On 7 fév, 17:11, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 7, 10:51 am, wrote:
[...}

Any theory that predicts anything about light without reference
to electromagnetism and Maxwell can only be a mathematical patchwork
doomed to end up in file 13.

Where do you think the massless assumption came from?

From ignorance of the nature of electromagnetic energy.

Wrong, try again.

1) Solid research places error bars on photon mass at the 10^-17 eV
level. Consistent with zero.
2) Maxwell's equations have no mass coupling.
3) Proca's equations - Maxwell's equations for a massive photon - are
distinctly different from Maxwell's equations.



You could, in theory, solve the field equations for a electromagnetic
stress-energy tensor with a plane wave solution. Good luck solving
that.

The Copenhagen community's moto:

Why make things simple when you can make them complicated ?

You were the one bitching about me giving the simple answer. In the
optics limit, Maxwell's equations do not matter so long as waves
travel along null paths.

If you want the exact answer, yea it's gonna be complicated.
Pretending it isn't is dishonest.





Is there a particular
reason you can't open up a textbook, see the derivation, repeat the
derivation, and compare with observation?

I have and have rejected the method. I have a much better integrated
one that can even explain the stuff that GR can't deal with.

If you still don't understand how GR can make the predictions it does
and that it doesn't assume the things you don't think it does, no, you
haven't.

Work on the mundane before you attack the subtle. If your theory can't
explain prosaic effects like perihelion precession, why would it
accurately explain whatever fringe effect you are focusing on this
time?

You are so disconnected Eric that it edges on unconsciousness.

Why don't you wake up.

Why don't you prove your ability before making sweeping claims about
the physics community?

What conceit!

I have nothing to prove to you. You are meaningless.

André Michaud

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Feb 7, 4:28 am, wrote:

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.

No, it can't. Maxwell's equations are incompatible with all of quantum
theory.

I wouldn't go so far, since the Maxwell equations are the foundation of
QED (the modes that QED photons are the quantised excitations of are
solutions of the Maxwell equations, in the form of divergence-free
solutions of the vector Helmholtz equation).

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

On Feb 7, 1:23 pm, Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 7, 4:28 am, wrote:

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.

No, it can't. Maxwell's equations are incompatible with all of quantum
theory.

I wouldn't go so far, since the Maxwell equations are the foundation of
QED (the modes that QED photons are the quantised excitations of are
solutions of the Maxwell equations, in the form of divergence-free
solutions of the vector Helmholtz equation).

I'll forgive myself for not knowing QED.

Neat, though.


--
Timo Nieminen - Home page:http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints:http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits:http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

On 7 fév, 17:13, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 7, 11:13 am, wrote:



On 7 fév, 13:30, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Feb 7, 4:28 am, 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.

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.

No, it can't. Maxwell's equations are incompatible with all of quantum
theory.

As I said, you are so disconnected with reality.

Perfect Copenhagen physicist material. Carry on.

I'll gladly revise my opinion when you show a published work
supporting your assertions. You were kind enough to insist on only
published works when complaining that nobody has tested GR's
predictions with a mechanical clock - it's only fair.

How can you be so conceited as to think that I care whether or
not you revise whatever opinion you have ?

Just go your merry way blissfully believing anything you want.

But I'll settle for anything that contains the math. And by "math" I
mean ALL FOUR of Maxwell's equations.

You will have to settle with vacuum.

Like all orthodoxes, you will have to wait till your kids explain
the stuff out to you from their intro physics refs. As more than
once occurred in the past, the occidental physics community
will be the last to try and play catch up when this blows over.

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.

A hopeful set of words that doesn't have the requisite mathematics
anywhere nearby.

Not for your eyes, that's for sure.

Here is a generalized form of this equation

f(x)=c [sqrt(4ax + x^2)) / (2a - x)]

where

f(x) = velocity
a = rest energy of a massive particle (electron)
x = any energy you wish to associate to the electron.

If you set a to zero (so no massive particle is involved)
you end up with only the free energy, and velocity c

If you set x to zero (no added energy), you end up
with velocity zero for the massive particle.

This is called a "dispersion relation". Would you care to show how you
derive this?

Please don't make me laugh too loud. My ribs hurt enough already
from the excess snow shoveling I had to do lately.

As you said, you will have to wait till formal publication,
since peer pressure prevents any orthodox to even even think
of stuff not formally published.

You were the one being all butthurt about there not being an explicit
publication about mechanical clocks testing relativity,

No hurt, butt or otherwise. I was just mentioning the fact,
so students could have a chance to think about this so
obvious lack.

Will be remedied one day when the Copenhagen bunch is butted
out.

I'm just returning the favor. Irritating, isn't it?

Irritating about what ?

A would be Copenhagen physicist being narrow minded and
plugged at both ends ?

No irritation. You are what you are, simply meaningless.

This is called the classical kinetic energy equation upgraded
to relativistic status.

In other words, you are using special relativity else you are being
internally inconsistent if you mix SR and Newton.

I do not mix SR with Newton. I don't use it at all. Not required.

"relativistic" is not synonymous with SR.

SR will go the same route as GR, file 13.

André Michaud

Ok, I'll be candid. I just plucked it out of my back
pocket... or not! Maybe I just plucked it out of thin air.


Any value of x other than zero will restitute the
correct relativistic velocity of the massive particle.

From this equation you can even derive another similar
equation that allows calculating f(x) from the wavelength
only and also the gamma factor to link up with SR's equations.

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.

André Mchaud

although not with modern classical EM.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page:http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints:http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits:http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

On Feb 7, 1:29 pm, wrote:
On 7 fév, 17:13, Eric Gisse wrote:



On Feb 7, 11:13 am, wrote:

On 7 fév, 13:30, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Feb 7, 4:28 am, 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.

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.

No, it can't. Maxwell's equations are incompatible with all of quantum
theory.

As I said, you are so disconnected with reality.

Perfect Copenhagen physicist material. Carry on.

I'll gladly revise my opinion when you show a published work
supporting your assertions. You were kind enough to insist on only
published works when complaining that nobody has tested GR's
predictions with a mechanical clock - it's only fair.

How can you be so conceited as to think that I care whether or
not you revise whatever opinion you have ?

Just go your merry way blissfully believing anything you want.

But I'll settle for anything that contains the math. And by "math" I
mean ALL FOUR of Maxwell's equations.

You will have to settle with vacuum.

Like all orthodoxes, you will have to wait till your kids explain
the stuff out to you from their intro physics refs. As more than
once occurred in the past, the occidental physics community
will be the last to try and play catch up when this blows over.

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.

A hopeful set of words that doesn't have the requisite mathematics
anywhere nearby.

Not for your eyes, that's for sure.

Here is a generalized form of this equation

f(x)=c [sqrt(4ax + x^2)) / (2a - x)]

where

f(x) = velocity
a = rest energy of a massive particle (electron)
x = any energy you wish to associate to the electron.

If you set a to zero (so no massive particle is involved)
you end up with only the free energy, and velocity c

If you set x to zero (no added energy), you end up
with velocity zero for the massive particle.

This is called a "dispersion relation". Would you care to show how you
derive this?

Please don't make me laugh too loud. My ribs hurt enough already
from the excess snow shoveling I had to do lately.

As you said, you will have to wait till formal publication,
since peer pressure prevents any orthodox to even even think
of stuff not formally published.

You were the one being all butthurt about there not being an explicit
publication about mechanical clocks testing relativity,

No hurt, butt or otherwise. I was just mentioning the fact,
so students could have a chance to think about this so
obvious lack.

Will be remedied one day when the Copenhagen bunch is butted
out.

You appear to imagine science as some battlefield in which the
Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the narrow victor,
with some oth r viewpoint plotting revenge.

Whatever the future of quantum theory is, you will have no hand in it
as long as all you do is post on USENET.

Right now I'm trying to make OSCAR [oscar.openclustergroup.org]
install on some 5 year old Dell's so I can build 25 node computer
cluster. When it isn't doing simulations for students and whoever
wants to use it, it will be configured to crunch Einstein@home
workunits. What are YOU doing to advance physics, Andre?


I'm just returning the favor. Irritating, isn't it?

Irritating about what ?

A would be Copenhagen physicist being narrow minded and
plugged at both ends ?

No irritation. You are what you are, simply meaningless.

Since I'm actually doing stuff, that is debatable.


This is called the classical kinetic energy equation upgraded
to relativistic status.

In other words, you are using special relativity else you are being
internally inconsistent if you mix SR and Newton.

I do not mix SR with Newton. I don't use it at all. Not required.

"relativistic" is not synonymous with SR.

Actually, it is. It may not be with the way you use the word, but
that's inconsequential.

If you want me to understand what you mean, explain the meaning
explicitly.


SR will go the same route as GR, file 13.


[...]

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).

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".

How is this new theory "Newtonian"?

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.)

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.

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

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?

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, 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", in the sense of being
compatible with special relativity. Lorentz-Larmor-Poincare-Einstein
electrodynamics, which is, is not the same as Maxwell-Hertz-Heaviside
electrodynamics.

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Feb 7, 1:23 pm, Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 7, 4:28 am, wrote:

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.

No, it can't. Maxwell's equations are incompatible with all of quantum
theory.

I wouldn't go so far, since the Maxwell equations are the foundation of
QED (the modes that QED photons are the quantised excitations of are
solutions of the Maxwell equations, in the form of divergence-free
solutions of the vector Helmholtz equation).

I'll forgive myself for not knowing QED.

Neat, though.

QED books can be really good sources for relativistic and Lagrangian
formulations of classical electrodynamics, conservation laws via
Noether's theorem, and so on. It's the foundation for the rest, so the
good books treat it carefully and precisely, but compactly enough so that
it doesn't take up too much space. I especially like Jauch & Rohrlich,
Photons and electrons, 2nd ed, in this regard. Some nice bits in
Cohen-Tannoudji, too. (I don't mean to imply that these would be easy
reading!)

Bad QED books, OTOH, can be really bad sources, with oversimplified,
sloppy, gappy coverage.

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

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

On 7 fév, 17:38, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:29 pm, wrote:



On 7 fév, 17:13, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Feb 7, 11:13 am, wrote:

On 7 fév, 13:30, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Feb 7, 4:28 am, 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.

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.

No, it can't. Maxwell's equations are incompatible with all of quantum
theory.

As I said, you are so disconnected with reality.

Perfect Copenhagen physicist material. Carry on.

I'll gladly revise my opinion when you show a published work
supporting your assertions. You were kind enough to insist on only
published works when complaining that nobody has tested GR's
predictions with a mechanical clock - it's only fair.

How can you be so conceited as to think that I care whether or
not you revise whatever opinion you have ?

Just go your merry way blissfully believing anything you want.

But I'll settle for anything that contains the math. And by "math" I
mean ALL FOUR of Maxwell's equations.

You will have to settle with vacuum.

Like all orthodoxes, you will have to wait till your kids explain
the stuff out to you from their intro physics refs. As more than
once occurred in the past, the occidental physics community
will be the last to try and play catch up when this blows over.

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.

A hopeful set of words that doesn't have the requisite mathematics
anywhere nearby.

Not for your eyes, that's for sure.

Here is a generalized form of this equation

f(x)=c [sqrt(4ax + x^2)) / (2a - x)]

where

f(x) = velocity
a = rest energy of a massive particle (electron)
x = any energy you wish to associate to the electron.

If you set a to zero (so no massive particle is involved)
you end up with only the free energy, and velocity c

If you set x to zero (no added energy), you end up
with velocity zero for the massive particle.

This is called a "dispersion relation". Would you care to show how you
derive this?

Please don't make me laugh too loud. My ribs hurt enough already
from the excess snow shoveling I had to do lately.

As you said, you will have to wait till formal publication,
since peer pressure prevents any orthodox to even even think
of stuff not formally published.

You were the one being all butthurt about there not being an explicit
publication about mechanical clocks testing relativity,

No hurt, butt or otherwise. I was just mentioning the fact,
so students could have a chance to think about this so
obvious lack.

Will be remedied one day when the Copenhagen bunch is butted
out.

You appear to imagine science as some battlefield in which the
Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the narrow victor,
with some oth r viewpoint plotting revenge.

Not a narrow victor. A default victor that has hindered progress
at the foundation ever since.

Whatever the future of quantum theory is, you will have no
hand in it as long as all you do is post on USENET.

I don't post it on usenet except in specific answers to
inquiring minds. You and a few other compulsives are the
ones following me around continuously asking naive
questions.

Right now I'm trying to make OSCAR [oscar.openclustergroup.org]
install on some 5 year old Dell's so I can build 25 node computer
cluster. When it isn't doing simulations for students and whoever
wants to use it, it will be configured to crunch Einstein@home
workunits. What are YOU doing to advance physics, Andre?

I mainly manufacture a popular instrument meant for teaching
the rudiments of classical mecanics in institutions. Being
sold all over the world.

I'm just returning the favor. Irritating, isn't it?

Irritating about what ?

A would be Copenhagen physicist being narrow minded and
plugged at both ends ?

No irritation. You are what you are, simply meaningless.

Since I'm actually doing stuff, that is debatable.

My view is that you are totally meaningless.

Anyone can hook desk computers together.

This is called the classical kinetic energy equation upgraded
to relativistic status.

In other words, you are using special relativity else you are being
internally inconsistent if you mix SR and Newton.

I do not mix SR with Newton. I don't use it at all. Not required.

"relativistic" is not synonymous with SR.

Actually, it is.

Wrong.

It may not be with the way you use the word, but that's
inconsequential.

Keep it that way.

If you want me to understand what you mean, explain
the meaning explicitly.

If I cared what you think I would. But you are
delusional in this regard. I simply don't care what
you think.

SR will go the same route as GR, file 13.

[...]

André Michaud

a écrit :
Anyone can hook desk computers together.

I'd like to see you trying to build up a cluster with
a bunch of computers, it would be a great fun.

Not tired to be kicked in the ass Mr "Service de Recherche
Pédagogogogique" ?