ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES


By A. Einstein, June 30, 1905; & by AAF, June 4, 2009






Einstein: It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena.




AAF: Those asymmetries of Maxwell's electrodynamics are the immediate results of the assumed independence of the velocity of light of the velocity of the emitting source. And since this proposed theory of yours keeps the same erroneous assumption, it's and it shall remain condemned to the same fate as that of Maxwell's electrodynamics, during your time, and during my time, and during the time of Michel Nostradamus's Horrible Beast!




Einstein: Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion.




AAF: The cause is the same, but the results are different in these two cases. The sharp distinction, therefore, is justified.




Einstein: For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated.




AAF: That is true! Nobody dares to assert that the motor and the dynamo are the one and the same thing; right Albert?

Bingo! You win.

Well, thank you Bob!

I meant 'during the time of Michel Nostradamus' Horrible Beast':
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080908021231AAT8Yii

Yes, it's a win, Bob!

And best of all, Cincirob is too preoccupied with his second Knee Replacement to defend his most sacred book; i.e. OEMB as he used to call it:

Einstein: For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated.




AAF: That is true! Nobody dares to assert that the motor and the dynamo are the one and the same thing; right Albert?




Einstein: But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet.




AAF: And that is because electric fields needs electric charges to arise.




Einstein: In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.




AAF: And that is because free negative charges (e.g. electrons) make some sort of electric currents inside the conductor; correct?

Einstein: But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet.




AAF: And that is because electric fields needs electric charges to arise.



Einstein: In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.



AAF: And that is because free negative charges (e.g. electrons) make some sort of electric currents inside the conductor; correct?



Einstein: Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.



AAF: Allow me, Albert, to set you straight as I always do with Cincirob! Those examples of applied electrodynamics that you mentioned earlier are quite different from the Michelson-Morley experiment that you're alluding to. This last one is strictly related to kinematics of light and can make sense only within the context of kinematics of light.



Einstein: They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.



AAF: Of course, laws of applied electrodynamics and optics are valid for all frames of reference for which the equa­t­ions of mechanics hold good; what else do you expect? The trouble comes up only when the rules of kinematics are mixed up with 'em; what is your solution; Albert?

Thanks, AAF. This is obvious, as are the logical contradictions that Cincirob brushes aside with the statement that a "relativist" would not "make susch a statement.

AAF: Thank you a lot, Jose, for exposing this big 'INTERNATIONAL QUACK' of physics!





Einstein: Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the "light medium", suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.




AAF: Allow me, Albert, to set you straight as I always do with Cincirob! Those examples of applied electrodynamics that you mentioned earlier are quite different from the Michelson-Morley experiment that you're alluding to. This last one is strictly related to kinematics of light and can make sense only within the context of kinematics of light.




Einstein: They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.




AAF: Of course, laws of applied electrodynamics and optics are valid for all frames of reference for which the equa­t­ions of mechanics hold good; what else do you expect? The trouble comes up only when the rules of kinematics are mixed up with 'em; what is the solution?




Einstein: We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.



AAF: Look, 'Genius'! You're mixing up and confusing electrodynamics with kinematics. No correct solution will ever come out of this confused scheme of yours. The Principle of Relativity belongs to kinematics and applies only to kinematics. The speed of light, on the other hand, belongs to electrodynamics; and you have no justification whatsoever for fixing its value once and for all by such a brute-force assumption of your own making. Am I right?

AAF: Look, 'Genius'! You're mixing up and confusing electrodynamics with kinematics. No correct solution will ever come out of this confused scheme of yours.
*****
This would be the seed of a big, seems not accidental confusion whatsoever. In fact, roots are even deeper, that is, we seems yet don't have a highly plausible physical model of light/G/EM phenomena.


AAF: The Principle of Relativity belongs to kinematics and applies only to kinematics. The speed of light, on the other hand, belongs to electrodynamics; and you have no justification whatsoever for fixing its value once and for all by such a brute-force assumption of your own making. Am I right?
*****
On this yes, you are.. QUITE RIGHT. c is not kinematic (even EM) constant as such, therefore SR is physically pretty meaningless (except might be in a very limited purely dynamic domain where mass is not Newtonian invariant). In other words, one can "construct" as many different kinematic speed-signaling TRs as s/he wants but that doesn't mean anything crucial to our basic notions about length, time, mass etc.

God bless...

AAF: Look, 'Genius'! You're mixing up and confusing electrodynamics with kinematics. No correct solution will ever come out of this confused scheme of yours.




Rebis: This would be the seed of a big, seems not accidental confusion whatsoever. In fact, roots are even deeper, that is, we seems yet don't have a highly plausible physical model of light/G/EM phenomena.




AAF: That is right, Rebis! Moreover, the Principle of Relativity belongs to kinematics and applies only to kinematics. The speed of light, on the other hand, belongs to electrodynamics; and Einstein has no justification whatsoever for fixing its value once and for all by such a brute-force assumption of his own making. Am I right?



Rebis: On this yes, you are.. QUITE RIGHT. c is not kinematic (even EM) constant as such, therefore SR is physically pretty meaningless (except might be in a very limited purely dynamic domain where mass is not Newtonian invariant). In other words, one can "construct" as many different kinematic speed-signaling TRs as s/he wants but that doesn't mean anything crucial to our basic notions about length, time, mass etc. God bless...




AAF: I totally I agree. In spite of all the official hype & propaganda, those theories of Einstein amount to virtually nothing; and if they're dismantled and discarded as expected one day, physics will virtually lose absolutely nothing.

Mugs up! I'll drink to that, too.

MUGS UP!

Re: AAf, gravity June 27 2009, 4:03 PM

"Anon: You are right, Bob. That's what I explained in a previous post: it is a balance between gravitational forces and the centrifugal force that defines the L points. When I said "nearly zero", I wanted to say that this balance (grav.+centif.) is zero in one point and close to zero in th vicinity. Because of that, a body can be at rest in a L point. In this case, this body will experience "nearly no" internal stresses. "Nearly" of course because the finite extend of this body will imply some stress anyway. By the way, this stress, near a equilibrium point does not vary as the size, but it varies as size². Finally note that only two of the L points are stable: those that are not aligned with on the sun-earth axis. If you look at the lines of force near the instable points you will see they look like hyperbolas while they look like ellipses near the stable points. The unstable points are sometimes called X points and the others O points. The perturbation of orbits near X points is one of my favorite topics.

AAF: Your grasp of this subject is quite good, Anon; I wish you had done the same with Relativity! But let me emphasize one important point, in this regard. The balance between the gravitational force and the centrifugal force is a general characteristic of all closed orbits, not just Lagrange's Points: Orbits

Bob S: You really are a Ditz Anon., you think "nearly no" is a better description of the gravitational forces at L1 than "balanced"? And, "What truly is all this fuss about?". I told you you had no idea of the subject at hand. Two Ditzy remarks in the same paragraph makes you a Double Ditz (DD). I'd sell you a clue DD but I doubt you'd know what to do with it! Ha...ha...hahahahaha! OH GOD!... with you around DD, I need a pee bucket by my computer. (note to God) "OH GOD" was an expression, not a request. I Gotta be careful what I pray for. Oh! what the heck, I'll give you two clues for free, "The given referenchttp://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMM17XJD1E_index_0.html is not bad, but it is not a good basis for a discussion, it is only a basis for popular science." "esa" (from the link) stands for the (European Space Agency)! And it is your Goombah, AAF, that posted a link to "esa" in the first place so he felt is was a reliable source.

Anon: Very sorry to downgrade this forum even further with such badly written posts.

Bob S: Your posts are not "badly written", they are broken English. I have little doubt that you have as much trouble understanding me as I do you.

Anon: Really debating like that is just killing the time. Even in his bathroom a space engineer would not take it seriously. Near an L point, a spacecraft experiences "nearly no" gravitational force. What truly is all this fuss about?

AAF: 'Goombah Bono'; go easy on Anon! His writing is very typical of science writing in general. That is how most manuscripts look like when first received by Physical Review. And that is the main reason why scientific journals employ copy editors in the first place: One more reason why the world needs copyeditors"

Go easy on HIM! I go to great lengths you understand both him and you.......SO YOU TELL ME AAF!!! HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU TAKE TO UNDERSTAND ME?

AAF: 'Goombah Bono'; go easy on Anon! His writing is very typical of science writing in general. That is how most manuscripts look like when received by Physical Review. And that is the main reason why scientific journals employ copy editors in the first place: One more reason why the world needs copyeditors




Bob S: Go easy on HIM! I go to great lengths you understand both him and you.......SO YOU TELL ME AAF!!! HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU TAKE TO UNDERSTAND ME?




AAF: I know you very well, Bob. I don't need to take any time to understand you!

Re: AAF, ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES June 29 2009, 12:20 AM

AAF: "I know you very well, Bob. I don't need to take any time to understand you!"

Then we can at least agree that we know each other, but I took the time to understand you.

Try and understand this, the gravitational attraction at the L1 zone between the Sun Earth/Moon is not zero (as in not ever zero).

A standing wave is introduced to a resonant cavity. Another standing wave of exactly the same frequency is introduce to the cavity, exactly 180 degrees out of phase with the first. Is there nothing happening within the cavity? If not, where has the energy within the waves deposited itself?

"A standing wave is introduced to a resonant cavity. Another standing wave of exactly the same frequency is introduce to the cavity, exactly 180 degrees out of phase with the first. Is there nothing happening within the cavity? If not, where has the energy within the waves deposited itself? "

Any RF engineer can answer that.
But an RF engineer would also formulate the question much better.

How can you, Jr, introduce a standing wave in a cavity?
Did you mean "excite" instead of "introduce"?
And would you imply it is instantly excited or would it need time to be fully excited?
And if it needs time, can you still assume it is a standing wave?

You can try to answer these question without maths, in your own words, if you want.
But any physicist know what I mean above, and knows this is best explained and answered with maths.

If I was, I would claim: "standing waves do not exist".
I would really have fun with such a claim.

Alright, forget the cavity and standing waves. What happens if two transmitters are transmitting the same frequency into the same vicinity at the same power, exactly out of phase?

What do you mean by "vicinity" and "by exactly out of phase"?

A drawing of the system could give more sense to the question.
You may find the answer by yourself as soon as you formulate the question correctly.

Just for you, unimaginative cinci/anonymous:

vi·cin·i·ty: A nearby, surrounding, or adjoining region; a neighborhood. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vicinity)

Out of Phase:(physics) Having waveforms that are of the same frequency but do not pass through corresponding values at the same instant. http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=Out+of+phase&gwp=13)

Exactly out of phase: 180 degrees out of phase. What other meaning could there be, considering the context?

I was asking this question just to avoid hurting you.
I could have simply answered that you are stupid as usual.

Imagine (!) that you are using two microwave source at 150GHz or 2mm wavelength.
Imagine (!) now that you want to combine the radiation from these two source, in 180° phase opposition, within a "vicinity" the size of a water bucket.
Can you imagine (!) how to do that, practically?
Once you tell me how you do that, then I could tell you what happens.

Or maybe I can consider you are really stupid and just not ask you questions anymore?

In this case, I will assume: the "vicinity" can be as large as the entire universe.
Then phase opposition is simply impossible unless the two sources are the same unique source.
Conclusion: as their excitations must be in phase opposition, the excitation should actually be zero.

Further reading: the reciprocity theorem.
Each of the "opposite" waves can be used to reconstruct its source fields outside of the so-called "vicinity".
It is quite obvious that these two reconstructed fields will be exactly out of phase everywhere. Therefore, it is zero.
(mathematical proof in any textbook)

Performing Jr experiment in a "substantial vicinity" is really easy: just apply no field at all.

So, where is all the input energy? It can't just disappear.


Cinci: "Or maybe I can consider you are really stupid and just not ask you questions anymore?"

Jose: You couldn't resist.

"So, where is all the input energy? It can't just disappear. "

Which energy?
If you decide to go forward 1 meter and backward 1 meter -all at the same time-,
there are two solutions:

- you are clever and you just do nothing, no energy released and no energy lost

- you are stupid and you struggle till exhaustion, no energy released except for your heat and sweat losses

I you can't understand that, even in simple words, then I can't do anything for you.
I already tried to remove any subtility, like discussing about a cow no knowing if it is real or in polyurethane.

You couldn't resist. P.S. I don't want you to do anything for me, you'd mess it up.

AAF: Allow me, Albert, to set you straight as I always do with Cincirob! Those examples of applied electrodynamics that you mentioned earlier are quite different from the Michelson-Morley experiment that you're alluding to. This last one is strictly related to kinematics of light and can make sense only within the context of kinematics of light.




Einstein: They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.



AAF: Of course, laws of applied electrodynamics and optics are valid for all frames of reference for which the equa­t­ions of mechanics hold good; what else do you expect? The trouble comes up only when the rules of kinematics are mixed up with 'em; what is the solution?



Einstein: We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.




AAF: Look, Einstein! You're mixing up and confusing electrodynamics with kinematics. No correct solution will ever come out of this confused scheme of yours. The Principle of Relativity belongs to kinematics and applies only to kinematics. The speed of light, on the other hand, belongs to electrodynamics; and you have no justification whatsoever for fixing its value once and for all by such a brute-force assumption. Am I right?




Einstein: These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies.



AAF: Read my lips: These two postulates of yours suffice for neither a simple nor a consistent theory of any sort.

Bob S: You are right AAF, it was Cinci's choice to leave and it should be his choice to return, however, I (speaking for myself) have no interest in his conservations, or spirit, on other strings. And evidently Isreal Sadovnik, the author of this string, is not to interested either. So, why not start another string in tribute to Cincirob! that way, those who are interested in Cincirob's current antics can be kept abreast of what he is saying while those in other strings can try and stay on point with the subject at hand...right AAF? If he should choose to return there is one difficulty he will have to overcome, which is his final statement from "Let us ponder Hapless Hal!", on April 18, 2009 @ 10:39 AM "I'm out of here. In the future anything you see posted here under the name cincirob is not the real cincirob."





AAF: That was the promise he made in his post; but he rarely kept his word! As a matter of fact, he did make one or two comments thereafter without filling the first field with his dandy alias. Anyway, it would be a mistake, if you or anybody else thought for a moment that I'm looking forwards for his next coming. I'm not. I've won over him fair and square; and his running away like a bunny is the PROOF.

I find the conversation with a dead guy a little creepy. But the reliance on cincirob's historical conversations is just plain weird. I would like to know more 'ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES'.

This is a science forum?

a

Aaron;

Cinci is still alive...sort of...

Anon: I find the conversation with a dead guy a little creepy. But the reliance on cincirob's historical conversations is just plain weird. I would like to know more 'ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES'. This is a science forum?



AAF: Then, Aaron, you haven't read Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy yet:
http://www.italianstudies.org/comedy/index.htm
Do you count how many dead people did Dante meet and have the conversation with?

Aaron: I find the conversation with a dead guy a little creepy...
*****

As far as I can see, AAF's conversation with AE's is about IDEAS and those are, or should be, eternal by Plato at least. In fact, I find this approach as quite original and even with sort of worm and kind humility towards persona of Einstein. I even think AE would like to see it this way in his lifetime.

Moreover, I am almost sure, paradoxically opposing many from the current "academia", even AE would now agree on the basic insight that mixing kinematic Galilean relativity with EM phenomena was one of the greatest blunders throughout entire history of "physics".

The same conclusion goes for mixing "gravity", via equivlance principle, with "metric". Entire AE legacy, in the end, seems expire into space surrounding of the aethereal waves.


God bless...

Rebis,

Yeah, AAF does put a nice persona to AE. It does work. And it does convey concepts in an interesting way. Albeit creepy.

In my post should have removed the first sentence and focused of the need for continued conversations with Cinci. Which is what I was really wanting to convey.

I won't read the divine comedy. I don't find the divine to be very comic. I find mans' response to divinity to be very tragic. I am more of an Odysseus kind of guy.

As for talking with dead people, since it works. Speak on AE, tell me of the Electrodynamic of Moving Bodies. Maybe this will turn into geek or Greek theater.

Aaron

Aaron: I won't read the divine comedy. I don't find the divine to be very comic.
*****

Surprisingly, if you read it you would find Dante was quite near a deep heresy. And near many esoteric mathematical sources as well. "Divine", you know, has no limits. That's man invention. And very often it's nothing but comic.

And as for Odysius, in all his seeking and searching Penelope was an ultimate goal which turns us back to Dante and many such pairs from different cultures. In question is eternal Sophia, the soul of both the seek and the seeker.


God bless...

You have convinced me to read The Divine Comedy. It is quite long. But I will give it an honest attempt.

a

Hi Rebis:


My favorite Canto of the Divine Comedy is by far:
Inferno -- Canto XXVIII, where I used to replace 'Mohammed' with 'Einstein' and 'Ali' with 'Cincirob'
in order to maximize my enjoyment of the Inferno Show!

Einstein: We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.




AAF: Look, Albert! You're mixing up and confusing electrodynamics with kinematics. No correct solution will ever come out of this confused scheme of yours. The Principle of Relativity belongs to kinematics and applies only to kinematics. The speed of light, on the other hand, belongs to electrodynamics; and you have no justification whatsoever for fixing its value once and for all by such a brute-force assumption. Am I right?




Einstein: These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies.




AAF: Read my lips: These two postulates of yours suffice for neither a simple nor a consistent theory of any sort.




Einstein: The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an "absolutely stationary space" provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.




AAF: You can get rid of "luminiferous ether", if and only if light is composed of particles. Otherwise, it would be needed and required at all times, by necessity, as a medium for light waves to wave into.

DONE...

I was thinking about this after reading the English translation.

----------------
Einstein: We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

----------------
Einstein might be refering to two types of relativity, aetheric relativity and "spatial" (Newtonian) relativity. Most Einstein supporters confuse the two, as well as creating a lot more confusion. They assume space and aether are the same thing and then deny the aether exists.

In Lorentz's theory the aether isn't at absolute rest.
Seehttp://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3011

This guy wrote an interesting book about Einstein's aether theory.
Einstein and the Ether (Paperback)
by Ludwik Kostro (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Ether-Ludwik-Kostro/dp/0968368948/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241647098&sr=8-1

As usual cincirob doesn't understand it.

A lot of the early aether theory is explained here
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/24/2063601/physics/McCormmach-Lorentz-1970.PDF

I read something years ago, but can't remember the reference, that claimed that Einstein did NOT say the aether does not exist in his 1905 article (The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies). He just said it was superfluous. It appears that Einstein was just trying to take the velocity relative to the aether out of the math involved in the laws of motion he was trying to develop. Einstein also said something about in a sense space has an aether when when refering the general theory of relativity.

Also note on page 127 of this article
http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20006186_119.pdf
where it says:

And in his little book on relativity Lodge quoted Einstein to support his claim: "Eddington told me he had asked Einstein in Berlin recently (about the existence of the ether), who said, 'No, I have no objection to the ether.' That is all right, I agree, but that ignoration does not abolish it."^70

Reference 70 is (see page 142 of Raman's article)
Oliver Lodge, Relativity: A very Elementary Expostion, Mathuen & Co. Lond on (1936 3rd. ed), pp. 19-20.

I found what appears to be a 1926 edition of Lodge's book on Google books.

Look at Franco Selleri's review of Kostro's book here

http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Ether-Ludwik-Kostro/product-reviews/0968368948/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

"1. It is a major cultural shock for practically all physicists and philosophers to learn that Albert Einstein himself was favourable to the existence of a relativistic ether during the last forty years of his life. I experienced this shock myself when Ludwik Kostro first told me about his book and I read his preliminary papers on this subject. Now I witness everyone else's surprise when I lecture on relativistic physics and cite these new historical findings about Einstein's acceptance of the ether."

>>...the existence of a relativistic ether...

Relativistic ether!? No such thing. Physical DYNAMIC Space, that is "something" totally different...

And throughout entire above mentioned literature what appears as obvious?
Pure confusion in heads of "scientists", not to mention AE himself.


God bless...

AAF: I agree with Rebis. Einstein's Aether is an aether in name only!




Bill G.: Look at Franco Selleri's review of Kostro's book here http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Ether-Ludwik-Kostro/product-reviews/0968368948/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 "1. It is a major cultural shock for practically all physicists and philosophers to learn that Albert Einstein himself was favourable to the existence of a relativistic ether during the last forty years of his life. I experienced this shock myself when Ludwik Kostro first told me about his book and I read his preliminary papers on this subject. Now I witness everyone else's surprise when I lecture on relativistic physics and cite these new historical findings about Einstein's acceptance of the ether."




AAF: It would have been a shock, if the definition of the Aether in the two cases was the same! But it wasn't. On the surface, Einstein appears to restore the Aether. In reality, his new Aether is radically different from the luminiferous Aether hypothesized by Maxwell and others: "Einstein's works refering to the new ether are of a purely interpretative nature,and therefore they do not contain any mathematical formulae except the symbol g^mn of the metrical tensor and the basic square formulae, which define the space-time metrics of his theories. Moreover, his papers on ether lack any novel mathematical ideas which could be used to muster the formalism of the theory. They serve simply to uncover the physical meaning hidden under - or perhaps behind - the mathematical apparatus of the Special Theory of Relativity, The General Theory of Relativity, and the attempts to formulate the Unified Field Theory.":http://www.mathem.pub.ro/proc/bsgp-10/0KOSTRO.PDF

Einstein: The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an "absolutely stationary space" provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.




AAF: You can get rid of "luminiferous ether", if and only if light is composed of particles. Otherwise, it would be needed and required at all times, by necessity, as a medium for light waves to wave into.




Einstein: The theory to be developed is based--like all electrodynamics--on the kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes.




AAF: Here we go again! Electrodynamics and kinematics are very different things. All the pronounced and well known absurdities of your 'miserable' theory are due to this extremely incompatible marriage between kinematics and electrodynamics as performed and blessed by you.




Einstein: Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters.




AAF: Those difficulties at the end of the nineteenth century were nothing compared to the insurmountable difficulties brought by this inconsistent theory of yours at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Just ask Cincirob!

Einstein: The theory to be developed is based--like all electrodynamics--on the kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes.




AAF: Here we go again! Electrodynamics and kinematics are very different things. All the pronounced and well known absurdities of your 'miserable' theory are due to this extremely incompatible marriage between kinematics and electrodynamics performed and blessed by you.




Einstein: Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters.




AAF: Those difficulties at the end of the nineteenth century are nothing compared to the insurmountable difficulties brought by this inconsistent theory of yours at the beginning of the twenty-first century. You don't believe it? Just ask Cincirob!




Einstein: 1. KINEMATICAL PART: 1. Definition of Simultaneity




AAF: That is pedagogically helpful; thank you, Albert!




Einstein: Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the "stationary system"




AAF: Of course, Newtonian mechanics, here, does not mean the whole of Newtonian mechanics; and in particular, it does not include Newtonian gravitation; right? Right! Otherwise, you would not have been compelled to invent your other theory of Relativity years later.




Einstein: If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the employment of rigid standards of measurement and the methods of Euclidean geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates.




AAF: That means only the spatial co-ordinates are needed here to describe anything at rest relative to this system of co-ordinates; correct? Correct!




Einstein: If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time.




AAF: I see, motion is the mother of all troubles; any doubt? Just ask the snipers! First of all, the co-ordinate of time is a basic requirement here. And worst of all, the co-ordinate functions are arbitrary and endless and can be extremely complicated and mind boggling.

Einstein: Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters.




AAF: Those difficulties of the end of the nineteenth century are nothing compared to the insurmountable difficulties brought by this inconsistent theory of yours at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Just ask Cincirob!




Einstein: I. KINEMATICAL PART: 1. Definition of Simultaneity




AAF: That is pedagogically helpful; thank you, Albert!




Einstein: Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the stationary system




AAF: Of course, Newtonian mechanics, here, does not mean the whole of Newtonian mechanics; and in particular, it does not include Newtonian gravitation; right? Right! Otherwise, you would not have been compelled to invent your theory of Relativity years later.




Einstein: If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the employment of rigid standards of measurement and the methods of Euclidean geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates.




AAF: That means only the spatial co-ordinates are needed here to describe anything at rest relative to this system of co-ordinates; correct? Correct!





Einstein: If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time.




AAF: I see, motion is the mother of all troubles; ask the snipers! First of all, the co-ordinate of time is a basic requirement here. And worst of all, the co-ordinate functions are arbitrary and endless and can be extremely complicated and mind boggling.





Einstein: Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by time.




AAF: That is absolutely right, Einstein. But I wonder if we're too dense to understand the precise meaning of something as simple and intuitively clear as time, why would we want to study physics in the first place? We can just become hicks and loggers!

Einstein: Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the stationary system





AAF: Of course, Newtonian mechanics, here, does not mean the whole of Newtonian mechanics; and in particular, it does not include Newtonian gravitation; right? Right! Otherwise, you would not have been compelled to invent your theory of Relativity years later.





Einstein: If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the employment of rigid standards of measurement and the methods of Euclidean geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates.





AAF: That means only the spatial co-ordinates are needed here to describe anything at rest relative to this system of co-ordinates; correct? Correct!





Einstein: If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time.





AAF: I see, motion is the mother of all troubles; ask the snipers! First of all, the co-ordinate of time is a basic requirement here. And worst of all, the co-ordinate functions are arbitrary and endless and can be extremely complicated and mind boggling.





Einstein: Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by "time."




AAF: That is absolutely right, Einstein. But I wonder if we're too dense to understand the precise meaning of something as simple and intuitively clear as time, why would we want to study physics in the first place? We can become hicks and loggers!







Einstein: We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events.






AAF: Just a minute, Einstein; that is a shaky statement to make! Our time judgments involve much more besides judgments of simultaneous events. For example, they include durations, uniform running rates, constant running rates, variable running rates, changing running rates, continuous running rates, discontinuous running rates, past, present, future, past eternity, future eternity, ... etc.... etc.... etc..

AAF: I see, motion is the mother of all troubles; ask the snipers!
***************

Good one, though it is not so good to be a target of any kind, being in motion or not...


However, might be this could be of wider interest:

Stephan Gift: Separating Equivalent Space-Time Theories 408-417
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V16NO3PDF/V16N3GIF.PDF

I see you bother too much about synch. of clocks and such trivia. So following the above author, IF one assumes light is IN motion then SR is wrong by logic. Albert the Joker strongly believed, how else, the light IS in motion, even it is etalon of motion, hence his SR IS UTTERLY WRONG.

And I know much better, light IS NOT "in motion", c IS NOT x/t, ergo SR IS UTTERLY trivial, but it is so most of known "physics" as well.


Blessings

Rebis: AAF: I see, motion is the mother of all troubles; ask the snipers! Good one, though it is not so good to be a target of any kind, being in motion or not... However, might be this could be of wider interest: Stephan Gift: Separating Equivalent Space-Time Theories 408-417http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V16NO3PDF/V16N3GIF.PDF I see you bother too much about synch. of clocks and such trivia. So following the above author, IF one assumes light is IN motion then SR is wrong by logic. Albert the Joker strongly believed, how else, the light IS in motion, even it is etalon of motion, hence his SR IS UTTERLY WRONG. And I know much better, light IS NOT "in motion", c IS NOT x/t, ergo SR IS UTTERLY trivial, but it is so most of known "physics" as well.









AAF: Rebis; it might turn out that you're right and that the constant called '[c]' as used in various Relativity's and Quantum mechanics' equations has nothing to do with light or the speed of light. But even in that case, this physical thing we call 'light' must move at some speed or otherwise it can't go anywhere! As for the article entitled "Separating Equivalent Space-Time Theories" by Stephan J. G. Gift, is quite informing. This is the abstract of it: "A complete set of Equivalent Space-Time Theories based on a group of equivalent transformations has been studied by Selleri. This equivalent set of space-time theories includes Special Relativity Theory involving the Lorentz transformations and a semi-classical Absolute Space Theory based on the generalized Galilean or inertial transformations. In order to separate these theories, the light speed predictions of the complete set are compared with the relative light speed for light emanating from Io a satellite of Jupiter determined by direct calculation in the space-time framework of these theories." And this is the final conclusion: "In this paper, light speed predictions by Einsteins Special Relativity Theory, the Absolute Space Theory and all other members of the complete set of equivalent theories developed by Selleri were compared with the directly calculated light speed value for Jupiters occulting satellite Io. ... On this basis, the Absolute Space Theory with its preferred frame appears to be the best description of physical space and time."

If light is particulate, the particle cannot spin, or even vibrate, since at the relative speed of light, "time" comes to a complete stop. On top of this, the particle supposedly becomes an infinitely thin membrane.

If light is a wave, nothing moves in the "stationary" frame except the oscillation of the medium. In other words the medium does not move from place to place, only back and forth.

MM assumed that the medium did move in relation to the "stationary frame." Still, the medium can only move back and forth with the light wave energy.

Anon: If light is particulate, the particle cannot spin, or even vibrate, since at the relative speed of light, "time" comes to a complete stop. On top of this, the particle supposedly becomes an infinitely thin membrane. If light is a wave, nothing moves in the "stationary" frame except the oscillation of the medium. In other words the medium does not move from place to place, only back and forth. MM assumed that the medium did move in relation to the "stationary frame." Still, the medium can only move back and forth with the light wave energy.








AAF: The particle is the father of all spinning & vibrating; Anon! Certainly, particles can spin & vibrate. One more note, Anon: You cannot objectively impose the results obtained from some theory on an other completely different theory. Your 'time-stop' objection, therefore, does not hold water at all, except of course when Einstein's Relativity is the topic under consideration.

Come on AAF, Einstein "rode with the light wave" or something like that, when he was 12 years old. Then, his "relativity theory" claims that "time" for someone traveling at the "speed of light" relative to a "stationary observer" comes to a stop. Therefore, all the talk about the "spin" of the photon (relative to the stationary observer) is BS. How can an object "spin" if its time is stopped?

"Come on AAF, Einstein "rode with the light wave" or something like that, when he was 12 years old. Then, his "relativity theory" claims that "time" for someone traveling at the "speed of light" relative to a "stationary observer" comes to a stop. Therefore, all the talk about the "spin" of the photon (relative to the stationary observer) is BS. How can an object "spin" if its time is stopped? "

Incredibly stupid!
Just as if circularly polarized light was "BS".
Or as if circular polarozation was incompatible with the constancy of the speed of light!
Really incredibly stupid!

Yet, there are subtile points to be discussed about angular momentum and electrodynamics !
But how would it possible to discuss real physics with such pigs ?

"Incredibly stupid!"

Yes, you are. I am not denying reality, just stupid STR. You don't fathom anything in that post. You are indeed incredibly stupid!

Don't you know what circular polarisation is?
And if you know it, why would that be incompatible with the constancy of the speed of light?
And why would that be incompatible with the Lorentz transformation?

And finally why are you so much interrested by the reference frame of a photon?
Your taste for absurdity, maybe?
Reminds me of an idiot asking here this question:

"A standing wave is introduced to a resonant cavity. Another standing wave of exactly the same frequency is introduce to the cavity, exactly 180 degrees out of phase with the first. Is there nothing happening within the cavity? If not, where has the energy within the waves deposited itself? "

Today the same idiot is talking about "photon riding".

Its your god Einstein that spoke of "photon riding."

You are the IDIOT.

Einstein: If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the employment of rigid standards of measurement and the methods of Euclidean geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates.




AAF: That means only the spatial co-ordinates are needed here to describe anything at rest relative to this system of co-ordinates; correct? Correct!




Einstein: If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time.




AAF: I see, motion is the mother of all troubles; ask Bob! First of all, the co-ordinate of time is a basic requirement here. And worst of all, the co-ordinate functions are arbitrary and endless and can be extremely complicated and mind boggling.





Einstein: Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by "time."





AAF: That is absolutely right, Einstein. But I wonder if we're too dense to understand the precise meaning of something as simple and intuitively clear as time, why would we want to study physics in the first place? Instead of doing physics, we can, in that case, just do cement labor for Cement Head; can't we?





Einstein: We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events.





AAF: Just a minute, Einstein; that is a shaky statement to make! Our time judgments involve much more besides judgments of simultaneous events. For example, they include durations, uniform running rates, constant running rates, variable running rates, changing running rates, continuous running rates, discontinuous running rates, past, present, future, past eternity, future eternity, ... etc. etc. ...etc..





Einstein: If, for instance, I say, That train arrives here at 7 o'clock, I mean something like this: "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events."




AAF: Wake up, Einstein; that is only one of many uses of time! Moreover, the bit of information "7 o'clock" is next to useless, unless an (epoch, Julian date, & time zone) are explicitly specified. But let's turn this example of yours around: "The pointing of the small hand of your watch to 7 is absolutely simultaneous with 7 o'clock according to your watch"; right?

Einstein: "If you want your children to be brilliant, teach them myths. If you want them to be very billiant, teach them more myths."

Einstein: And at sixteen years of age, asked "What would it be like to ride a beam of light?"

http://www.jupiterscientific.org/science/baeparts/einstein.html

Einstein: We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events.




AAF: Just a minute, Einstein; that is a shaky statement to make! Our time judgments involve much more besides judgments of simultaneous events. For example, they include durations, uniform running rates, constant running rates, variable running rates, changing running rates, continuous running rates, discontinuous running rates, past, present, future, past eternity, future eternity, ... etc. ... etc. ...etc..





Einstein: If, for instance, I say, That train arrives here at 7 o'clock, I mean something like this: "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events."





AAF: Wake up, Einstein; that is only one of many uses of time! Moreover, the bit of information "7 o'clock" is next to useless, unless an epoch, Julian date, and time zone are explicitly specified. But let's turn this example of yours around: The pointing of the small hand of your watch to 7 is absolutely simultaneous with 7 o'clock according to your watch; right?





Einstein: It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition of "time"' by substituting "the position of the small hand of my watch" for "time." And in fact such a definition is satisfactory when we are concerned with defining a time exclusively for the place where the watch is located; but it is no longer satisfactory when we have to connect in time series of events occurring at different places, or--what comes to the same thing--to evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch.





AAF: Einstein; you're trying here to put the cart in the front of the horse! The position of the small hand of your watch would not make any sense without defining a time system first. In other words, the standards must always come before the measurements. And that is the main reason why your definition of standards of time in terms of measurements of time is unsatisfactory and outright wrong and stupid!

GPS determines "time" remote from the watch: All the satellites time stamp their messages with "Universal" time, something that Einstein didn't believe in.