This is not for the giants of the board. I was thinking of the high-school young, the non-specialist and the brave ordinary curious people as recipients.

There’s a myth, sometimes well nurtured by the media, regarding science in general: the men of science are supermen, living in a private Olympus. In order to understand what they say you have to read digests in popular scientific magazines. Third parties have to grind the data prior to your reading. You scarcely take the time to read and try to understand first-hand scientific material. Sometimes you give up before trying.

However, there’s a grateful surprise waiting for those who dare stepping in trough the seemingly incomprehensible academic literature: you can read Special Relativity! Directly from the hands of God, i.e. Professor Einstein. Just try!

Take his famous ”On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” .

It has two parts: ( I) Kinematical Part and (II) Electrodynamical Part

It is a wonderful sample of literature (and not only of scientific literature). His concise style, spiced with an elegant humor is a masterpiece. He begins the article with simple concepts., like the example of the current on a conductor (a moving magnet induces an electric charge on a wire…) guiding you out to the climax. You can feel being in a class with the old master speaking in that gracious accent.

He begins demonstrating the definition of simultaneity (a piece of cake; the synchronism condition: t_B - t_A= t’_A-t_B, the time light takes to travel from A to B). To ease your apprehensions there’s the fact that SR develops in the Euclidean space. Those cool linear equations, the ones you used to see as a freshman at high school (and which saved you by the time of the exams). All the concepts presented in the work, throughout the Kinematical part, are demonstrated by using solely two (sometimes three) systems of coordinates (yes, those Cartesian graphs you know so well!). You always have one of them representing the point of view of a static observer, with the axis x, y, z and t (Einstein always calls it “system K”) and the other one representing the point of view of a moving observer (called “system k”), with analogous coordinate axis represented by Greek letters, just to differentiate it from the ordinary x, y, z, which belongs to the static system. They are identical. The only difference is that one of them moves and the other one stays at rest. It’s only that! Along all the Kinematical part you’ll deal with only these two systems. System K and system k. It’s fun!

In the Electrodynamical part Einstein demonstrates:

.The nature of electromagnetic forces occurring in a magnetic field during motion.
.The Theory of Doppler’s Principle and aberration.
.Theory of the pressure of radiation.
.Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz equations when convection-currents are taken into account
.Dynamics of accelerated electrons.

Aren’t these subjects the same we spend the days discussing about? So, what are you waiting for? Go for the fun of it! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Argos on 2002-09-23 14:47 ]</font>

(Smacks forehead with hand)Argos! You're not helping those of us trying to trounce the silly notion that we worship scientists and accept what "they" say without question! Einstein is NOT GOD! Einstein is not A god! ARGH!

Nice link though [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

CJSF

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

Ok. I was just kidding. Your protest is legitimate. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Argos,

I read the book on your suggestion. I like it; as you said it is very well written. Have you tried to derive the Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations for Empty Space During Motion § 6? I am having a hard time deriving it using the transformation equations which have been found in § 3 #-o . May be you can help .

Thank you,

Balabani

What do you mean you don't worship scientists as gods? Huh. I guess I should consider a new degree.

__________________
"I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat"
"Isn't that just...bread?"

It´s the original paper of the so-called Special Relativity. It´s an important item for the history of science.

No, I haven´t done it myself. I´m trying to find some info on the subject and I´ll post it later, as soon as I have it.

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

Note to balabani and all astute teenagers everywhere,

When you finish reading “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,” then read Einstein’s 1918 follow-up paper, “Dialogue about Objections to the Theory of Relativity,” available on pages 66-75 of Volume 7 of “The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein,” Princeton University Press, English paperback edition. In that paper you will see him retract some of the statements he made in his original 1905 paper, and you’ll see him desperately add acceleration, physical forces, atomic clocks, and gravity fields to the SR theory, in a futile attempt to cover up the errors he made in “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.”

Jesus Sam do you have to do this everywhere? Can you at least keep in the Against the Mainstream? Your views do not equal the views of mainstream science. Get passed it.

Grains of salt...

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

All I did was advise people to read Einstein’s 1918 follow-up paper, “Dialogue about Objections to the Theory of Relativity,” available on pages 66-75 of Volume 7 of “The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein,” Princeton University Press, English paperback edition.

That advice is not “against the mainstream,” is it?

Since when is advising people to read a theorist’s follow-up paper “against the mainstream”?

it's not that part, it's this part

Don't think just because a thread has the words "Special Relativity" in it means you have to come hijack it. Leave that discussion the myriad of other threads we have.

All I did was post a note suggesting people read the follow-up paper, and I gave my one-sentence opinon about the paper. You are now in the process of hijacking the thread.

Disclaimer to anyone who thinks they should believe what Sam5 has written here. The above is Sam5's opinion. He has been asked several times to provide proof of his claims that Einstein retracted some of his 1905 theory, and refuses saying it is not his job to provide proof for his statements. We have requested this several times as he has been observed to either take quotes from Einstein's papers out of context or has misunderstood those quotes. He has also admitted he understands none of the math involved. He has misunderstood basic terms of Einstein's papers. He has been asked to explain why the original 1905 calculations are used, and match observations, in regards to GPS and particle accelerators, and he hasn't. He has also been unable to explain why the SR equations and the GR (which he claims does work) equations that reduce to SR (in the absence of gravity or acceleration), match.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

No, we are in the process of warning people of your inability to provide proof of what you claim. Not to mention your inability to answer questions poised to you concerning those claims.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

“We” who? The self-appointed Relativity Police? The ones who try to disrupt all free and open “relativity” discussions all over the internet?

Intelligent teenage science students of today are perfectly capable of understanding the flaws in SR theory, once they get their hands on that 1918 paper, and they can understand it for themselves, without you having to tell them how to think.

To anyone who is interested in the subject of “special relativity”, it would be a good idea for you to read Einstein’s 1918 follow-up paper, “Dialogue about Objections to the Theory of Relativity,” available on pages 66-75 of Volume 7 of “The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein,” Princeton University Press, English paperback edition.

Hey, I have no problem talking about relativity with anyone on the internet. And I definitely don't consider myself a member of the relativity police. I've had several discussions with people on the internet, not all of them agreed with me, but they at least provided some proof when asked to provide it. As soon as you understand relativity, we can have one.

I would agree with your statement, except take the word flaws out. I've had several live discussions with one particular astute teenager. He not only understands the words, but also the math behind them. He is rather amused by your claims.

I won't tell anyone how to think, but will point out where they misunderstand something. Also just warning others out there that you still haven't provided answers to some of our requests for information and shouldn't be relied upon to have any definitive answers about relativity.

Actually, if they are really interested in relativity, they would be better off learning what was needed and then study GR, since you can get to SR using GR.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

No, "we" meaning the people here on this board. That's where you are. That's where you posted. That's where you attempted to hijack this thread.

And that's coming from me. The owner of this board. And I am coming right out and stating that your post is an obfuscating excuse. It is completely clear that you did not simply want to let people know about a later paper by Einstein. Do you really think you are not that transparent? You obviously posted that only as a way to once again state that Einstein was wrong.

And there is substantial irony in your claiming you are for "free and open discussions". I have been very lenient with your participation in relativity threads, but I sometimes am too lenient, and that allows for the disruption in the free flow of information.

So it's going to stop now.

Sam5, I have followed much of your dodging in relativity threads. So I am going to tell you, just once: back up your claims. As others have pointed out, you always make claims about Einstein, and when asked to back them up, say that's not your job.

If we were in a classroom someplace, then you might have a point. But we're not. On this bulletin board, you are required to back up a claim. You now have this one last chance.

Choose your next post with care.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

You and almost everybody else. Although Einstein did not make an make a logical contradiction, in section 3 he ignored certain ambiguities in the kinematic part of his paper. Basically, he had the correct unique answer, substituted in, and found it was correct. The ambiguities are better resolved in the dynamical part of the paper, but it is a little subtle.
He admitted later that he could have, should have made the transformation part simpler (not correct it, simpler).

The following article, written long after, discusses these overly complicated transformations.
Alberto M. Martinez, "Kinematic subtleties in Einstein’s first derivation of the Lorentz transformations," Journal of American Physics V.72 Issue 6, pages 790-798 (June 2004) .

Martinez writes:
Einstein’s derivation lacked mathematical elegance; its degree
of abstraction along with its ambiguities serve to illustrate
why many of his contemporaries had difficulties understanding
and accepting his kinematics.


If ones rule were to only analyze the kinematic part of the 1905 paper, nothing else, one may have difficulty with an ambiguity. However, the final results are correct. It's the steps getting there starting with only the transformation that are difficult. It is a "subtlety," not a mistake. And his approach of starting with the transformation is considered revolutionary by some people (including H. A. Lorentz). For an easier derivation, read the Martinez article.

It should be note that H. A. Lorentz derived the transformation as part of dynamics. His proof is really complicated, but also entertaining in a muscular sort of way. If you can get a copy, read "The Theory of Electrons" by H. A. Lorentz. They don't publish it anymore. The derivation takes many steps in the Lorentz version.[/img]

I take it that was just a stiff warning from the BA and not the lock and key?..

My only comment is re the opening idea of scientists being some way above other folks.

I've always said that scientists are clever, but they are often no better at science than lorry drivers are at driving lorries.

__________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.