Those words were Feynman's.
This isn't what he said at all - or at least without citing page and reference I don't know what you're talking about. Feynman did write this,
Electric and magnetic forces are part of one physical phenomenon—the electromagnetic interactions of particles. The separation of this interaction into electric and magnetic parts depends very much on the reference frame chosen for the description. But a complete electromagnetic description is invariant; electricity and magnetism taken together are consistent with Einstein’s relativity.
Since electric and magnetic fields appear in different mixtures if we change our frame of reference, we must be careful about how we look at the fields E and B. For instance, if we think of “lines” of E or B, we must not attach too much reality to them. The lines may disappear if we try to observe them from a different coordinate system. For example, in system S′ there are electric field lines, which we do not find “moving past us with velocity v in system S.” In system S there are no electric field lines at all! Therefore it makes no sense to say something like: When I move a magnet, it takes its field with it, so the lines of B are also moved. There is no way to make sense, in general, out of the idea of “the speed of a moving field line.” The fields are our way of describing what goes on at a point in space. In particular, E and B tell us about the forces that will act on a moving particle. The question “What is the force on a charge from a moving magnetic field?” doesn’t mean anything precise. The force is given by the values of E and B at the charge, and the formula (13.1) is not to be altered if the source of E or B is moving (it is the values of E and B that will be altered by the motion). Our mathematical description deals only with the fields as a function of x, y, z, and t with respect to some inertial frame.
We will later be speaking of “a wave of electric and magnetic fields travelling through space,” as, for instance, a light wave. But that is like speaking of a wave travelling on a string. We don’t then mean that some part of the string is moving in the direction of the wave, we mean that the displacement of the string appears first at one place and later at another. Similarly, in an electromagnetic wave, the wave travels; but the magnitude of the fields change. So in the future when we—or someone else—speaks of a “moving” field, you should think of it as just a handy, short way of describing a changing field in some circumstances.
Emphasis mine. And what he's talking about there is an introduction to quantum field theory.
There is in a sense no difference tween a rotating non-inertial reference frame & an inertial reference frame, in that both are irrelevant to a magnetic field.
Apparently you also flunked Newtonian mechanics. Understanding non-inertial reference frames is DEEPLY important to understanding how magnetism works in all the situations we may encounter it. There is an analogy between the Coriolis Effect and magnetism (see links below). Of course Special Relativity and General Relativity don't make sense to you - you don't
get when the postulates of Special Relativity are applicable. By defining inertial frames, we also have to define non-inertial frames.
Why is the magnetic force similar to a Coriolis force?
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.3624.pdfCoriolis and Magnetic Forces: The Gyrocompass and Magnetic Compass as Analogues
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/21/068/21068614.pdfSkipping the stuff where you just repeat nonsense about STR being rubbish...
The aether solution to the Faraday Disc Paradox is simple (it aint an immensely complex problem). Except of course we don’t know what the aether is, & we don’t know what magnetism is (& we don’t know much about anything).
You haven't actually proposed anything about what that 'solution' is. Again, pseudoscience.
I'm glad to know you have a solution that you don't know what it is or how to explain it.
I know you're not learning anything but I hope whoever is reading this is.
The Ehrenfest Paradox is interesting. I think that it deserves to be called a paradox, but the solution is simple. A spinning disc will suffer a shrinkage of the atoms & molecules along its circumference due to relativistic length contraction, whilst its radius is not much affected. Hence the disc can suffer radial cracks (which solves the paradox)(no GTR needed)(GTR solved a problem that did not exist). However, centrifugal forces would destroy a disc before the peripheral speed got to say c/50,000.
Oh... my... God... you can't even articulate what the paradox is. Hint: the paradox arises from idealized geometry and rigid bodies. It's not just the disc that gets destroyed - it's Euclidean geometry... which leads directly to General Relativity. And in that world rotating discs are just fine but your brain gets destroyed.
I don’t know why Einsteinist's keep invoking the Lorentz transformations, when they should be invoking the Einstein transformations. The two are different in that the terms have different meanings. I suspect that in the early days Einstein was aware that using the Lorentz name added wt to Einstein's silly STR.
But if u are referring to the relativistic explanation for the magnetic field near an electric wire then i have already shown in this thread that that explanation is wrong/impossible.
Because one can start with the principle of relativity and derive the Lorentz Transformations. Again - this is part of the predictive power of relativity. From first principles, theoretical predictions led to the observation of real phenomena. Feynman made note of this,
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.htmlFor those who want to learn just enough about it so they can solve problems, that is all there is to the theory of relativity—it just changes Newton’s laws by introducing a correction factor to the mass. From the formula itself it is easy to see that this mass increase is very small in ordinary circumstances. If the velocity is even as great as that of a satellite, which goes around the earth at 5 mi/sec, then v/c=5/186,000: putting this value into the formula shows that the correction to the mass is only one part in two to three billion, which is nearly impossible to observe. Actually, the correctness of the formula has been amply confirmed by the observation of many kinds of particles, moving at speeds ranging up to practically the speed of light. However, because the effect is ordinarily so small, it seems remarkable that it was discovered theoretically before it was discovered experimentally. Empirically, at a sufficiently high velocity, the effect is very large, but it was not discovered that way. Therefore it is interesting to see how a law that involved so delicate a modification (at the time when it was first discovered) was brought to light by a combination of experiments and physical reasoning. Contributions to the discovery were made by a number of people, the final result of whose work was Einstein’s discovery.
It's the combination of theoretical prediction leading to experimental verification that makes relativity so persuasive and powerful. It is why everyone who does real physics is an "Einsteinist" as you derisively say. Because it gets results. And where engineers need it... it works, beautifully. And as a mechanism for tying together so many phenomena it is elegant in its statements but complex in its application.
Whereas whatever aether theory you're peddling has no predictive power, no explanatory power, no consistency, no observability, and thus no usage in engineering. It's not even consistent with the other crackpots you admire which is one of the interesting things about crackpots - none of them agree with each other but they are ALL certain the rest of the world is in a conspiracy against them as you said in this thread many pages ago.
Coming back to it - is there a device I can build that needs aether theory to work? Does your aetherwind affect the outcomes of any experiments? Can anyone use it to build something no one else has predicted? No modern independent experiment in our Solar System where aetherwind might be important has ever needed it.
And probably the greatest tragedy here is how much time you've wasted on it when you could've learned some vector calculus. It's quite a shame really - if anything represents the ultimate evolution of an 'aether' theory it's the formulation of curved spacetime as described by General Relativity and quantum fields as described by Quantum Electrodynamics and some physicists do take that viewpoint that the term 'aether' gets a bad rap given what it's 19th century failure grew into. (I'm personally fine burying the 'aether' term because it's less confusing. For example, even though Newtonian Optics has similarities to QED, we don't use terms like "corpuscles" to describe light... we call them photons...)
But, to you, STR, GTR and QFT is all rubbish... ah well... I guess you won't be playing nice in the sandbox.
I can save u a lot of trouble. The time anywhere on the disc is the same. The only time that exists is the present instant, & this is universal. The ticking of clocks however is affected by motion etc. But ticking is not time.
We already know you live in another universe. No need to remind us.
I'm going to try to respond less to this thread because I have actual post-graduate homework to do but I suppose I should say thank you for giving me the opportunity to sharpen my 'Einsteinian' propaganda and hopefully share some useful knowledge to the silent observers in this thread.
You can have the last word for now because I know you
must have it in order to repeat your religious devotion to an obsolete 19th century theory. Long-live phlogiston!
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
