138
edits
Changes
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 19:10, August 20, 2011
, 19:10, August 20, 2011→Attempt at Helping the Consensus Along
:::::: Your reference says, "it is obvious that the electric filed directions in these two graphs are opposite, which is the inevitable result because Einstein haven’t pointed out clearly which one is the true moving and which one is the false one.", and that a followup paper will answer explanation is correct. Of course Einstein did not say which one is truly moving because Relativity teaches that motion is relative. The article is incoherent nonsense. Magnetic induction is explained in every textbook since Faraday. Poincare explained it also. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:03, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::: Your reference says, "it is obvious that the electric filed directions in these two graphs are opposite, which is the inevitable result because Einstein haven’t pointed out clearly which one is the true moving and which one is the false one.", and that a followup paper will answer explanation is correct. Of course Einstein did not say which one is truly moving because Relativity teaches that motion is relative. The article is incoherent nonsense. Magnetic induction is explained in every textbook since Faraday. Poincare explained it also. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:03, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Again, you can't have Newtonian mechanics AND Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations aren't invariant under Galilean transformations, while they are under Lorentz transformations (as mentioned, that's how they were actually first discovered). Also, quantum electrodynamics is the most accurate theory we have and it combines special relativity, quantum mechanics AND electromagnetism. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:10, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
This will be my final posting here. I apologize for its length.
This will be my final posting here. I apologize for its length.