#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Maxwell equations are invariant with respect to Lorenz transformation
The equations are
divB = 0
divE = 4πρ
rotE = - (1/c)∂B/∂t;
rotB = (4π/c)J + (1/c)∂E/∂t
They do not change under the Lorenz - Poincare transformation
X -> (X - VT) / Sqrt(1 - (V/C)^2)
T -> (T - VX) / Sqrt(1 - (V/C)^2)
Here Sqrt() means square root and C is the speed of light.
True, proven by Henry Poincare
Side Score: 8
|
 |
BWHAHAHAHAHA what??????
Side Score: 4
|
|
The remaining part of the transformation is; Ex -> Ex Ey -> (Ey + (V/C)Bz)/Sqrt(1 - (V/C)^2) Ez -> (Ez - (V/C)Bz)/Sqrt(1 - (V/C)^2) Bx -> Bx By -> (By - (V/C)Ez)/Sqrt(1 - (V/C)^2) Bz -> (Bz + (V/C)Ey)/Sqrt(1 - (V/C)^2) ρ -> (ρ - (V/C^2) Jx)/Sqrt(1- (V/C)^2) Jx -> (Jx -(V/C)ρ)/Sqrt(1 - (V/C)^2) Jy -> Jy Jz -> Jz because it involves not only time and the coordinates, but also the fields, charge density and current density. Side: True, proven by Henry Poincare
|
Intersting, so you side with Whittaker in that Poincare and Lorentz developed Relativity and not Einstein? I think one of stark differences was that Poincare was still working his equations based on an Aether in that clocks at rest showed an absolute "true" time. Personally, I think was a very important distinction from Einsteins work. Side: BWHAHAHAHAHA what??????
Poincare was the author of what we now call "Lorenz transform". In his 1905 book "On the Electrodynamics of an Electrone" he created most of what we now call Special Relativity. Every formula Einstein had in his article had already been published by Poincare, but not vice versa. Einstein claimed withour proof that he had never read Poincare's work, which is very hard to believe because Poincare had been working on his ideas on Relativity for 10 years prior to releasing his 1905 article and Einstein's name was unknown to science before 1905. Side: True, proven by Henry Poincare
I know there were a number of Mathematians and Phsycisits whose work definitely contributed, even Minkowski, but wasn't it Einstein who first put forth that the Theory of Relativity only required the invariant speed of light and the homogeneous and isotropic characteristics of the universe to be valid? Wasn't this something no one else, even Poincare, thought of? Side: True, proven by Henry Poincare
I know there were a number of Mathematians and Phsycisits whose work definitely contributed, even Minkowski It's not so much a question of contribution as of authorship. Poincare created 100% of the mathematical apparatus of that theory and he was the first to do it. wasn't it Einstein who first put forth that the Theory of Relativity only required the invariant speed of light and the homogeneous and isotropic characteristics of the universe to be valid Yes, Einstein needed a way to come to the same results using a different method, and he found it. However his 1905 article is abysmal in terms of math and gives the impression that he needed to reach an already pre-established conclusion, i.e. the Lorenz transformation. Side: True, proven by Henry Poincare
Yes, Einstein needed a way to come to the same results using a different method, and he found it. This is what I was under the assumption was something the others had not envisioned considering they were all still working with Aether theory. I also thought Poincare/Lorentz were working from Galilean principles, which Einstein thought was unnecessary. The key element being the difference between absolute and relative time. Side: True, proven by Henry Poincare
This is what I was under the assumption was something the others had not envisioned considering they were all still working with Aether theory Aether does not play any role in Poincare's 1905 article. In fact all of that mathematical apparatus is independent of the concept of either or its denial. The key element being the difference between absolute and relative time. I would also like to point out that as a physical theory, special relativity is fundamentally flawed, form the math point of view. However finding the symmetries of Maxwell equaiotns was still a remarkable achievement by Poincare. Side: True, proven by Henry Poincare
I most certainly would step down from anyone who understands physics a whole lot better than I do, but I suppose I'm not yet quite convinced. That's a good thing, right? Makes for good debate? ;) When I read articles on Poincare's Note to the Science Academy, at least the ones I've read so far, point to the fact that Poincare was almost there. Although, he still was not satisfied with Lorentz' approach to length contraction, in that he was not satisified with the fact it would lead the "absolute" motion of the Earth. All physicists, including Poincare, could see in the math there was something missing connecting everything, they just didn't figure out it was their belief in absolute time, they couldn't make that leap to relative time, it was unheard of back then. That's where I think the credit was due to Einstein, he put it all together by claiming time was relative and could dilate based on just the invariance of light. This literally put everything Poincare, Lorentz and Maxwell together. And, I completely agree with you that those guys literally laid out all of the ground work for Einstein. His contribution prior to that was on the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, which actually led him to Special Relativity. I would also like to point out that as a physical theory, special relativity is fundamentally flawed, form the math point of view I'd be very interested in seeing that, is there a link you can provide? Thanks. Side: True, proven by Henry Poincare
2
points
I most certainly would step down from anyone who understands physics a whole lot better than I do, but I suppose I'm not yet quite convinced. You are very stupid. Very, very stupid. That's where I think the credit was due to Einstein, he put it all together by claiming time was relative and could dilate based on just the invariance of light. Time dilation has nothing to do with "the invariance of light". Shut your amusingly stupid face and go find me some more mathematically impossible equations. Side: True, proven by Henry Poincare
I noticed you down voted me on my last response, so I up voted you in return. I know how much points means to you and wouldn't want to take away the bottle from the baby. Enjoy the up vote, think of it as a badge of honor in the same way I consider your banning me from your threads a badge of honor. Toodles. Side: True, proven by Henry Poincare
1
point
I noticed you down voted me on my last response, so I up voted you in return. Are you talking to me? I didn't downvote you. Your babbling isn't worth the effort of the click. I know how much points means to you No you don't. Points mean nothing to me. I just don't like it when people cheat. I've always stood against liars and cheats because -- and my apologies for this -- I'm not wholesale devoid of moral integrity. Enjoy the up vote Would you like us to name a national holiday after you? How about Stupid Day? Side: True, proven by Henry Poincare
1
point
"the invariance of light Sure, I can tell you what I understand of it. Light (and perhaps gravity waves) is invariant because unlike other phenomenae, it's velocity is based on the permeability and permittivity of space. In other words, the electric and magnetic waves that travel orthogonal to one another are limited to how fast they can travel through space, even though they can increase and decrease in frequency/energy. The fact this speed is based on those properties of space, light's velocity MUST always be measured the same, regardless of whether or not the observer measuring the speed is moving or not. And, that's why it also does not matter that the source of the light is moving or not. Light moves completely independent of the observer and it's source and is governed by the properties of space. Please do correct me if my understanding is faulty. Side: True, proven by Henry Poincare
1
point
1
point
No, but Oh, those infamous words which reveal a person is desperate to find a leveller after their three day parade of shitposting ends with them writing equations which are mathematically impossible and have no logical solution. n special relativity time dilation has everything to do with invariance of light speed. Wrong again, moron. Laughably wrong in fact. The speed of light is not "invariant" in the first place. It changes all the time. I'm sorry that you always seem so confused. Do you know what a vacuum is? Side: True, proven by Henry Poincare
writing equations which are mathematically impossible and have no logical solution. To you any equation is mathematically impossible and has no logical solution, because you know nothing about mathematics beyond first grade calcusus, and seem to be proud of that fact. Side: True, proven by Henry Poincare
1
point
To you any equation is mathematically impossible To me impossible equations are impossible, such as the ripe peach you gifted me this morning:- T = -T1 Mathematically impossible because it attributes two different values to the same variable. Fighting to maintain your pretence after the litany of stupid things you have written over the past few days is almost unequivocally indicative of a chronic mental health condition such as a personality disorder. Side: BWHAHAHAHAHA what??????
2
points
No, that's not what it does at all. T = -T1 is obviously mathematically impossible. It's an equation T + T1=0 No it isn't. That's a completely different equation. Obviously. which defines T1 as a function of T. You are literally just writing gibberish. Shut your fucking stupid mouth. Side: BWHAHAHAHAHA what??????
No it isn't. That's a completely different equation. Obviously. Wow thanks for a new item in my collection. This is a very rare example of idiocy indeed! You are literally just writing gibberish. You literally posess the math skills of an ape. If T1 = -T, then T1 = f(T), where the funciton f is defined as f(t) = -t. Waiting for your next idiotic comment now. Side: True, proven by Henry Poincare
I most certainly would step down from anyone who understands physics a whole lot better than I do, but I suppose I'm not yet quite convinced. That's a good thing, right? Makes for good debate? ;) Sure. It's more a matter of perspective than anything else. But my view is that Poincare was the creatr of special relativity. The only way you can make up your mind is if you read both his and Einstein's articles. That's where I think the credit was due to Einstein, he put it all together by claiming time was relative Poincare's article from 1905 contains formulas that directly imply that time is relative and also formulas for time dilation. He didn't stress that fact though. Also, he put forth the ideas of relativity as early as 1898 in another one of his articles I'd be very interested in seeing that, is there a link you can provide? Unfortunately the only authors I know are Russian. Also, I myself am researching this at the moment and it seems I've got some new results, but I may be wrong about their novelty. Also this is really controversial stuff and unlike my other statements, this will not be confirmed by most physicists. So I will not debate this here, at most we can agree to disagree. Side: True, proven by Henry Poincare
1
point
The only way you can make up your mind is if you read both his and Einstein's articles. Which you have evidently done, proven by your misunderstanding less than ten minutes ago that the speed of light (rather than the speed of light in a vacuum) is constant. These circle jerks you guys have are just sad. What possible benefit is there sitting here desperately pretending to each other that you have any idea what you are talking about? If you're interested in physics then why not simply enrol on a physics course and learn? It's because guys like you don't do that, do you? It's what makes you such idiots in the first place. You want to reap the rewards for things without actually putting in the effort to learn them. Side: True, proven by Henry Poincare
Which you have evidently done, proven by your misunderstanding less than ten minutes ago that the speed of light (rather than the speed of light in a vacuum) is constant. Unlike you I not only know that fact but can prove it directly using Lorenz transformation, and derive the Lorenz transformation directly form Maxwell's equations Your attempt to use an inaccuracy of speech on my part (which happens to anyone) as "proof" of anything is utterly pathetic. Side: True, proven by Henry Poincare
1
point
Unlike you That again, is your personality disorder evidencing itself. It is not my fault when you write things which are stupid and demonstrably false. Sit down, meditate, and see if you can successfully calculate the correct party to be annoyed with. Side: True, proven by Henry Poincare
That again, is your personality disorder evidencing itself. An interesting idiosynchrastic remark from a psychopath. yes you obviously have no idea what Lorenz transformation is, because accordding to what you've said previously, "ALL EQUATIONS ARE INVARIANT". You have no idea what role the Lorenz invariance of Maxwel's equations plays in special relativity and how this is connected to the invariance of light speed in vacuum. Side: True, proven by Henry Poincare
1
point
my view is that Poincare was the creatr of special relativity. The only way you can make up your mind is if you read both his and Einstein's articles. I'll try and take the time to do that and hopefull will see your point there. He didn't stress that fact though I've seen that come up as well. It's almost like it was somewhat more of a footnote lost in the explanation. I read that the Note itself was not well written, is that true? I've got some new results By all means, anytime you want to put that stuff up here, I'll be happy to read it. Unlike Burritto, I won't tear you apart and rub it in your face for several hours and call you names because you made a minor error. :) I think we can both ignore that troll and have discussions. Side: True, proven by Henry Poincare
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
