On Mar 17, 9:12*pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
nade wrote on Mon, 17 Mar 2008 05:21:46 -0700:

What do you think of the following paper written by this esteemed
physicist?

http://www.stardrive.org/Jack/PhippsEM.pdf

nad

I did explicit my opinion about Phipps Hertzian approach in a previous
post.

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

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?

"nade" wrote in message
...
On Mar 17, 9:12 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
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.

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

He's quite normal - and consequently he makes mistake just like everone
else. When one endeavours outside of the treaded paths, one encounters more
stumble blocks :-)

Harald

nade wrote:
http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
What do you make of it?

The excerpt you posted is mostly nonsense.

Specifically:
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.

Sure. We know quite well how to do that -- the detector has a
4-velocity, and the quantities it measures are basically the field(s)
dotted into its 4-velocity.

This isn't anything new, but Phipps seems to think it is.


but now comes the crux: by this simple process, which
is driven by the idea that there is no reason on God’s Earth
why an observer cannot use a freely moving detector,
the equations of electromagnetism become Galilean
invariant;

This is not true (but I believe Phipps uses a nonstandard meaning of
"Galilean invariant"; I use the usual meaning). Moreover, if the
observer uses arbitrarily-moving detectors, then the measurements are
not projected onto the observer's (local) inertial frame. This is not
wrong, but is different from the usual treatment of the theory, in which
the observer does use detectors at rest in her inertial frame, and thus
does project the field quantities onto that frame. This is a GREAT
simplification: physics becomes much simpler in a (local) inertial
frame. By abandoning that simplification, Phipps became confused....


Juan R. González-�lvarez wrote (possibly quoting Phipps):
Clocks do not define time no matter how many times Einstein said the
contrary thing.

This merely depends on how one chooses to use words (specifically
"time"). But this DOES NOT MATTER, because clocks most definitely do
represent the time coordinate used by real experimenters.


nade wrote (to Juan R. González-�lvarez):
Say, are you a normal or a crackpot?

He often acts like a crackpot (name shifting, posting articles that are
pure insults, ignoring well-known mainstream results, using dense spews
of undefined jargon in an attempt to stifle criticism...).


About the only way to distinguish knowledgeable people from crackpots is
that the former often recommend textbooks, but the latter never do. For
general knowledge of SR I recommend: Taylor and Wheeler,
_Spacetime_Physics_. For a discussion of the invariance of Maxwell's
equations: Jackson, _Classical_Electrodynamics_, and also the Feynman
_Lectures_ Vol 2.


Tom Roberts

On Mar 18, 7:30 am, Tom Roberts wrote:


He often acts like a crackpot (name shifting, posting articles that are
pure insults, ignoring well-known mainstream results, using dense spews
of undefined jargon in an attempt to stifle criticism...).



Juam R. Gonzalez-Alvarez has gone postal a few months ago, he is
posting under the sockpuppet "Lady Chacha".

"nade" is the well-known Australian troll, you have been had
(again!) :-)

Supertroll Dono trolled:

Dirk Vdm wrote to Dono (Mar 2008)

"You act exactly like Androcles, and that is no compliment.
Your Dono-alias is severely compromized."

--
Dono is concubine Lady Chacha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yodo-Dono

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
. net...
| nade wrote:
| http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
| What do you make of it?
|
| The excerpt you posted is mostly nonsense.

Nonsensical lying bigot.

About the only way to distinguish knowledgeable people from lying
crackpots such as Roberts is that the former often recommend the
original paper,
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
but the latter never do.

"Androcles"

About the only way to distinguish knowledgeable people from lying
crackpots such as Roberts is that the former often recommend the
original paper,
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

In this oryginal paper (1905) is: "Examples of this sort, together with the
unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the
``light medium,'' ..."
I another is: " in 1925 Michelson and Gale " did indeed detect the rotation
of the earth".
What knowledgeable people are thinking about it.
S*

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:30:38 GMT, Tom Roberts
wrote:

nade wrote:
http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
What do you make of it?

The excerpt you posted is mostly nonsense.

Specifically:
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.

Sure. We know quite well how to do that -- the detector has a
4-velocity, and the quantities it measures are basically the field(s)
dotted into its 4-velocity.

Could you please provide a precise definition of the term '4-velocity'.




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Mar 18, 3:30 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
nade wrote:
http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
What do you make of it?

The excerpt you posted is mostly nonsense.

Specifically:

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.

Sure. We know quite well how to do that -- the detector has a
4-velocity, and the quantities it measures are basically the field(s)
dotted into its 4-velocity.

This isn't anything new, but Phipps seems to think it is.

but now comes the crux: by this simple process, which
is driven by the idea that there is no reason on God's Earth
why an observer cannot use a freely moving detector,
the equations of electromagnetism become Galilean
invariant;

This is not true (but I believe Phipps uses a nonstandard meaning of
"Galilean invariant"; I use the usual meaning). Moreover, if the
observer uses arbitrarily-moving detectors, then the measurements are
not projected onto the observer's (local) inertial frame. This is not
wrong, but is different from the usual treatment of the theory, in which
the observer does use detectors at rest in her inertial frame, and thus
does project the field quantities onto that frame. This is a GREAT
simplification: physics becomes much simpler in a (local) inertial
frame. By abandoning that simplification, Phipps became confused....

Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote (possibly quoting Phipps):

Clocks do not define time no matter how many times Einstein said the
contrary thing.

This merely depends on how one chooses to use words (specifically
"time"). But this DOES NOT MATTER, because clocks most definitely do
represent the time coordinate used by real experimenters.

nade wrote (to Juan R. González-Álvarez):

Say, are you a normal or a crackpot?

He often acts like a crackpot (name shifting, posting articles that are
pure insults, ignoring well-known mainstream results, using dense spews
of undefined jargon in an attempt to stifle criticism...).

About the only way to distinguish knowledgeable people from crackpots is
that the former often recommend textbooks,

in stead of posting brain, is proof on
stoopidity

but the latter never do. For
general knowledge of SR I recommend: Taylor and Wheeler,
_Spacetime_Physics_. For a discussion of the invariance of Maxwell's
equations: Jackson, _Classical_Electrodynamics_, and also the Feynman
_Lectures_ Vol 2.

Tom Roberts

you post so many book titles

what abot postin brain?

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...
|
| "Androcles"
|
| About the only way to distinguish knowledgeable people from lying
| crackpots such as Roberts is that the former often recommend the
| original paper,
| http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
|
| In this oryginal paper (1905) is: "Examples of this sort, together with
the
| unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to
the
| ``light medium,'' ..."

Did you check what the example actually is?
It is:
"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a
conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet", so you are supposed to know what
relative motion is BEFORE Einstein calls it the "principle and relativity"
and
pompously rants about it being "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics
will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of
mechanics
hold good" as the cretin Roberts believes.

What the idiot Roberts completely misses is Einstein's third postulate: the
``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it
requires
to travel from B to A, which is FALSE.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mart/Smart.htm

Roberts has never read the original paper which is why the prat recommends
the kiddy book, "Spacetime physics". Knowledgable he is NOT.


| I another is: " in 1925 Michelson and Gale " did indeed detect the
rotation
| of the earth".
| What knowledgeable people are thinking about it.
| S*

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