On Feb 7, 2:33 pm, wrote:
[...]


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.

Default means there was no other interpretation, which is not true.


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.

Specific answers? You answers are vague and incomplete at best.


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.

Neat. What kind? I can imagine dozens of demos used for classical
mechanics, nothing specific sticks 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.

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

My view is that you are totally meaningless.

Anyone can hook desk computers together.

Sure it is easy to *hook them together*, but it's hard to make them
work. I'm very good with computer hardware, which is why I'm in a
workshop surrounded with two dozen computers and the resources to
power, cool, and network them.

Have you ever used clustering software? This **** is /ornery/.

Here's the situation. I have 25 odd systems ranging from several p3
450s to p4 2.8 ghz, with a spray of IDE and SCSI drives, with an
equally diverse size range. I'm using Fedora Core 8 on the head node
and the client images are based upon that build.

I'm using OSCAR since the built-in packages for Fedora are
insufficient in my estimation, and ROCKS is too demanding resource-
wise on both server and client nodes.

The install guide for OSCAR, which is dubious at best, says that the
system will work assuming a given install for Fedora works. Too bad
the manual is full of **** - the local RPM repository lacks packages
that OSCAR needs. Turns out the DVD Packages aren't good enough, and
that I have to create a small list of internet repositories. Oddly
enough, the packages have to be available not just installed.

This took about 2 weeks for me to figure out with the somewhat helpful
assistance of the OSCAR mailing list. Now I'm imaging systems, and in
a few days barring problems I'll have BOINC crunching einstein@home as
an idle task until someone has a use for the cluster.

Right now there is a question if the systemimager software is getting
confused about the presence of the IDE disk along with the Linux-says
SCSI optical & ZIP drives.

Still think it's easy?


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.

Nope.

The word relativistic implies either special or general relativity, or
in a more theoretical context, Lorentz invariance.


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.

If the whole world is delusional, according to you, it'd be worth
thinking about your beliefs for a minute or twenty.


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

[...]

André Michaud

On Feb 7, 2:06 pm, Timo Nieminen wrote:
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!)

Argh. TOO BUSY. Too much stuff to build and general "things to do".

I'm not _especially_ interested in QED anyway, though QFT would be
worth my time given my interest in things like the Casimir effect.

I might look at them some time when I have the time and inclination.
Thanks for the suggestions.


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 Thu, 7 Feb 2008 wrote:

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:

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 ?

It could be used to mean modern classical electrodynamics.

One could even use it to mean electrodynamics in the time between Maxwell
and the formulation of modern classical electrodynamics (e.g.,
Hertz's or Heaviside's electrodynamics).

Those are some of the things it could mean. And they're different things,
in ways that are important, central even, to the point of discussion.
People don't usually discuss Maxwell's theory when they talk about
electrodynamics. OTOH, people don't usually call modern classical
electrodynamics "Maxwell's theory" (but they call it "Maxwell's
equations" quite often). So, it wasn't obvious what you meant initially,
and thus the request for clarification.

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.

???? It doesn't matter what you did or didn't do, or even whether I like
what you did or did not do, it doesn't make "relativistic mass increase"
exponential.

(With modern definitions of mass [essentially, "mass"="proper mass"],
there is no relativistic mass increase, but I don't think that's an issue
here.)

How is this new theory "Newtonian"?

Because it involves force acting between all existing
localized particles.

OK, in this sense, Maxwell's theory is not Newtonian, being quite
anti-Newtonian in this sense, replacing Newtonian action-at-a-distance
with an intermediary medium. Is this what you meant by Maxwell's theory
not being compatible with Newtonian mechanics? (Although that's not the
same thing, as one can have non-Newtonian theories in this sense that are
compatible with Newtonian mechanics.)

Or do you mean something other than Newtonian instantaneous
action-at-a-distance? For example, there are non-Newtonian theories where
there are forces between all existing localised particles that interact
with each other. "Newtonian" in this sense is usually characterised by
instantaneous and "we don't know what causes the force but here is the
force law obeyed by the force ..." (see the Cartesian/Newtonian debate).

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.

Relativity of motion goes back to Galilei or earlier. See near the
beginning of the 2nd day of Two World Systems (e.g., pg 155 of the 1663
London Latin edition).

As I wrote, it's important to be clear as to what you mean by
"relativistic". I've now asked twice for clarification. Let me ask a third
time: exactly what do you mean by "relativistic"?

You didn't say how it is relativistic. How is your "relativistic Newtonian
mechanics" "relativistic"?

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.

???? A strange outburst. You're already resorting to ad hominen attacks?
Don't you have anything of actual substance to say?

(Although I indeed agree that Galilei didn't discover acceleration, as it
was certainly known before his time. Do you really think it wasn't?)

[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.

OK, keep it secret if you want; I'll survive without it.

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.

On Feb 6, 9:34*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/...t-this-is.html
"With the technology then available, measuring the bending of
starlight was very challenging. And contrary to popular belief,
Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected
- Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should
cause some deviation too. So the matter was not that of an all-or-
nothing shift in stars' positions, but hinged on the exact numbers."

However Budding Young Einsteins are taught in a different way:

http://pirsa.org/speaker/Lee_Smolin
Lee Smolin - ISSYP Keynote Session
Speaker(s): Lee Smolin
Abstract:
Date: 01/08/2007 - 1:00 pm

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...c-4d44d3d16fe9
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."

That is a mystery. Lee Smolin is silly but by no means cretin. All
criminal Einsteinians know that Newton's corpuscular model of light
does imply bending caused by a gravitational field, and some even
teach so. Perhaps we deal with absolute dishonesty in all such cases:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back. This was impossible, according to the
then accepted ideas of space and time. But in 1915, Einstein put
forward his revolutionary General Theory of Relativity."

Again, Stephen Hawking is silly but by no means cretin. Even Einstein
zombies now know that the Michelson-Morley experiment shows the speed
of light is variable, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of
light:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."

Translation from French: "Moreover, if one admits that light consists
of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks
earlier, the second principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-
moving train causes much more damage than one thrown from a train at
rest. Now, according to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body! If we
consider light as composed of particles that obey Newton's laws, those
particles would conform to Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is
not necessary to resort to length contration, local time and Lorentz
transformations in explaining the negative result of the Michelson-
Morley experiment. Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the
temptation to explain the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas,
simple and familiar. He introduced his second postulate, more or less
evident as one thinks in terms of waves in aether."

Pentcho Valev

"Timo Nieminen" wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0802080823420.25336-100000@localhost...
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 wrote:

[...]

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.

You surprised me with that remark. How is Heaviside electrodynamics
incompatible with special relativity?

Harald

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, harry wrote:

"Timo Nieminen" wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 wrote:

[...]

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.

You surprised me with that remark. How is Heaviside electrodynamics
incompatible with special relativity?

Stationary ether. Essentially, Heaviside's (and Hertz's) electrodynamics
only coincide with Lorentz-Larmor-Poincare-Einstein electrodynamics in the
rest frame of the ether. I don't know if he was quite as explicit as Hertz
was in his paper on the electrodynamics of moving media (moving w.r.t. the
ether, of course), but it's quite pervasive throughout his writings.

Hertz-Heaviside differs from Maxwell in being de-potentialed. Hertz had
his very nice derivation/justification of the "Maxwell" (i.e.
Hertz-Heaviside) equations, which I read was devoid of considerations of
the ether, while his moving media electrodynamics was very
ether-electrodynamics (not read the paper, just secondary sources).

Lorenz's work was very interesting - he was the first of the
non-instantaneous-action-at-a-distance electrodynamics people to openly be
an ether skeptic. I don't know of anywhere that he dealt with moving
media, but then again, that was not a simple problem.

--
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

"Timo A. Nieminen" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, harry wrote:

"Timo Nieminen" wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 wrote:

[...]

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.

You surprised me with that remark. How is Heaviside electrodynamics
incompatible with special relativity?

Stationary ether. Essentially, Heaviside's (and Hertz's) electrodynamics
only coincide with Lorentz-Larmor-Poincare-Einstein electrodynamics in the
rest frame of the ether. I don't know if he was quite as explicit as Hertz
was in his paper on the electrodynamics of moving media (moving w.r.t. the
ether, of course), but it's quite pervasive throughout his writings.

In his paper of 1888 on moving charges he obtained the same results as SRT
later. I don't know of a result by him on that topic that disagreed with
SRT.

Hertz-Heaviside differs from Maxwell in being de-potentialed. Hertz had
his very nice derivation/justification of the "Maxwell" (i.e.
Hertz-Heaviside) equations, which I read was devoid of considerations of
the ether, while his moving media electrodynamics was very
ether-electrodynamics (not read the paper, just secondary sources).

Not clear why such considerations would make "Hertz-Heaviside"
electrodynamcis incompatible with SRT...

Lorenz's work was very interesting - he was the first of the
non-instantaneous-action-at-a-distance electrodynamics people to openly be
an ether skeptic. I don't know of anywhere that he dealt with moving
media, but then again, that was not a simple problem.

I never heard about Lorentz being an ether skeptic but that is irrelevant.
He dealt with moving media in the context of M&M, and without giving it much
consideration he hinted at the relativistic version of the Fizeau effect
(around 1898 or so, can't find that paper right now).

Regards,
Harald

On 7 fév, 22:48, Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 wrote:

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:

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 ?

It could be used to mean modern classical electrodynamics.

One could even use it to mean electrodynamics in the time between Maxwell
and the formulation of modern classical electrodynamics (e.g.,
Hertz's or Heaviside's electrodynamics).

Those are some of the things it could mean. And they're different things,
in ways that are important, central even, to the point of discussion.
People don't usually discuss Maxwell's theory when they talk about
electrodynamics. OTOH, people don't usually call modern classical
electrodynamics "Maxwell's theory" (but they call it "Maxwell's
equations" quite often). So, it wasn't obvious what you meant initially,
and thus the request for clarification.

Well, I meant just what I said, Maxwell's theory on waves. No
interpretation needed.

I 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. "

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.

???? It doesn't matter what you did or didn't do,

It certainly does, since the final equation could not have been
developed if I hadn't done it.

or even whether I like what you did or did not do, it doesn't make
"relativistic mass increase" exponential.

Then explain to us how this equation can be not exponential:

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

(With modern definitions of mass [essentially, "mass"="proper mass"],
there is no relativistic mass increase, but I don't think that's an issue
here.)

Do I perceive here that you don't understand relativistic mass
increase with velocity ?

How is this new theory "Newtonian"?

Because it involves force acting between all existing
localized particles.

OK, in this sense, Maxwell's theory is not Newtonian, being quite
anti-Newtonian in this sense, replacing Newtonian action-at-a-distance
with an intermediary medium. Is this what you meant by Maxwell's theory
not being compatible with Newtonian mechanics? (Although that's not the
same thing, as one can have non-Newtonian theories in this sense that are
compatible with Newtonian mechanics.)

Or do you mean something other than Newtonian instantaneous
action-at-a-distance? For example, there are non-Newtonian theories where
there are forces between all existing localised particles that interact
with each other. "Newtonian" in this sense is usually characterised by
instantaneous and "we don't know what causes the force but here is the
force law obeyed by the force ..." (see the Cartesian/Newtonian debate).

I mean it in the sense that force is not "action at a distance" but
"permanent presence" of the interaction. No transmission involved.
Free energy moves at c, but the force inducing it is permanently
present between the 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.

Relativity of motion goes back to Galilei or earlier. See near the
beginning of the 2nd day of Two World Systems (e.g., pg 155 of the 1663
London Latin edition).

I don't see what this has got to do with relativistic mass increase
with velocity.

As I wrote, it's important to be clear as to what you mean by
"relativistic". I've now asked twice for clarification. Let me ask a third
time: exactly what do you mean by "relativistic"?

I mean relativistic mass increase with velocity.

You didn't say how it is relativistic. How is your "relativistic Newtonian
mechanics" "relativistic"?

Just clarified.

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.

???? A strange outburst. You're already resorting to ad hominen attacks?
Don't you have anything of actual substance to say?
(Although I indeed agree that Galilei didn't discover acceleration, as it
was certainly known before his time. Do you really think it wasn't?)

You are simply wrong on this one. Just as you were on the standard
equation to calculate force between two bar magnets.

[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.

OK, keep it secret if you want; I'll survive without it.

It's hardly a secret. Fully explained in the thousands of
copies of my book floating about. I also discussed most
aspects of it on sci.physics over the past 10 years.

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.

But there is _no_ relativistic mass increase in Maxwell's theory.

Maybe you missed the first paragraph of my answer. So here it is
again:

"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. "

If you disagree, why? Where is there relativistic mass increase?

Here is my second paragraph that you seem to also have missed:

"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.

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 "

Or would you say that this equation does not relate
relativistic mass increase with velocity ?

Momentum transport by waves (effectively "inertia of energy", at least
when the energy is in the form of electromagnetic fields, which is all
that Maxwell's theory will tell us about) is not mass increase.

Maxwell's theory doesn't deal with mass at all. Why is "relativistic mass
increase" an issue at all when discussing Maxwell's theory?

Ok, here are my two paragraph again. Please try to focus and
understand what I 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.

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.

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 "

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.

Why so? Maxwell states that the speed of light is c relative to the ether,
and that motion through the ether can, in principle, be measured by
measuring the anisotropic speed of light in a lab frame moving through the
ether. See the posthumous letter in Proc. R. Soc. 30, pp 108-110, 1880.

You are nitpicking again I think

Fields as defined by Maxwell are inherently relativistic. You see
this instantly as they are applied to moving particles by Lorentz.

Matter of opinion I guess. My opinion is that Maxwell is fundamentally
relativistic. Also obvious when de Broglie's theory is applied.

in the sense of being compatible with special relativity.

You bet, since Maxwell does not admit time nor space dilation.

Again, you had better explain what you mean by "relativistic". You have
claimed that:

(a) Maxwell's theory is not compatible with Newtonian mechanics.

(b) Maxwell's theory is fully relativistic.

(c) Maxwell's theory is not compatible with special relativity.

Obvious from my perspective. You can have your own opinion about it.

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.

What I asserted was that Newtonian mechanics is Galilei-relativistic,

What does Galilei-relativistic means ?


and
this was in the context of pointing out the importance of defining terms
such as "relativistic". Most people would not say that Newtonian mechanics
is "relativistic",

Then "most people" don't know much. It is in no way relativistic.
I suggest you discuss this with people that know about it.

André Michaud

even though it does conform to the (special) principle of relativity
(i.e., the theory works, and is the same, in all inertial
reference frames). I certainly did not assert that 1/2 mv^2 is
"relativistic" in the usual sense the term is used in.

Explanation as requested: 1/2 mv^2 works fine in all inertial frames in
Galilean relativity.

--
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, 22:04, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:33 pm, wrote:
[...]



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.

Default means there was no other interpretation, which is not true.

Exactly right. It isn't true.
I lean towards the other interpretation, just like de Broglie,
Einstein and Planck among others.

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.

Specific answers? You answers are vague and incomplete at best.

To you ? Yes, systematically.

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.

Neat. What kind? I can imagine dozens of demos used for classical
mechanics, nothing specific sticks out.

I'll let you do your research.

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.

Sure it is easy to *hook them together*, but it's hard to make them
work. I'm very good with computer hardware, which is why I'm in a
workshop surrounded with two dozen computers and the resources to
power, cool, and network them.

Have you ever used clustering software? This **** is /ornery/.

Here's the situation. I have 25 odd systems ranging from several p3
450s to p4 2.8 ghz, with a spray of IDE and SCSI drives, with an
equally diverse size range. I'm using Fedora Core 8 on the head node
and the client images are based upon that build.

I'm using OSCAR since the built-in packages for Fedora are
insufficient in my estimation, and ROCKS is too demanding resource-
wise on both server and client nodes.

The install guide for OSCAR, which is dubious at best, says that the
system will work assuming a given install for Fedora works. Too bad
the manual is full of **** - the local RPM repository lacks packages
that OSCAR needs. Turns out the DVD Packages aren't good enough, and
that I have to create a small list of internet repositories. Oddly
enough, the packages have to be available not just installed.

This took about 2 weeks for me to figure out with the somewhat helpful
assistance of the OSCAR mailing list. Now I'm imaging systems, and in
a few days barring problems I'll have BOINC crunching einstein@home as
an idle task until someone has a use for the cluster.

Right now there is a question if the systemimager software is getting
confused about the presence of the IDE disk along with the Linux-says
SCSI optical & ZIP drives.

Still think it's easy?

Child's play. No wonder you have so much trouble understanding
electromagnetism.

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.

Nope.

The word relativistic implies either special or general relativity, or
in a more theoretical context, Lorentz invariance.

Not in my book.

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.

If the whole world is delusional, according to you, it'd be worth
thinking about your beliefs for a minute or twenty.

The whole world is not delusional. The Copenhagen school
bunch is delusional.

André Michaud

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 wrote:
[...]

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

For a=0 that gives:

f(x)=c [sqrt(x^2)) / (- x)] = -c

What does your negative speed mean?!

[..]

As I wrote, it's important to be clear as to what you mean by
"relativistic". I've now asked twice for clarification. Let me ask a
third
time: exactly what do you mean by "relativistic"?

I mean relativistic mass increase with velocity.

OK, that's straightforward - Newtonian mechanics has been adapted to SRT in
just that way.

[..]

What does Galilei-relativistic means ?

Newtonian mechanics uses Galilean relativity between inertial frames.

and
this was in the context of pointing out the importance of defining terms
such as "relativistic". Most people would not say that Newtonian
mechanics
is "relativistic",

Then "most people" don't know much. It is in no way relativistic.

Read that again: you answered like "most people" who "don't know much". :-)

Harald