maxwell wrote:


Wrong again, Bob. Calculus was introduced to SOLVE the equations, not
to derive the ideas, which were in the tradition of natural philosophy
- a subject that mathematicians like yourself feel really
uncomfortable with. Check out Principia.

I read it cover to cover. Newton published -Princiipia- using
traditional geometric language because his calculus methods were
relatively unknown to his target audience. He invented calculus to talk
about motion. Calculus is the language of motion. He could not have
formulated his physics without calculus.

It turns out the later developments of classical mechanics required the
least action principle and the calculus of variations to be stated. See
the works of Jacobi, Lagrange and Hamilton.

Bob Kolker

On Mar 16, 6:37 pm, nade wrote:
http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm

What do you make of it? Author has doctorate in nuclear physics
and has over 40 publications in physics journals.

http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm

from the web site:

Following this logic, if we allow the detector to have free
motion, then the formalism of electrodynamics which follows
must somehow allow for the parameterization of the detector's
motion.
The electrodynamics that I learn do allow it through chain
derivatives. Maxwell's equations are defined for detectors that are
travelling at a constant velocity in an inertial frame. If one wants
the equivalent equations for a detector in an accelerated frame, one
uses the chain rule to figure out what the derivatives mean in the
accelerated frame.
Actually, the problem you refer to proceeded electromagnetism.
The same type of problem exists in classical fluid dynamics. One uses
the chain rule of derivation. In fact, there is an operator in fluid
dynamics called the material derivative. The material derivative is
what happens to a spatial derivative in the accelerated frame of the
streamline.
I think the formalism of thermodynamics and fluid mechanics
would be very useful in electromagnetic theory classrooms. In these
subjects, the derivatives are written in such a way that there is
never any doubt which quantities are in an inertial frame. In the
electromagnetic theory classes, the meaning of the derivatives are
conveyed entirely by words instead of being part of the equation.

Just pay close attention to the chain rule of differentiation,
and to partial derivatives. Application of SR to accelerating frames
is actually rather easy once you understand the chain rule of
differentiating.

On Mar 23, 6:21*pm, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
maxwell wrote:
Wrong again, Bob. *Calculus was introduced to SOLVE the equations, not
to derive the ideas, which were in the tradition of natural philosophy
- a subject that mathematicians like yourself feel really
uncomfortable with. *Check out Principia.

I read it cover to cover. Newton published -Princiipia- using
traditional geometric language because his calculus methods were
relatively unknown to his target audience. He invented calculus to talk
about motion. Calculus is the language of motion. He could not have
formulated his physics without calculus.

It turns out the later developments of classical mechanics required the
least action principle and the calculus of variations to be stated. See
the works of Jacobi, Lagrange and Hamilton.

Bob Kolker
Wrong again, Bob. Calculus was not 'relatively' unknown by Newton's
contemporaries - it was totally unknown, since Newton wished to keep
his 'secret weopon' to himself. He used geometry as his expositional
method because it would be understood by ALL his fellow
mathematicians. The later developments of CM by mathematicians is
where these guys forgot Newton's physics & just invented more
continuum math. The world is NOT continuous, it is discrete; that's
why the math does NOT work.

harry wrote on Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:12:03 +0100:

"nade" wrote in message
...
On Mar 17, 9:12 pm, "Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
wrote: [...]

Say, are you a normal or a crackpot? How come you have 13 stars with
one rating. Did the crackpots rate you or did the normal?

There is at least one nutcase here who found a way to falsify the rating
counts and apparently, he finds such trickery very enjoyable.

She is well-known by Google Groups administrators and each certain time
the false ratings are deleted.

My average rating also fluctuates because of her. Weekend i submitted two
messages to sci.physics.research and then I had suspicious 250 one-rating
stars. Today all false ratings were deleted and my average rant is of
five stars

http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?
enc_user=GoncHx4AAAC1vIl8N7H_NtwnSrHDuE1RoVXr7-I212PRgSBPBahlNQ

In no doubt, she lives for the tiny yellow stars...

--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt

On Mar 24, 12:09*am, maxwell wrote:
On Mar 23, 6:21*pm, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:

I read it cover to cover. Newton published -Princiipia- using
traditional geometric language because his calculus methods were
relatively unknown to his target audience. He invented calculus to talk
about motion. Calculus is the language of motion. He could not have
formulated his physics without calculus.

It turns out the later developments of classical mechanics required the
least action principle and the calculus of variations to be stated. See
the works of Jacobi, Lagrange and Hamilton.

Bob Kolker

Wrong again, Bob. *Calculus was not 'relatively' unknown by Newton's
contemporaries - it was totally unknown, since Newton wished to keep
his 'secret weopon' to himself. *

As usual with most of your writings, you are sadly misinformed.

Leibnitz independently developed many ideas of calculus as early as
1674, and used well-developed methods of calculus, expressed in his
own, superior notation, in correspondence with other mathematicians
starting around 1677.

Newton's Principia Mathematica was published in 1687.

Jerry

On Mar 20, 7:53*pm, Yanick Toutain wrote:
On 17 mar, 14:54, nade wrote:
Say, are you a normal or a crackpot? How come you have 13 stars with
one rating. Did the crackpots rate you or did the normal?

About Phipps.. do you think he is loose screw?

You must stop to use the word "crackpot"

Yes, with a stopping-time of about 1.8 s--or tapping.

crackpot ?

If Newton wrote here, it is exactly the insult which you would use
against him!!!
How I know it? Which evidence?
It is very simple:
I am a newtonist, in favour of Newton and I defend absolute space, and
the absolute velocities against the relativistic imbeciles!

You defend what absolute where? Which imbecils?

On Mar 19, 2:25*am, PD wrote:
3. Being able to string jargon together is not an indicator of whether
one is a physicist, let alone a brilliant one. You have been duped by
one of these posters, who is a shuckster, a liar, and who is
perpetually on a short track to Wrong. Now, tell me, what do you have
at your disposal to tell which one of them is the scam?

How do some longtime posters such as yourself keep from Androcles's
block?

All the while they don't get to tell him his setup has two
independents, which by definition can't make his equality--as every
one of his bickers is his innumerate invention and not relativity's or
Einstein's. He's not a "shuckster"; he's a shyster.

http://dictionary.com/browse/shyster

-Aut

On Mar 19, 2:02*am, "Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote:
*"Androcles"



All Michelson and Gale detected was the coriolis effect.
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

The Earth rotate. But the Earth orbit also rotate. The Earth is a point on
the big disc. The equations are the same. Only radii are different. The MG
apparatus was huge to have proper sensitivity for the velocity 0.46 km/s.
The MM was for 30 km/s (and for this reason was not able to detect 0.46
km/s). The both were built years ago. Now we have very small electronic
apparatus which do the same. What they detect if we put them on the Earth
surface close to equator and orientalise in orbital direction?
I bet that the reading will be 0.46 km/s.
S*

Learn how to declinare.

THE SINS OF RELATIVITY (AND MAXWELLIAN) THEORY ?
No any sins.
It is only our poor consciousness thinks so.
=============================..

Pythagoras' theory applies equally to the largest and smallest
triangle.
So physicists had decided, that this applies also to
the electromagnetic phenomena;
that the laws of a nature in the macrocosm and in a microcosm are
identical.
It appears that this is not so.
In the macrocosm, Maxwell's laws apply
and in the microcosm, other laws, the laws of SRT operate.
SRT is a continuation of the development of electrodynamics.
==========================..
There isn't the Maxwell's theory / SRT without electron.
The electron is a main and single hero in the Maxwell's theory and
SRT.
1) What does the electron do in Maxwell's theory?
Maxwell's equations have no relation to the movement of the
electron.
They describe the distribution of electromagnetic waves
but not the movement of a particle such as an electron.
In Maxwell's theory, the charge - electron is considered local,
as though the particle is "at rest".
This means that it particle does not move rectilinearly,
but rotates around his diameter (has the form of a sphere).
The rotation of the electron creates electrical waves.
* * *
2) What does the electron do in SRT ?
At the beginning of the last century many scientists
(Einstein, Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Poincare, Abraham)
were interested in the question:
" What will take place, if the electron (Maxwell's) ,
creating an electrical field, begins to move - rectilinearly?"
All of them came to the conclusion that there would be radical
changes with the electron.
These changes are described by the Lorentz transformations.
That is when the originally rotating electron (sphere) begins to move
rectilinearly, during movement it gradually will change its
geometrical form.
Having reached constant speed of c=1, its form will become a circle.
In such condition it is called a "quantum of light "," photon".
And when a quantum of light rotates around its diameter its name is
"electron "
An "electron" is an actively working "quantum of light".
===========================..

All know, that an electron is not a firm sphere.
All know, that its form can be changed.
But nobody understands the borders of the change of the
geometrical form of the electron.
So, what are the borders of this change?
Quantum theory gives an answer to this question.
It says that at the interaction of the electron with the vacuum,
the energy and mass of the electron become infinite.
It means that " The law of conservation and transformation energy" is
broken.
Unless can it be? No.
Physics does not understand what to do with infinite sizes
and therefore have thought up "a method of renormalization", a method
"to sweep the dust under the carpet" / Feynman./
This method is abstract. The situation can be understood another way.
Electrons, having the geometrical form of a sphere,
lose their volume (density) and turn into an indefinitely flat
circle.
In this is the reason for the occurrence of infinite sizes for the
electron.
But in physics we know only one particle which has the form of a flat
circle.
It is a quantum of light which flies rectilinearly with speed c=
1.
Therefore, the electron turns into a quantum of light.
Therefore, the electron and /or a quantum of light
is the same particle in different states.
==========================...

On Mar 26, 6:27*am, socratus wrote:
" What will take place, if the electron (Maxwell's) ,
creating an electrical field, begins to move - rectilinearly?"
All of them came to the conclusion that there would be radical
changes with the electron.
*These changes are described by the Lorentz transformations.
*That is when the originally rotating electron (sphere) begins to move
*rectilinearly, during movement it gradually will change its
geometrical form.
*Having reached constant speed of *c=1, its form will become a circle.

No, the ball will blunt in the foreward and drag in the backward,
where its overall volume will be nouht and mass infinite foreward but
bigger and leihter backward.

*In such condition it is called a "quantum of light "," photon".
*And when a quantum of light rotates around its diameter its name is
"electron "
*An "electron" is an actively working "quantum of light".

Wrong, a fotòn is a shift in the elèctròn. The former is a hap and
not a thing; the latter a thing and not a hap.

*In this is the reason for the occurrence of infinite sizes for the
electron.
*But in physics we know only one particle which has the form of a flat
circle.
*It is a quantum of light *which flies rectilinearly * with *speed c=
1.
Therefore, the electron turns into a quantum of light.
Therefore, the electron and /or a quantum of light
*is the same particle in different states.

Liht is not a mote. The wave flies circumpolarly, as a ball, with
polarisation-bias in strength. See the apple.

-Aut