From the site posted:

"Furthermore it is clear that the asymmetry mentioned in the introduction as arising when we consider the currents produced by the relative motion of a magnet and a conductor, now disappears. Moreover, questions as to the seat of electrodynamic electromotive forces (unipolar machines) now have no point.

And so, a true physical anomaly has been caused to disappear by the introduction of an arbitrary postulateand an absurd one, at that. Thus are Maxwells equations saved. Could a magician do better?"

cinci: Einstein doesn't say the physical anomaly disappears, he says the anomaly dissapears from the Maxwell's equations when they are corrected for relativity. In other words, the corrected equations predict the anomaly.

Will somebody please tell me how to get on the "Defense of Relativity" gravy train. I've been doing it for free.
***********************

Or more pricesely: making a mountain out of a very poor understanding of elementary physics.
Simply read this extract, specially the portion in bold:

Enter Einstein

I am in some ways naive, but one does not live a large portion of ones life in New York City without developing a certain instinct for knowing when he is being swindled. A look into yet another but older textbook (under what perverse impulsion I know not), brought me nearer to the truth. For here, on page 8, just upon entering the topic of electrostatics, we are told that, before going any further, we must become familiar with the concept of inertial frames. (That was 1930, when everybody was not so familiar with this idea.) For situations arise in which an observer in one inertial frame will measure an electric field and no magnetic field, while another might measure both an electric and a magnetic field, for example. If we do not take into account inertial frames, we are warned, many problems in electrodynamics, especially those involving rotating magnets will create difficulties for us.

Just at that point I began to suspect the exact nature of the swindle. Was it possible, thatdespite all the talk of moving trains, clocks, and shrinking rodsthe anomaly being addressed in Special Relativity was actually the much more mundane case before methe asymmetry between motion of the magnet and motion of the disk? Then I remembered the title of Einsteins famous paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. Suddenly, its first paragraph made sense:

It is known that Maxwells electrodynamicsas usually understood at the present timewhen applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. . . .

Was Einstein talking about anything other than the anomaly of the sort manifested in the unipolar generator? If there were any doubt, one needed only to turn to II. Electrodynamical Part, Section 6. Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations for Empty Space. On the Nature of the Electromotive Forces Occurring in a Magnetic Field During Motion. There, in the last paragraph we read:

Furthermore it is clear that the asymmetry mentioned in the introduction as arising when we consider the currents produced by the relative motion of a magnet and a conductor, now disappears. Moreover, questions as to the seat of electrodynamic electromotive forces (unipolar machines) now have no point.

And so, a true physical anomaly has been caused to disappear by the introduction of an arbitrary postulateand an absurd one, at that. Thus are Maxwells equations saved. Could a magician do better?

There, dear reader, is the fraudor a big part of itwhich todays well-paid fraternity of professional physicists are committed to defend.4 Heed and respect these hoaxsters if you wish. You will pay, like Faust, with your soul. Science, like all creative practice, is a precious tradition of thought, which begins with a profound and religious love for ones fellow man, and most of all, for those among ones predecessors who have ventured into that fearful territory from whose bourn no traveller returns: the realm of independent, creative thought. Nothing will so quickly turn a gifted thinker into a hopeless sack of lost potential, as moral compromise.

There is the challenge for science, as we enter the new millennium.

The author might be a geometer, but certainly not a competent physicist.

First, the theory of Special Relativity does not wipe out the concepts of electric and magnetic field and their apparent assymetry.
Second, on the contrary, SR explains why this apparent assymetry is actually a consequence of the principle of relativity.
Third, this apparent assymetry, is actually included in the Maxwell's equations, so why should the Maxewll's equations "be saved" as they just represent this apparent assymetry perfectly.
Fourth, the lesson given by SR is that the electric field and magnetic field together are actually a tensor (called the Faraday tensor). Just like the x component of an electric field can become a y component by a rotation, in the same way an electric fields component can give rise to a magnetic field component in a Lorentz transformation.
Fifth, It is true that SR is a consequence of the Mawxell's equations. And it is true that the Maxwell's equations have a huge experimental support and are widely used is science and engineering.

We can now explain the incompetence of Curt from the incompetence of his readings.

You miss the longitudinal aspect of the interaction. Twist it however you want, and ignore the evidence. Drown in your religion. Pearls before swine indeed. You wish to make a mole hill out of a mountain.

I miss nothing.
Maxwell's theory just miss nothing from the step by step historical discovery of electromagnetism.
But Maxwell's (well known story) find out one piece was missing (the dD/dt term adding to j).
It was necessary to add this term to conserve electric charge (well verified need).
Doing so, he explained what light was.
Without this additional term, no light!
Without this additionl term no charge conservation!
Without this additonal term no relativity!
Maxwell did no wipe out anything, he added a crucial missing piece.
Curt, have you ever made any exercice in physics?

Cinci,

Please take into account that the Maxwell's equations are totally unchanged by special relativity. Actually SR reflects the consequences of the Maxwell's equations on the rest of physics, specially mechanics. They even remain -essentially- unchanged in general relativity.

When I was 16, I had a first look in "A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" by Maxwell. I was impressed and a little bit discouraged by the apparent difficulty, the long pages of equations and the wonderful graphics in this book.

At the university (engineering), I learned all that very much faster than I ever imagined. This is mainly because of the improvement in teaching the mathematics of this topic and the compact, more conceptual, mathematical notations.

When I left the university, I decided to enjoy physics again more freely and read about Gravitation (MTW). I was amazed by the unexpected improvement again in teaching and in compactness. The same equations from maxwell are today written as follow:

dF=0
d*F=J

and these equation make the physical meaning ever clearer than before.
These compact equations are identical to those written 135 year ago, and they stay the same in SR as well as in general relativity.

lal, thanks for the comments. I believe I should have said it this way: Maxwell's equations are good in any inertial frame. But if you want to predict the electrodynamics is a relatively moving frame you must include the effects of relativity. This was not known to Maxwell.

cinci,

But if you want to predict the electrodynamics is a relatively moving frame you must include the effects of relativity. This was not known to Maxwell.

It depends on what you call "electrodynamics". Usually "electrodynamics" means the combinations of the Maxwell's equations and the laws of mechanics applied to charged particles. In that sense, you are right.

Note however, that the Maxwell's equations remain unchanged in SR.
The choice was actually precisely this one: changing Maxwell's equations or changing the laws of mechanics? Obvioulsy the laws of mechanics understood at that time had never been tested for light or for high speeds. Therefore it is no surprise that they had to be changed and the Maxwell's theory would remain. THe same applies of course for the Newtonian relativity.

Concerning the laws of motion, they where modified very slightly in OEMB (1) so as to make them covariant with respect to the Group of Lorentz transformations. Replacing the coordinate time by the proper time was enough if the forces on the rhs is also covariant.

(1) ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A Einstein,http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Thanks.

So, you glib geniuses, what makes the iron pipe roll the opposite direction from the copper pipe laid across the rails?

(in the experiment at the top of the article)

So, you glib geniuses, what makes the iron pipe roll the opposite direction from the copper pipe laid across the rails?

(in the experiment at the top of the article)

Jose,

I won't discuss anymore any paper that contains insults.
This paper is called "Science: To Be, or Not to Be: Or, How I Discovered the Swindle of Special Relativity".
Therefore it does not qualify for discussion.

If you want to discuss "longitudinal electrodynamics", I will be happy to do so, but only on a fair basis.
To be honest, I would even be interrested since this could only improve my understanding of classical electrodynamics, specially on the historical side.

However, I will initially put the burden on the challenger side.
Therefore, you need a reasonably precise description of the experiment or the theory as well as an analysis of the results.
This analysis should try to justify fairly the use of the challenging theory as well as to justify fairly why the "mainstream" theory is supposed to fail.
Of course, you can reach that goal by using good references, without insults.

Finally, if you have a question to challenge us (like "why does something move") then also try enventually to give us your own answer first if you have a challenging theory.

Jose: So, you glib geniuses, what makes the iron pipe roll the opposite direction from the copper pipe laid across the rails?

cinci: Sorry, my expertise isn't in rolling pipes. But iron and copper have significantly different magnetic properties so it's probably tied up in that difference. You need an electrical engineer.
*********************************

So, neither of you are capable. Your expertise is in running bluffs.

If you want to discuss this topic fairly:

- start a new thread
- avoid insults and mockery
- expose your topic with precision
- explain your initial position

This thread does not deserve an answer.

>>This thread does not deserve an answer.

Because your bluff has been called and you dont have one.

Jose: So, neither of you are capable.

cinci: Do you always repeat what people tell you?
*************************

Jose: Your expertise is in running bluffs.

cinci: As a matter of fact, I can run a pretty good bluff. That's how I know when somebody else is running one....as you are now.
*********************

Re: Cincirob, Onestone: coverup artist for Maxwell March 17 2009, 9:51 AM

Jose: "Your expertise is in running bluffs."

cinci: "As a matter of fact, I can run a pretty good bluff. That's how I know when somebody else is running one....as you are now."

Don't fancy yourself to much Cinci, I called your "tell" a year ago. You are as transparent as a watch face! I too, am transparent but then I don't have to try and bluff, I have the winning hand; no need to bluff with all the aces!

I can't be sure what you're talking about because you don't state your case, but if it was a bluff, maybe the bluff is still running and you haven't figured it out.
***************************

Re: Cincirob, Onestone: coverup artist for Maxwell March 21 2009, 9:39 AM

cinci,
"I can't be sure what you're talking about because you don't state your case, but if it was a bluff, maybe the bluff is still running and you haven't figured it out."

You said, "As a matter of fact, I can run a pretty good bluff." and I said your "tell" was transparent, I called it (the "tell") a year ago; what part did you not understand?

Bob S: You said, "As a matter of fact, I can run a pretty good bluff." and I said your "tell" was transparent, I called it (the "tell") a year ago; what part did you not understand?

cinci: Without more information I can only say that, based on past experience, you were wrong a year ago and you're wrong now. I don't have to bluff about anything I post here, only you folks without any facts on your side have to bluff.
*********************

no cinci it is you wrong and bluffing

Anon, you found a statement about ether by Einstein (in the paper I found for you). Is the ether in that statement the same one that Einstein said was superfluous in his 1905 paper?
**********************************

ether means ether; what does it mean to you

Anon, you found a statement about ether by Einstein (in the paper I found for you). Is the ether in that statement the same one that Einstein said was superfluous in his 1905 paper?
**********************************

your record stuck; I asked you first

cinci, I found a statement about ether by Einstein (in the paper you did not find me). Is the ether in that statement the same one that Einstein said was superfluous in his 1905 paper?

Anon, you found a statement about ether by Einstein (in the paper I found for you). Is the ether in that statement the same one that Einstein said was superfluous in his 1905 paper?
**********************************

cinci, I found a statement about ether by Einstein (in the paper you did not find me). Is the ether in that statement the same one that Einstein said was superfluous in his 1905 paper? you are stuck you cant answer; and just trying to pass the buck

Anon, you found a statement about ether by Einstein (in the paper I found for you). Is the ether in that statement the same one that Einstein said was superfluous in his 1905 paper?
**********************************

cinci, I found a statement about ether by Einstein (which you falsely keep claiming you found, when I was aware of that paper long ago). Is the ether in that statement the same one that Einstein said was superfluous in his 1905 paper? I answered it as ether is ether. So the question is waiting on you; you are stuck you cant answer.

Anon, you found a statement about ether by Einstein (in the paper I found for you). Is the ether in that statement the same one that Einstein said was superfluous in his 1905 paper?
**********************************

cinci, I found a statement about ether by Einstein (which you falsely keep claiming you found, when I was aware of that paper long ago). Is the ether in that statement the same one that Einstein said was superfluous in his 1905 paper? I answered it as ether is ether. So the question is waiting on you; you are stuck you cant answer.

Since you two are stuck in a mobius loop, I will break the belt. Anonymous wins. Sorry, cinci, majority rules in democracy physics.

Anon, you found a statement about ether by Einstein (in the paper I found for you). Is the ether in that statement the same one that Einstein said was superfluous in his 1905 paper?
**********************************