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:

"Now let me consider the (for me) perfectly commonsensical
view that the practicalities of the measurement process
must play an unambiguously prominent role in the
theorizing process: As an example of a theory where this
was not done (with hugely signi�cant consequences), we
need look no further than classical Maxwell electrodynamics.
In this case, the formalism absolutely requires that the detectors
used by (inertial) observers to measure �eld quantities be at
rest in the observer’s frame. Thus, if we have two observers,
each in his own inertial frame, then, since their instruments
are physical objects and unable to occupy the same place
at the same time, it is absolutely impossible for these two
observers to make simultaneous measurements of the
same �eld point. In other words, certain choices made
at the theorizing level have rendered impossible a
perfectly reasonable thing—that distinct observers
can have direct knowledge of conditions occurring at a
particular place at a given time. Phipps’ answer to this
conundrum is simple: there is no reason on Earth why
the detector measuring �eld quantities should be �xed
in the (inertial) observer’s frame. After all, the source
currents which generate the �eld are not, so why should
the test particles (which comprise the detectors) be?
And since the detector need not be �xed in one observer’s
inertial frame, why should it be �xed in any inertial frame?

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. A natural candidate for this formalism already exists
in the equations of Hertz’s electromagnetic theory (the
known failure of his theory was the fault not of his equations
but of his physical interpretation) and these are easily
written down: just take Maxwell’s equations and replace all
appearances of by . This replacement introduces a convective
velocity which must be interpreted, and Phipps’ solution is
to use this convective velocity to describe the motion of the
free detector. A simple and elegant idea, don’t you think? ...
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; thus, at a stroke, solving one of the great
conundrums of 19th century physics and, in removing
the primary raison d’être of Special Relativity (SRT),
putting a huge question mark over a large chunk of 20th
century theoretical physics."

---------------

I'd like to know if the above has any merit or if they are already
dealt with or counterargued. If so. What are the counterarguments?
Thanks!

nade

"nade" wrote in message
...

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:

"Now let me consider the (for me) perfectly commonsensical
view that the practicalities of the measurement process
must play an unambiguously prominent role in the
theorizing process: As an example of a theory where this
was not done (with hugely signi?cant consequences), we
need look no further than classical Maxwell electrodynamics.
In this case, the formalism absolutely requires that the detectors
used by (inertial) observers to measure ?eld quantities be at
rest in the observer's frame. Thus, if we have two observers,
each in his own inertial frame, then, since their instruments
are physical objects and unable to occupy the same place
at the same time, it is absolutely impossible for these two
observers to make simultaneous measurements of the
same ?eld point. In other words, certain choices made
at the theorizing level have rendered impossible a
perfectly reasonable thing-that distinct observers
can have direct knowledge of conditions occurring at a
particular place at a given time. Phipps' answer to this
conundrum is simple: there is no reason on Earth why
the detector measuring ?eld quantities should be ?xed
in the (inertial) observer's frame. After all, the source
currents which generate the ?eld are not, so why should
the test particles (which comprise the detectors) be?
And since the detector need not be ?xed in one observer's
inertial frame, why should it be ?xed in any inertial frame?

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. A natural candidate for this formalism already exists
in the equations of Hertz's electromagnetic theory (the
known failure of his theory was the fault not of his equations
but of his physical interpretation) and these are easily
written down: just take Maxwell's equations and replace all
appearances of by . This replacement introduces a convective
velocity which must be interpreted, and Phipps' solution is
to use this convective velocity to describe the motion of the
free detector. A simple and elegant idea, don't you think? ...
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; thus, at a stroke, solving one of the great
conundrums of 19th century physics and, in removing
the primary raison d'être of Special Relativity (SRT),
putting a huge question mark over a large chunk of 20th
century theoretical physics."

---------------

| I'd like to know if the above has any merit or if they are already
| dealt with or counterargued. If so. What are the counterarguments?
| Thanks!

| nade

Don't you know how to judge for yourself?

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif


Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.

"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."

In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.

Troll kooks such as

Uncle Schwartzschit,
Blind Poe,
Moron McCullough,
Humpty Roberts,
Phuckwit Duck Draper,
Sad and Lonely sal Lawrence,
Tusseladd ASSistant professor Andersen,
Shrine to Spirits Nieminen,
Ghost ewill,
Goosey Gisse,
****** Olson,
Minor Crank Tom & Jeery,
Fecal Jekyll,
Bilewacky,
Dork Van de merde et. al.
fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism

between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown he
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...oSpeedRack.gif

Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.

Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.


http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.

You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif

Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton


["tj Frazir"]
If you pushed a rod 1 light year long the other end wont move for 1 year.

["CWatters"]
Suppose you apply a small displacement by compressing one end with a
hammer.
Does the shock wave still travel at the speed of light?

[Androcles]
Clearly the extrapolation (increasing rigidity yields increasing speed
of sound) indicates either there is limit to rigidity or there is a limit to
the speed of sound in a material body.
Given that a material body is made of atoms then atoms are
not rigid... but we do not expect them to be anyway, the model of
an atom is that of a nucleus surrounded by a mantle of empty
space and a shell (or shells) of electrons. By compressing the
atom we force the electrons into the nucleus, the charges cancel
and we are left with a nucleus of incompressible neutrons where
the limit to rigidity has been reached; for either the neutron is totally
rigid or the speed of sound in neutrons exceeds the speed of light.

"Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we
have settled what is to be understood by"[1] neutron stars and proven
black holes do not exist, the extrapolation has gone too far.

[1] Einstein's verbal diaorreah to impress neanderthals and gorillas.

On Mar 17, 6:54*am, "Androcles" wrote:

Don't you know how to judge for yourself?

Catch 22:
*http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
*http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif

Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which

specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.

"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."

In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.

Troll kooks such as

Uncle Schwartzschit,
Blind Poe,
Moron McCullough,
Humpty Roberts,
Phuckwit Duck Draper,
Sad and Lonely sal Lawrence,
Tusseladd ASSistant professor Andersen,
Shrine to Spirits Nieminen,
Ghost ewill,
Goosey Gisse,
****** Olson,
Minor Crank Tom & Jeery,
Fecal Jekyll,
Bilewacky,
Dork Van de merde et. al.
fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism

between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown he
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...oSpeedRack.gif

Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.

Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is *petitio principii, circularity.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.

*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

Here are some mathematical proofs:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.

You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.

Catch 22:
*http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
*http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif

Prediction:
*The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton

["tj Frazir"]
*If you pushed a rod 1 light year long the other end wont move for 1 year.

On Mar 16, 6:37Â*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:

"Now let me consider the (for me) perfectly commonsensical
view that the practicalities of the measurement process
must play an unambiguously prominent role in the
theorizing process: As an example of a theory where this
was not done (with hugely signi�cant consequences), we
need look no further than classical Maxwell electrodynamics.
In this case, the formalism absolutely requires that the detectors
used by (inertial) observers to measure �eld quantities be at
rest in the observer’s frame.

The EM force which moves a positive charge north
also moves a negative force south. So the
inertial frame he is refers to is not a consideration.

Thus, if we have two observers,
each in his own inertial frame, then, since their instruments
are physical objects and unable to occupy the same place
at the same time, it is absolutely impossible for these two
observers to make simultaneous measurements of the
same �eld point. In other words, certain choices made
at the theorizing level have rendered impossible a
perfectly reasonable thing—that distinct observers
can have direct knowledge of conditions occurring at a
particular place at a given time. Phipps’ answer to this
conundrum is simple: there is no reason on Earth why
the detector measuring �eld quantities should be �xed
in the (inertial) observer’s frame. After all, the source
currents which generate the �eld are not, so why should
the test particles (which comprise the detectors) be?
And since the detector need not be �xed in one observer’s
inertial frame, why should it be �xed in any inertial frame?

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. A natural candidate for this formalism already exists
in the equations of Hertz’s electromagnetic theory (the
known failure of his theory was the fault not of his equations
but of his physical interpretation) and these are easily
written down: just take Maxwell’s equations and replace all
appearances of by . This replacement introduces a convective
velocity which must be interpreted, and Phipps’ solution is
to use this convective velocity to describe the motion of the
free detector. A simple and elegant idea, don’t you think? ...
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; thus, at a stroke, solving one of the great
conundrums of 19th century physics and, in removing
the primary raison d’être of Special Relativity (SRT),
putting a huge question mark over a large chunk of 20th
century theoretical physics."

---------------

I'd like to know if the above has any merit or if they are already
dealt with or counterargued. If so. What are the counterarguments?
Thanks!

Why reinvent the wheel?

Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin.../lectures.html

Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell...assic_extended


Sue...


nade

"nade" wrote in message
...
On Mar 17, 6:54 am, "Androcles" wrote:

Don't you know how to judge for yourself?

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif

Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which

specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he
had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and
would
have to fly more missions.

"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."

In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.

Troll kooks such as

Uncle Schwartzschit,
Blind Poe,
Moron McCullough,
Humpty Roberts,
Phuckwit Duck Draper,
Sad and Lonely sal Lawrence,
Tusseladd ASSistant professor Andersen,
Shrine to Spirits Nieminen,
Ghost ewill,
Goosey Gisse,
****** Olson,
Minor Crank Tom & Jeery,
Fecal Jekyll,
Bilewacky,
Dork Van de merde et. al.
fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism

between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown he
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...oSpeedRack.gif

Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.

Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.

You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif

Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both
true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton

["tj Frazir"]
If you pushed a rod 1 light year long the other end wont move for 1 year.

["CWatters"]
Suppose you apply a small displacement by compressing one end with a
hammer.
Does the shock wave still travel at the speed of light?

[Androcles]
Clearly the extrapolation (increasing rigidity yields increasing speed
of sound) indicates either there is limit to rigidity or there is a limit
to
the speed of sound in a material body.
Given that a material body is made of atoms then atoms are
not rigid... but we do not expect them to be anyway, the model of
an atom is that of a nucleus surrounded by a mantle of empty
space and a shell (or shells) of electrons. By compressing the
atom we force the electrons into the nucleus, the charges cancel
and we are left with a nucleus of incompressible neutrons where
the limit to rigidity has been reached; for either the neutron is totally
rigid or the speed of sound in neutrons exceeds the speed of light.

"Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we
have settled what is to be understood by"[1] neutron stars and proven
black holes do not exist, the extrapolation has gone too far.

[1] Einstein's verbal diaorreah to impress neanderthals and gorillas.

| Hi, uhm... if special relativity is wrong. It means General Relativity
| is wrong too?

If you use GR to calculate the time on Earth vs the time on the Moon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita..._time_dilation

quote:
| While an observer on the Earth measure 1,000,000 years,
| an observer on the Moon (if we ignore the mass of the Moon)
| would measure 1000000.0006797 years.
| That is approximately 6 hours more than the observer on the Earth.
unquote. -- ASSistant professor Andersen.

It doesn't really matter much what the actual numbers are, when it's
local noon on Earth (in say London or Los Angeles or Sydney) an
observer on the moon is not going to see the day/night terminator
crossing that city; an observer on the Moon uses the Earth
as a 24 hour clock and the Moon takes exactly one year to go
around the sun just as the Earth does by definition of a year.
Travelling at 18.5 miles per second, in six hours the moon would
advance in its orbit 60*60*6 * 18.5 = 399,600 miles, more than
twice its present distance from Earth.
Hence General Relativity is wrong too. Hmmm ?



| If you believe they are both wrong. What do you
| think is the cause of gravity?

| nade

I'll answer that if you can tell me why magnets stick to my fridge door.
Hmmm?
Don't you know how to judge for yourself?

"nade"

A natural candidate for this formalism already exists
in the equations of Hertz's electromagnetic theory (the
known failure of his theory was the fault not of his equations
but of his physical interpretation)

Could You write a little (or give a link) about the Hertz's physical
interpretation.
S*

"nade"

Hi, uhm... if special relativity is wrong.

It seems that the assumptions are incorrect. Everywhere we can read that in
1925 Michelson and Gale " did indeed detect the rotation of the earth". For
me at noon and at midnight the MM and MG experiments measure without any
doubts the same. The MG result is not zero. The same is the MM. The SR is
for the case when MM gives zero. Since 1925 we know that MM must have the
same result like MG. So the SR is only a math toy or a piece to teach. It is
not wrong. It is right for the assumptions.
The only interpretation of the resuts of MM and MG is the Michelson
interpretation that aether is not solid elastic body ( how wants the lovers
of Absolute reference frame).

It means General Relativity is wrong too? If you believe they are both
wrong. What do you
think is the cause of gravity?

Here is place for many theories. But at first must be made an agreement on
the both Michelson experiments.
S*

nade wrote on Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:37:03 -0700:

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:

"Now let me consider the (for me) perfectly commonsensical view that the
practicalities of the measurement process must play an unambiguously
prominent role in the theorizing process: As an example of a theory
where this was not done (with hugely signi�cant consequences), we need
look no further than classical Maxwell electrodynamics. In this case,
the formalism absolutely requires that the detectors used by (inertial)
observers to measure �eld quantities be at rest in the observer’s frame.
Thus, if we have two observers, each in his own inertial frame, then,
since their instruments are physical objects and unable to occupy the
same place at the same time, it is absolutely impossible for these two
observers to make simultaneous measurements of the same �eld point. In
other words, certain choices made at the theorizing level have rendered
impossible a perfectly reasonable thing—that distinct observers can have
direct knowledge of conditions occurring at a particular place at a
given time. Phipps’ answer to this conundrum is simple: there is no
reason on Earth why the detector measuring �eld quantities should be
�xed in the (inertial) observer’s frame. After all, the source currents
which generate the �eld are not, so why should the test particles (which
comprise the detectors) be? And since the detector need not be �xed in
one observer’s inertial frame, why should it be �xed in any inertial
frame?

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. A natural candidate for
this formalism already exists in the equations of Hertz’s
electromagnetic theory (the known failure of his theory was the fault
not of his equations but of his physical interpretation) and these are
easily written down: just take Maxwell’s equations and replace all
appearances of by . This replacement introduces a convective velocity
which must be interpreted, and Phipps’ solution is to use this
convective velocity to describe the motion of the free detector. A
simple and elegant idea, don’t you think? ... 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; thus, at a
stroke, solving one of the great conundrums of 19th century physics and,
in removing the primary raison d’être of Special Relativity (SRT),
putting a huge question mark over a large chunk of 20th century
theoretical physics."

---------------

I'd like to know if the above has any merit or if they are already dealt
with or counterargued. If so. What are the counterarguments? Thanks!

nade

Phipps’ prose always has impressed me more than his physics.

Phipps has proposed many alternative theories to SR, everything he worked
has been either mathematically wrong or experimentally invalidated (e.g.
Phipps potential). Of course, Einstein also proposed many incorrect
theories (e.g. when developing GR).

However, Phipps recent neo-Hertzian approach is different.

This approach takes Maxwell equations and substitutes partial derivative
on time by absolute ones:

partial X / partial t --- dX/dT

This convert Lorentz 'covariant' equations into Galilean 'invariant'.

An interesting aspect of this theory is that one can recover Lorentz
invariant theory (such as Maxwell electrodynamics) *from* a Galilean
invariant theory. This is just the inverse of the common relativist claim
(dogma) Galilean equations are less general.

Personally i find many "iffs" in Phipps theory and i doubt that can be a
suitable way of research. Moreover, i did *not* read that popular book
but below i notice some chapters seem to be interesting:

1.3 The problem about Faraday’s observations: d/dt 10

Or why Maxwell equations are actually under revision.

2.3 Invariance vs. covariance: The physics of it 26
2.4 Invariance or covariance: Which is physics? 28

Geometers look for covariance. Physicists for invariance.

5.2 Neo-Hertzian force law 101

Modification of Lorentz law has been tested in several
experiments since plasmas on tokamaks to longitudinal forces on Mercury.

5.3 Evidence of the Marinov motor 108

Yes, that Marinov but his motor works...

5.4 Other electrodynamic force laws 109
5.5 Sick of field theory? … (the Weber alternative) 114

Why field theory is nto fundamental

6.6 Platonic time and simultaneity 150

6.8 Clock rate as an energy state function 155

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

7.1 Principles governing proper time 165
7.2 Collective time and relativity principles 167

8.8 Collective time in a nutshell 233



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

On Mar 17, 6:27Â*pm, "Juan R." González-Ã�lvarez
wrote:
nade wrote on Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:37:03 -0700:





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:

"Now let me consider the (for me) perfectly commonsensical view that the
practicalities of the measurement process must play an unambiguously
prominent role in the theorizing process: As an example of a theory
where this was not done (with hugely signi�cant consequences), we need
look no further than classical Maxwell electrodynamics. In this case,
the formalism absolutely requires that the detectors used by (inertial)
observers to measure �eld quantities be at rest in the observer’s frame.
Thus, if we have two observers, each in his own inertial frame, then,
since their instruments are physical objects and unable to occupy the
same place at the same time, it is absolutely impossible for these two
observers to make simultaneous measurements of the same �eld point. In
other words, certain choices made at the theorizing level have rendered
impossible a perfectly reasonable thing—that distinct observers can have
direct knowledge of conditions occurring at a particular place at a
given time. Phipps’ answer to this conundrum is simple: there is no
reason on Earth why the detector measuring �eld quantities should be
�xed in the (inertial) observer’s frame. After all, the source currents
which generate the �eld are not, so why should the test particles (which
comprise the detectors) be? And since the detector need not be �xed in
one observer’s inertial frame, why should it be �xed in any inertial
frame?

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. A natural candidate for
this formalism already exists in the equations of Hertz’s
electromagnetic theory (the known failure of his theory was the fault
not of his equations but of his physical interpretation) and these are
easily written down: just take Maxwell’s equations and replace all
appearances of by . This replacement introduces a convective velocity
which must be interpreted, and Phipps’ solution is to use this
convective velocity to describe the motion of the free detector. A
simple and elegant idea, don’t you think? ... 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; thus, at a
stroke, solving one of the great conundrums of 19th century physics and,
in removing the primary raison d’être of Special Relativity (SRT),
putting a huge question mark over a large chunk of 20th century
theoretical physics."

---------------

I'd like to know if the above has any merit or if they are already dealt
with or counterargued. If so. What are the counterarguments? Thanks!

nade

Phipps’ prose always has impressed me more than his physics.

Phipps has proposed many alternative theories to SR, everything he worked
has been either mathematically wrong or experimentally invalidated (e.g.
Phipps potential). Of course, Einstein also proposed many incorrect
theories (e.g. when developing GR).

However, Phipps recent neo-Hertzian approach is different.

This approach takes Maxwell equations and substitutes partial derivative
on time by absolute ones:

partial X / partial t --- dX/dT

This convert Lorentz 'covariant' equations into Galilean 'invariant'.

An interesting aspect of this theory is that one can recover Lorentz
invariant theory (such as Maxwell electrodynamics) *from* a Galilean
invariant theory. This is just the inverse of the common relativist claim
(dogma) Galilean equations are less general.

Personally i find many "iffs" in Phipps theory and i doubt that can be a
suitable way of research. Moreover, i did *not* read that popular book
but below i notice some chapters seem to be interesting:

1.3 The problem about Faraday’s observations: d/dt 10

Or why Maxwell equations are actually under revision.

2.3 Invariance vs. covariance: The physics of it 26
2.4 Invariance or covariance: Which is physics? 28

Geometers look for covariance. Physicists for invariance.

5.2 Neo-Hertzian force law 101

Modification of Lorentz law has been tested in several
experiments since plasmas on tokamaks to longitudinal forces on Mercury.

5.3 Evidence of the Marinov motor 108

Yes, that Marinov but his motor works...

5.4 Other electrodynamic force laws 109
5.5 Sick of field theory? … (the Weber alternative) 114

Why field theory is nto fundamental

6.6 Platonic time and simultaneity 150

6.8 Clock rate as an energy state function 155

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

7.1 Principles governing proper time 165
7.2 Collective time and relativity principles 167

8.8 Collective time in a nutshell 233

--
I applyhttp://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

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


nad

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/misce...guidelines.txt