as simple as that.



What do you mean "the medium is air"?


I mean that air was used as a medium for light,
by Michelson, in his interferometer, of course.
He did not perform the experiment in an evacuated chamber, on the
surface
of the moon, or aboard the ISS.





My point was that when waves are considered as a vibration in a
medium, like sound waves, the speed of any wave will be constant
with respect to the rest frame of the medium.


Your points are invariance, x-vt, Maxwell's laws, derivatives,
aether and
anything else you can mention hoping to cover the issue, but you
omitted
to say anything about the physical medium used and asked me what I
meant by it, so clearly it was NOT your point, it is MY point.

Recall that Einstein's second postulate is
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body".


Maxwell's laws also say that light's velocity is independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body,


For light in a medium. Maxwell believed in aether.


Who cares what Maxwell believed? Maxwell's laws are just a set of
equations telling you how charged objects interact with the
electromagnetic field, and how the electromagnetic field in turn
affects the movements of charged objects. You don't have to believe in
aether

I do not, but Maxwell did. OK? So whatever Maxwell's "laws" may be,
they are premised on aether. There is no aether, so Maxwell has no law.
If you wish to discuss Maxwell's equations, we can do that. I refuse
to discuss Maxwell's "laws".
[snip]


This is a pure mathematical consequence of the equations of Maxwell's
laws.
[snip]

For reference, Maxwell's equations themselves can be found he

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ric/maxeq.html

I see Gauss, Faraday and Ampere.


You can see that "the speed of light is c" is not a
tacked-on-assumption,

Ampere uses it. It IS a tacked on assumption.

I also see mu0 and epsilon0, properties of aether.
That is the tacked on assumption.



regardless of whether you have the relativistic understanding of
these laws (that they hold in all reference frames)


Michelson was intending to use doppler shift to measure the
the speed of light in the aether as the Earth flew through it. He was
certainly NOT claiming the speed of light was invariant. Neither was
Maxwell. Both believed time and distance are invariant, as indeed
they are.


Yes, they believed that Maxwell's laws only worked in a single
preferred reference frame. But in relativity, which neither Michelson
nor Maxwell believed in (because it hadn't been invented yet), if
Maxwell's laws are true in one reference frame they must be true in
all of them (because they have the mathematical property of
Lorentz-invariance).

Mathematical properties of aether. There is no aether. yawn



or the pre-relativistic understanding of them (that they only hold in
one preferred frame, and in other frames the velocity of light would
be c+v in one direction and c-v in the other).


Both are wrong. The speed of light is source dependent in a vacuum,
and medium dependent when passing though a medium. The medium
becomes the new source, of course.


So you assert.

So the stars assert, but you'd have them blowing themselves to
smithereens,
settling back to normal and blowing themselves to smithereens again.
You'd have them puffing up and down like blowfish. You'd have them
throwing out flares a 1000 times brighter than the star itself. You'd
have
a different model for every single phenomenon, and I have one model
for all of them. I don't think your many models are plausible, whatever
Maxwell's so-called "laws" may say.



But this does not fit with the predictions of classical
electromagnetism,

Of course it doesn't! Classical electrodynamics uses aether. THERE
IS NO AETHER.

and you don't have an alternate theory that can replicate all of the
successful predictions of classical electromagnetism.

I've told you. I do not have a theory at all. All theories are the work
of others. What I have is a discovery. I'm telling you about the
discovery.
The speed of light, in a vacuum, is source dependent, just like a
bullet from a gun. YOU figure out the theory.


All speeds are relative to something.
When requesting a drink on a plane, my speed relative to the flight
attendant is also zero, even though travelling at 500 mph ground
speed
and 250 mph by the air speed indicator.
The speed of light inside a plane, as with the speed of sound, is
relative.


That's because the plane carries its own little pocket of air with
it,


So does MMX, so we can put that one to bed. MMX has nothing
whatever to do with Einstein's relativity. Have it struck from the
FAQ's, which are a biased and prejudiced sham, a disgrace to science.


Should the theory of electromagnetism (the non-quantum version, ie
Maxwell's equations) also be struck from the FAQ's? It seems that it
conflicts just as badly with your ideas.

Your problem. I detect bugs other people's work, and Einstein's
paper has a bug in it. His '½' in
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
is a wild guess and totally absurd.

Anyway, I'm out of time on this post, and tired of reading "Maxwell's
laws".

Androcles.