Re: "Back to the Galilean Transformation and Newtonian Physics" - Moshe Eisenman c.2017

On 12/23/2024 11:49 AM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 18:34:30 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>

On 12/23/2024 07:30 AM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

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.

Tell me where your YouTube channel is again, and I'll check it out.

>
I looked through this paper, it's got the usual
idea that either E X B or D X H make for the
Faraday's and Ampere's and that either way those
being Maxwell's and which one's "real" and that
they sit contra-distinct each other yet both
represent central tendencies as it were, which
is funny when we all know electricity has the
"skin" not the "core" effect, then that the
author then makes a quite usual sort of partial
account, in partial derivatives, that neither
way is what results "complete", because it's
yet partial. Then invoking "Faraday's paradox"
doesn't much make the point except that that's
been Faraday's paradox since the 1850's or what,
you can find similar outlays in 100 year old
works at least.
>
>
Huygen's principle a.k.a. the L-principle or
that light's speed is constant, has that there
are at least two different partial accounts in
the theories of electricity, and, electromagnetism,
that are different things, and the various constants
that each have their own derivation and happen to
be close to light speed, and over/under, after
the measurements, so empirically, that's as well
a usual thing known since at least 100 years ago
or according to O.W. Richardson.
>
The author arrives at "are Maxwell's incomplete?"
and it's like "partial derivatives are partial".
>
It doesn't refute "Relativity", Einstein's Relativity
is just a degree-of-freedom.
>
>
>
>
>
You can find my podcasts at https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson ,
where the previous few episodes are about "natural infinities"
and "natural continuity" since mathematics _owes_ physics
more and better mathematics of infinity.

He has shown that the Galilean transformation works fine, so why would
anyone in their right mind use the LT?

... Because that's merely a slanted, partial view of
one of two sides about the confluence that makes
electrical flux and electrical flow, with regards to
things like the Ostrogradsky/Gauss integral, and so
it's just a backwards half-account.
It's like a time-capsule from 1845. Not that there's
anything necessarily wrong with that, only it's a
rather simplified derivation and doesn't meet all the
requirements and desiderata of all the data of all
the theory of the day.
Then, the Lorentz transform or rather as with regards
to the Lorentz invariant, is just a usual way of
looking that there are extended bodies about points.
... Because there are super-classical fluxes in
the flows in the fields by the forces, which
are really potential fields, about why there
are "infinities" and infinitesimals in physics,
because it's a super-classical continuum mechanics.
Now, these days, with General Relativity, yes
there are some notions that the Lorentzian
_is_ Galilean again, while being "Galilean-Lorentzian",
because rectilinear motion and curvilinear motion
and rotation are different, then that besides, for
electrical and electromagnetic theory, is otherwise
with regards to matter and charge and frame-spaces
and space-frames, and various reflections on Lorentzians,
or invariant theory, about symmetry, which makes conservation
law, that's actually a fuller super-classical continuity law.