Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: "Back to the Galilean Transformation and Newtonian Physics" - Moshe
 Eisenman c.2017
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 03:55:53 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <99c9d25fac30f833d77315a3081c8555@www.novabbs.com>
References: <85833f45090e93c972df5de38c6b5bb8@www.novabbs.com> <vk97qb$lh9o$1@dont-email.me> <70d1e238901aa45a934e0672413977ff@www.novabbs.com> <rnWdnfwm5ImhJPX6nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="12533"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$EIDLaD3cKpx6YqTTdqlwleXxaMaIvG6Bln2b4uinNyUsvroM3/Ya6
Bytes: 5574
Lines: 97

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 1:13:33 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 12/22/2024 04:07 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 14:32:12 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>
>>> Den 22.12.2024 04:56, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>>>> He shows that the Maxwell equations are invariant under the Galilean
>>>> transformations making the LT invalid.
>>>>
>>>> free pdf =
>>>> https://www.globalscientificjournal.com/researchpaper/Back-to-Galilean-
>>>> Transformation-and-Newtonian-Physics-Refuting-the-Theory-of-Relativity.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Abstract
>>>> This paper refutes the theory of relativity. Previous attempts by others
>>>> were based on pointing at contradictions between corollaries of the
>>>> theory of relativity and reality, often called paradoxes. The main point
>>>> of this article is to indicate and correct the error that led scientists
>>>> at the turn of the twentieth century to formulate the faulty theory of
>>>> relativity."
>>>
>>> Another quote:
>>>
>>> A.5 Speed of Propagation of Electric and Magnetic Fields
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> "In this section we will prove that the physical laws on which
>>>   Maxwell's equations are based imply that electric and magnetic
>>>   fields propagate at an infinite speed. In other words, if
>>>   the speeds of propagation of electric and magnetic fields are
>>>   finite – the following laws are inconsistent, i.e., they are
>>>   self-contradictory."
>>>
>>> The "following laws" are Maxwell's equation.
>>>
>>> So Eisenmann claims to have proved that Maxwell's equations
>>> predict that the speed of EM-radiation is infinite.
>>>
>>> Considering that Maxwell in 1865 showed that according his
>>> equations the speed of EM-radiation is a constant, and all
>>> physicists ever since know that Maxwell's equations
>>> do indeed predict that the speed of EM-radiation in vacuum
>>> is a constant, Eisenmann must be a brave person claiming
>>> otherwise after 150 years!
>>>
>>> And a bit stupid?
>> So your reading of his article is stupid and careless. He clearly states
>> that these four laws as expressed in the equations require the
>> assumption of infinite speed.
>
>
> I think that what that means is that there
> are frame-spaces and space-frames, in terms
> of the kinetic, and, kinetic linear and rotational,
> and, electrodynamic, and electrostatic and "vacuum",
> with electromagnetism in the middle, that the
> electrical field and the "matter field", as it were,
> are always superimposed, that then an acceleration
> of _matter_ or acceleration of _charge_, linearly,
> contracts in the leading and relaxes in the following,
> the frame-spaces and space-frames, that "infinite"
> only means "infinity = -1" that only means when the
> frame-spaces and space-frames make offsets, in
> dynamics, it's just the opposite the classical,
> that then in the cessation of dynamics, relaxes
> back to the classical.
>
> Then, as a mathematical model, throwing infinity
> in that way, is not a good idea, because it was
> never really there, rather only reflects that the
> space-frames and frame-spaces, all in one time now,
> have their magmas, algebras are more generally magmas,
> that it's only an "instantaneous infinity", as with
> regards to other models of the same thing like
> the enutrino physics, merely and simply flux
> the super-classical the other way from flow
> the classical.
>
> Kind of like "negative time", never really a thing,
> only making for an unsatisfied formalism of the
> variational principle, because it really is a sum-of-histories
> sum-of-potentials theory where the real, variational
> potentials _are_ the real fields, then with frame-spaces
> and space-frames about matter and charge because
> otherwise it's just another singularity.
>
> So, space-frames and frame-spaces help put together
> the ideas of local frames and global space, because
> matter and charge behave pretty much altogether oppositely,
> yet that it's all one continuum, "Space-Time".
>
>
> Otherwise this "adding more broken symmetries and singularities
> to physics" is not doing physics, it's just adding yet
> another plank to walk, when instead matter and charge
> work perfectly just fine, in foundations, which is simple,
> like simply disambiguating frame-spaces and space-frames.
Did you read the article?