sci.physics.relativity

On Aug 31, 1:35 pm, PD wrote:
> On Aug 31, 3:00 pm, Koobee Wublee < ...@ > wrote:

> > The solutions to the Maxwell's equations are all wavelike in nature.
>
> That's incorrect. You don't know of any static solutions to Maxwell's
> equations?

OK, I meant non-static solutions are all wavelike in nature.

> > Any waves require a medium to propagate.
>
> That's also incorrect. [...] A wave
> solution appears in any dynamical system that takes the mathematical
> form of a wave equation, whether the dynamics involves a medium or
> not.

I did not say any waves. I said waves that move.

> > The medium called the Aether
> > is what all physicists in the 19th century believed in.
>
> Not all. Many, yes. Note that there was nothing in the wave equation
> that led them to believe that. Most US-resident cat lovers are also
> Christian. One does not imply the other.

I am telling you that is how the 19th-century physicists believed in.
They believed in the Aether to allow propagation of light.

> > Invariant wavelength is what allows classical Doppler effect to be
> > derived.
>
> That's also incorrect. The wavelength is not invariant in the
> classical Doppler effect. Wherever do you get these crazy ideas?

Yes, wavelength is considered invariant in classical Doppler effect.
The invariance comes from the medium itself. A good example is the
propagation of sound. The speed and the pitch of sound can vary but
not the wavelength.

> > Instead of invariance in wavelength, Voigt was the first to propose an
> > invariance in the speed of light instead.
>
> That has nothing to do with what is required by electrodynamics, nor
> what Einstein did to formulate SR.

Michelson and all physicists back then believed in the invariance of
the wavelength of light. In 1881, He devised an experiment to measure
the speed difference as the earth moves in the stationary background
of the Aether. The null results prompted Voigt to suggest invariance
in the speed of light instead of the wavelength 6 years later. The
Voigt transform was derived based on Voigt's assumption of this
constancy in the speed of light. Noticing the Voigt transform does
not satisfy the principle of relativity, Larmor modified the Voigt
transform into the Lorentz transform to satisfy this age-old
principle. Einstein's reverse-engineering of the Lorentz transform is
plagiarism.

> And therefore you should not conclude that he backsolved from the
> Lorentz transformations to that assumption, don't you think?

No, it has nothing to do with the Lorentz transform. Back in
the 19th century, the physicists believed in the Aether where the
speed of light always travels through the Aether at a constant
relative to the stationary background of the Aether.

> > No, I did not. Maxwell's equations rely on the permittivity and the
> > permeability
>
> Yes, though those properties do not necessarily belong to a medium.

On the contrary, these properties must necessarily belong to the
property of space or the medium itself.

> The number that belongs to a medium is a *multiplier* to the
> permittivity and the permeability. Permeability is not a property that
> belongs solely to material media, and neither is permittivity.

You are wrong again. The multiplier or relative permeability or
relative permittivity is a property of a material. Please consult an
electrical engineer.

> > Einstein can insist whatever he wants in his grave.
>
> And I suppose you are free to insist over his grave that he meant what
> he did not in fact say. Safer to do it after he's dead, after all.

The forensic evidence is all in the mathematics.

> > However, the
> > physical laws that allow the derivation of Maxwell's equations
>
> What physical laws do you think "allow the derivation of Maxwell's
> equations"?

You need to consult a physics textbook on that. Among them, you can
bet on no law on the constancy of the speed of light.

> > Einstein's assumptions do not lead to Maxwell's equations.
>
> I wasn't implying that his predictions were Maxwell's equations. Do
> pay attention.

I have paid attention. You have twisted the history and physics to
make it sound like the constancy of light is a requirement for
Maxwell's equations to exist. The physicists from the latter half of
the 19th century certain do not agree with you.

> > A far better explanation is that Einstein reverse-engineered the
> > Lorentz transform.
>
> Someone determined to find something suspicious is guaranteed of
> success.

This is no Confucius saying. Thus, your statement bares no weight.


> > No, you told me your opinion on your hero and not actual history.
> >
>
> Really? What "actual history" are you referring to.

Einstein reverse-engineered the Lorentz transform to establish the two
famous postulates. He then went on shamelessly to re-derive the
Lorentz transform based on these two postulates. This is actual
history.