The problem with structure of Electric-Field
----.
Maxwell's classical electrodynamics is determined and obeys Galilean transformations.
But the further development of Maxwell's theory led to strange facts:
1 - Maxwell's continuous field became discrete
2 - laws have become probabilistic
3 - the theory took on a dualistic form
4 - the theory became subject to Lorentz transformations
The strange facts were called "Quantum theory"
-------.
In contrast to classical electrodynamics, in quantum physics there is a gap between
the field and the particle: in one experemeht the quantum particle behaves as a corpuscular,
in other - like a wave. From a theoretical point of view, this gap seems impossible,
because these pairs complement each other and do not allow one-sided elimination
without violating the situation in the whole quantum theory.
The problem is: to explain "duality" of quantum particles, to connect two discrete parts
(wave and corpuscular), and this problem has not been solved for more than 100 years.
A simple question: does a wave create particles, or does a quantum particle create waves?
If a quantum particle creates waves, how does it create them?
-----------…

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 04/08/2023 12:48, israel sadovnik wrote:

The problem with structure of Electric-Field
----.
Maxwell's classical electrodynamics is determined and obeys Galilean transformations.

That is not the case. Maxwellian electrodynamics predicts that light
travels at a constant speed in vacuo. That is inconsistent with the
Galilean transformations.

It is this contraction between classical mechanics (Galilean-invariant)
and classical electrodynamics (Lorentz-invariant) that led to the
development of Special Relativity.

But the further development of Maxwell's theory led to strange facts:
1 - Maxwell's continuous field became discrete
2 - laws have become probabilistic
3 - the theory took on a dualistic form
4 - the theory became subject to Lorentz transformations
The strange facts were called "Quantum theory"
-------.
In contrast to classical electrodynamics, in quantum physics there is a gap between
the field and the particle: in one experemeht the quantum particle behaves as a corpuscular,
in other - like a wave. From a theoretical point of view, this gap seems impossible,
because these pairs complement each other and do not allow one-sided elimination
without violating the situation in the whole quantum theory.
The problem is: to explain "duality" of quantum particles, to connect two discrete parts
(wave and corpuscular), and this problem has not been solved for more than 100 years.
A simple question: does a wave create particles, or does a quantum particle create waves?
If a quantum particle creates waves, how does it create them?
-----------…

--
alias Ernest Major

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 10:46:02 AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:

On 04/08/2023 12:48, israel sadovnik wrote:

The problem with structure of Electric-Field
----.
Maxwell's classical electrodynamics is determined and obeys Galilean transformations.

That is not the case. Maxwellian electrodynamics predicts that light
travels at a constant speed in vacuo. That is inconsistent with the
Galilean transformations.

It is this contraction

You mean contradiction. Contraction plays a role, of course, in the theory.

between classical mechanics (Galilean-invariant)
and classical electrodynamics (Lorentz-invariant) that led to the development of Special Relativity.

I'm puzzled: why did it take so long for this development?
Didn't anyone draw the rather clear conclusions from it before Einstein? Einstein's own book on relativity is easy for anyone with a year or two
of college physics to follow, and IIRC it shows how Fitzgerald-Lorenz contraction,
time dilation, etc follow from the invariant velocity, c, of light.

But the further development of Maxwell's theory led to strange facts:
1 - Maxwell's continuous field became discrete
2 - laws have become probabilistic
3 - the theory took on a dualistic form
4 - the theory became subject to Lorentz transformations
The strange facts were called "Quantum theory"
-------.
In contrast to classical electrodynamics, in quantum physics there is a gap between
the field and the particle: in one experemeht the quantum particle behaves as a corpuscular,
in other - like a wave. From a theoretical point of view, this gap seems impossible,
because these pairs complement each other and do not allow one-sided elimination
without violating the situation in the whole quantum theory.
The problem is: to explain "duality" of quantum particles, to connect two discrete parts
(wave and corpuscular), and this problem has not been solved for more than 100 years.

I thought quantum mechanics solved it. In Hegelian terms, it supposedly is the higher synthesis
between thesis (wave theory) and antithesis (corpuscular theory). Is this incorrect?

A simple question: does a wave create particles, or does a quantum particle create waves?
If a quantum particle creates waves, how does it create them? -----------…

What I find really mind-boggling is that fields for different particles permeate all of the
universe, and with the right amount of stimulation, produce particles of the same name.

A comparatively recent case: the tremendous localized energies to produce a Higgs boson
from the ubiquitous Higgs field. It has to be ubiquitous, because without it, the masses
of all particles, including the Higgs boson, would be radically different or nonexistent.

The localized energy Is much less for the electron, but here is another puzzle: I keep reading that the "spontaneous" production of the electron is accompanied by the simultaneous creation of a positron, its antiparticle. Did the production
of the Higgs boson also produce its anti-particle? I couldn't find this information
in Wikipedia, or even the name of the anti-particle.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS as long as I am addressing you, Ernest, I urge you to participate in the balloting
for July Chez Watt. After all, it was you who gave me the courage to go ahead with the nomination I made of Daggett's prose piece, and voting has been very meager so far.
Here's some quick transportation: https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/o3ZXmH69ER0

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 17:46:02 UTC+3, Ernest Major wrote:

On 04/08/2023 12:48, israel sadovnik wrote:

The problem with structure of Electric-Field

Maxwell's classical electrodynamics is determined and obeys Galilean transformations.
---------

That is not the case. Maxwellian electrodynamics predicts that light
travels at a constant speed in vacuo. That is inconsistent with the
Galilean transformations.

It is this contraction between classical mechanics (Galilean-invariant)
and classical electrodynamics (Lorentz-invariant) that led to the development of Special Relativity.
alias Ernest Major

---------------
Maxwell’s electrodynamics predicts that light travels at a constant speed in vacuum.
That is inconsistent with the Galilean transformations.
The contradiction between classical mechanics (Galilean-invariant) and classical
electrodynamics (Lorentz-invariant) that led to the development of Special Relativity.
/ by Ernest Major/
----
You are right
Post needs correlation
Thank you

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 04/08/2023 16:40, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

That is not the case. Maxwellian electrodynamics predicts that light
travels at a constant speed in vacuo. That is inconsistent with the
Galilean transformations.

It is this contraction between classical mechanics (Galilean-invariant)
and classical electrodynamics (Lorentz-invariant) that led to the
development of Special Relativity.

I'm puzzled: why did it take so long for this development?
Didn't anyone draw the rather clear conclusions from it before Einstein? Einstein's own book on relativity is easy for anyone with a year or two
of college physics to follow, and IIRC it shows how Fitzgerald-Lorenz contraction,
time dilation, etc follow from the invariant velocity, c, of light.

I'm surprised that you're puzzled; as a working mathematician you should
have a keen understanding of the difference between creating new
theorems and understanding settled theorems. (Newton and Leibnitz are
accounted geniuses for their invention of calculus, but it taught in
high school. So, far that matter, is Special Relativity, in some
schools, though I was introduced to it in freshman physics.)

I don't recall the history in detail, if I ever knew it, but my
recollection tells me that among the early attempts at reconciling the
two theories was an interpretation that Maxwell's equations applied in a preferred (absolute) reference frame. Einstein is reported to have said
that he was unaware of the Michelson-Morley experiment when he derived
Special Relativity, but prior to that there may not have been any
observations that falsified that interpretation. In another forum it was recently commented that Einstein's particular genius was to take another physicist's ad-hoc hypothesis, take it seriously, and explore the
implications - another example given was taking Planck's postulate of
the quantisation of light to solve the problem of the ultraviolet
catastrophe, and applying it to the problem of the photoelectric effect
(which is what Einstein got the Nobel Prize for). Further examples given
were Brownian Motion (taking the existence of atoms and molecules
seriously) and Bose-Einstein condensation.

Part of the delay seems to be due to the assumption that a material
medium (the ether) was required for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation, resulting in physicists trying to resolve the contradiction
using properties of the ether. Einstein cut the Gordian Knot. (It is
widely believed that if Einstein hadn't done it, something else would
have in the next few years; the creation of General Relativity is
however considered sui generis.)

--
alias Ernest Major

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

peter2...@gmail.com <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 10:46:02?AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:

On 04/08/2023 12:48, israel sadovnik wrote:

The problem with structure of Electric-Field
----.
Maxwell's classical electrodynamics is determined and obeys Galilean transformations.

That is not the case. Maxwellian electrodynamics predicts that light travels at a constant speed in vacuo. That is inconsistent with the Galilean transformations.

It is this contraction

You mean contradiction. Contraction plays a role, of course, in the theory.

between classical mechanics (Galilean-invariant)
and classical electrodynamics (Lorentz-invariant) that led to the development of Special Relativity.

I'm puzzled: why did it take so long for this development?
Didn't anyone draw the rather clear conclusions from it before Einstein? Einstein's own book on relativity is easy for anyone with a year or two of college physics to follow, and IIRC it shows how Fitzgerald-Lorenz contraction, time dilation, etc follow from the invariant velocity, c, of light.

Indeed, no one did, or even came close to it.
Everyone remained stuck in 'aether theory'.
It took a genius of Einstein's calibre.
The reason is no doubt that to come up with the right idea
you must break with patterns of thought that were centuries old,
and enshrined in high philosophy. (by Kant, with his a priori)

Even Einstein struggled with it for almost ten years.
By his own account he started puzzling and worrying about it while still
in 'high school'. (Gymnasium, that is, which is an order of magnitude
better than your American kind of 'high school')
Then, sometime in spring 1905 the right idea hit him,
and he wrote it all up in a few months.

It is easy only when you know the answer,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 20:21:02 UTC+3, israel sadovnik wrote:

On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 17:46:02 UTC+3, Ernest Major wrote:

On 04/08/2023 12:48, israel sadovnik wrote:

The problem with structure of Electric-Field

Maxwell's classical electrodynamics is determined and obeys Galilean transformations.
---------

That is not the case. Maxwellian electrodynamics predicts that light travels at a constant speed in vacuo. That is inconsistent with the Galilean transformations.

It is this contraction between classical mechanics (Galilean-invariant) and classical electrodynamics (Lorentz-invariant) that led to the development of Special Relativity.
alias Ernest Major

---------------
Maxwell’s electrodynamics predicts that light travels at a constant speed in vacuum.
That is inconsistent with the Galilean transformations.
The contradiction between classical mechanics (Galilean-invariant) and classical
electrodynamics (Lorentz-invariant) that led to the development of Special Relativity.
/ by Ernest Major/
----
You are right
Post needs correlation
Thank you

-----------------------------
Ernest Major
I have corrected
"Maxwell's classical electrodynamics is determined, but not subject to Galilean transformations."
Thanks

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 22:55:35 +0200, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

peter2...@gmail.com <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 10:46:02?AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:

On 04/08/2023 12:48, israel sadovnik wrote:

The problem with structure of Electric-Field
----.
Maxwell's classical electrodynamics is determined and obeys Galilean
transformations.

That is not the case. Maxwellian electrodynamics predicts that light
travels at a constant speed in vacuo. That is inconsistent with the
Galilean transformations.

It is this contraction

You mean contradiction. Contraction plays a role, of course, in the theory. >>

between classical mechanics (Galilean-invariant)
and classical electrodynamics (Lorentz-invariant) that led to the
development of Special Relativity.

I'm puzzled: why did it take so long for this development?
Didn't anyone draw the rather clear conclusions from it before Einstein?
Einstein's own book on relativity is easy for anyone with a year or two of >> college physics to follow, and IIRC it shows how Fitzgerald-Lorenz
contraction, time dilation, etc follow from the invariant velocity, c, of
light.

Indeed, no one did, or even came close to it.
Everyone remained stuck in 'aether theory'.
It took a genius of Einstein's calibre.
The reason is no doubt that to come up with the right idea
you must break with patterns of thought that were centuries old,
and enshrined in high philosophy. (by Kant, with his a priori)

Even Einstein struggled with it for almost ten years.
By his own account he started puzzling and worrying about it while still
in 'high school'. (Gymnasium, that is, which is an order of magnitude
better than your American kind of 'high school')
Then, sometime in spring 1905 the right idea hit him,
and he wrote it all up in a few months.

It is easy only when you know the answer,

Yep; everything is simple in hindsight.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 22:55:35 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

peter2...@gmail.com <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 10:46:02?AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:

On 04/08/2023 12:48, israel sadovnik wrote:

The problem with structure of Electric-Field
----.
Maxwell's classical electrodynamics is determined and obeys Galilean
transformations.

That is not the case. Maxwellian electrodynamics predicts that light
travels at a constant speed in vacuo. That is inconsistent with the
Galilean transformations.

It is this contraction

You mean contradiction. Contraction plays a role, of course, in the theory. >>

between classical mechanics (Galilean-invariant)
and classical electrodynamics (Lorentz-invariant) that led to the
development of Special Relativity.

I'm puzzled: why did it take so long for this development?
Didn't anyone draw the rather clear conclusions from it before Einstein?
Einstein's own book on relativity is easy for anyone with a year or two of >> college physics to follow, and IIRC it shows how Fitzgerald-Lorenz
contraction, time dilation, etc follow from the invariant velocity, c, of
light.

Indeed, no one did, or even came close to it.
Everyone remained stuck in 'aether theory'.
It took a genius of Einstein's calibre.
The reason is no doubt that to come up with the right idea
you must break with patterns of thought that were centuries old,
and enshrined in high philosophy. (by Kant, with his a priori)

Even Einstein struggled with it for almost ten years.
By his own account he started puzzling and worrying about it while still
in 'high school'. (Gymnasium, that is, which is an order of magnitude
better than your American kind of 'high school')
Then, sometime in spring 1905 the right idea hit him,
and he wrote it all up in a few months.

It is easy only when you know the answer,

You words above say in paraphrase that Einstein's gymnasium instilled
wrong ideas in him, where it took almost 10 years for him to break
them. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 10:21:03 UTC+3, jillery wrote:

Everyone remained stuck in 'aether theory'.

---------
Everyone remained stuck in 'aether theory'.
-------
‘'The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics.
Really, if you can’t correctly describe the vacuum, how it is possible
to expect a correct description of something more complex?''
/ Paul Dirac /
--------

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 22:53:06 -0700 (PDT), israel sadovnik <israelsadovnik@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 10:21:03 UTC+3, jillery wrote...

...nothing below.

Everyone remained stuck in 'aether theory'.

---------
Everyone remained stuck in 'aether theory'.
-------
‘'The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics.
Really, if you can’t correctly describe the vacuum, how it is possible
to expect a correct description of something more complex?''
/ Paul Dirac /
--------

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, 6 August 2023 at 13:36:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:

On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 22:53:06 -0700 (PDT), israel sadovnik <israels...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 10:21:03 UTC+3, jillery wrote...

...nothing below.

----------
"As above, so below" /Emerald Tablet/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 05:36:44 -0700 (PDT), israel sadovnik <israelsadovnik@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, 6 August 2023 at 13:36:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:

On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 22:53:06 -0700 (PDT), israel sadovnik
<israels...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 10:21:03 UTC+3, jillery wrote...

...nothing below.

----------
"As above, so below" /Emerald Tablet/

Are you OK?

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 9:16:05 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 05:36:44 -0700 (PDT), israel sadovnik <israels...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, 6 August 2023 at 13:36:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:

On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 22:53:06 -0700 (PDT), israel sadovnik
<israels...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 10:21:03 UTC+3, jillery wrote...

...nothing below.

----------
"As above, so below" /Emerald Tablet/

Are you OK?
--

You certainly aren't.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 14:15:50 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennSheldon@msn.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 9:16:05?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 05:36:44 -0700 (PDT), israel sadovnik
<israels...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, 6 August 2023 at 13:36:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:

On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 22:53:06 -0700 (PDT), israel sadovnik
<israels...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 10:21:03 UTC+3, jillery wrote...

...nothing below.

----------
"As above, so below" /Emerald Tablet/

Are you OK?
--

You certainly aren't.

Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.


--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 22:55:35 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

peter2...@gmail.com <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 10:46:02?AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:

On 04/08/2023 12:48, israel sadovnik wrote:

The problem with structure of Electric-Field
----.
Maxwell's classical electrodynamics is determined and obeys Galilean >> > > transformations.

That is not the case. Maxwellian electrodynamics predicts that light
travels at a constant speed in vacuo. That is inconsistent with the
Galilean transformations.

It is this contraction

You mean contradiction. Contraction plays a role, of course, in the theory.

between classical mechanics (Galilean-invariant)
and classical electrodynamics (Lorentz-invariant) that led to the
development of Special Relativity.

I'm puzzled: why did it take so long for this development?
Didn't anyone draw the rather clear conclusions from it before Einstein? >> Einstein's own book on relativity is easy for anyone with a year or two of >> college physics to follow, and IIRC it shows how Fitzgerald-Lorenz
contraction, time dilation, etc follow from the invariant velocity, c, of >> light.

Indeed, no one did, or even came close to it.
Everyone remained stuck in 'aether theory'.
It took a genius of Einstein's calibre.
The reason is no doubt that to come up with the right idea
you must break with patterns of thought that were centuries old,
and enshrined in high philosophy. (by Kant, with his a priori)

Even Einstein struggled with it for almost ten years.
By his own account he started puzzling and worrying about it while still
in 'high school'. (Gymnasium, that is, which is an order of magnitude >better than your American kind of 'high school')
Then, sometime in spring 1905 the right idea hit him,
and he wrote it all up in a few months.

It is easy only when you know the answer,

You words above say in paraphrase that Einstein's gymnasium instilled
wrong ideas in him, where it took almost 10 years for him to break
them. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Nope, that is merely your ignorant misrepresentation,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 04/08/2023 12:48, israel sadovnik wrote:

The problem with structure of Electric-Field
Maxwell's classical electrodynamics is determined and obeys
Galilean transformations.

That is not the case. Maxwellian electrodynamics predicts that light
travels at a constant speed in vacuo. That is inconsistent with the
Galilean transformations.

Yes, but it only predicts that in the frames
in which the Maxwell equations are valid.
It isn't known, and it cannot be known beforehand
which frames that are.
It took Einstein's genius to see that this must be all frames.
(Maxwell himself died before he could begin to really think about it)

It is this contraction between classical mechanics (Galilean-invariant)
and classical electrodynamics (Lorentz-invariant) that led to the
development of Special Relativity.

The irony of it is that Lorentz himself firmly believed
in a universal and stationary aether. (and he never gave up on that)
His theory is nowadays caled 'Lorentz Ether Theory', aka LET,
and it can be shown to be fully equivalent to special relativity.
(because the aether is unobservable to all orders of v/c)

Nevertheless it is stil used by some researchers who want to develop
new theories, beyond special relativity,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 13:24:38 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 22:55:35 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

peter2...@gmail.com <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 10:46:02?AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:

On 04/08/2023 12:48, israel sadovnik wrote:

The problem with structure of Electric-Field
----.
Maxwell's classical electrodynamics is determined and obeys Galilean >> >> > > transformations.

That is not the case. Maxwellian electrodynamics predicts that light
travels at a constant speed in vacuo. That is inconsistent with the
Galilean transformations.

It is this contraction

You mean contradiction. Contraction plays a role, of course, in the theory.

between classical mechanics (Galilean-invariant)
and classical electrodynamics (Lorentz-invariant) that led to the
development of Special Relativity.

I'm puzzled: why did it take so long for this development?
Didn't anyone draw the rather clear conclusions from it before Einstein? >> >> Einstein's own book on relativity is easy for anyone with a year or two of
college physics to follow, and IIRC it shows how Fitzgerald-Lorenz
contraction, time dilation, etc follow from the invariant velocity, c, of >> >> light.

Indeed, no one did, or even came close to it.
Everyone remained stuck in 'aether theory'.
It took a genius of Einstein's calibre.
The reason is no doubt that to come up with the right idea
you must break with patterns of thought that were centuries old,
and enshrined in high philosophy. (by Kant, with his a priori)

Even Einstein struggled with it for almost ten years.
By his own account he started puzzling and worrying about it while still
in 'high school'. (Gymnasium, that is, which is an order of magnitude
better than your American kind of 'high school')
Then, sometime in spring 1905 the right idea hit him,
and he wrote it all up in a few months.

It is easy only when you know the answer,

You words above say in paraphrase that Einstein's gymnasium instilled
wrong ideas in him, where it took almost 10 years for him to break
them. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Nope, that is merely your ignorant misrepresentation,

Nope, that is your arrogance from ignorant composition.


--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 10:26:05 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 14:15:50 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 9:16:05?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 05:36:44 -0700 (PDT), israel sadovnik
<israels...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, 6 August 2023 at 13:36:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:

On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 22:53:06 -0700 (PDT), israel sadovnik
<israels...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 10:21:03 UTC+3, jillery wrote...

...nothing below.

----------
"As above, so below" /Emerald Tablet/

Are you OK?
--

You certainly aren't.

Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.
--

There you are!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:56:02 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:

peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 10:46:02?AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:

On 04/08/2023 12:48, israel sadovnik wrote:

The problem with structure of Electric-Field
----.
Maxwell's classical electrodynamics is determined and obeys Galilean transformations.

That is not the case. Maxwellian electrodynamics predicts that light travels at a constant speed in vacuo. That is inconsistent with the Galilean transformations.

It is this contraction

You mean contradiction. Contraction plays a role, of course, in the theory.

between classical mechanics (Galilean-invariant)
and classical electrodynamics (Lorentz-invariant) that led to the development of Special Relativity.

I'm puzzled: why did it take so long for this development?
Didn't anyone draw the rather clear conclusions from it before Einstein? Einstein's own book on relativity is easy for anyone with a year or two of college physics to follow, and IIRC it shows how Fitzgerald-Lorenz contraction, time dilation, etc follow from the invariant velocity, c, of light.

Indeed, no one did, or even came close to it.
Everyone remained stuck in 'aether theory'.
It took a genius of Einstein's calibre.
The reason is no doubt that to come up with the right idea
you must break with patterns of thought that were centuries old,
and enshrined in high philosophy. (by Kant, with his a priori)

Even Einstein struggled with it for almost ten years.
By his own account he started puzzling and worrying about it while still
in 'high school'. (Gymnasium, that is, which is an order of magnitude
better than your American kind of 'high school')
Then, sometime in spring 1905 the right idea hit him,
and he wrote it all up in a few months.

It is easy only when you know the answer,

Yes. You're a loon.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)