Le 27/04/2024 à 19:50, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
> bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force does
>> NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely theoretical.
>> My evidence is experimental.
>
> Correct, merely experimental.

Heh-heh.
Now the e=mcc wallahs will say the Sun goes around the Earth.
And the Moon is a superstructure, created by our distant ancestors.
They have even made a movie about it, "Moonfall" that I saw yesterday.
These guys si

> It stands falsified by a reliable theory.

A theory is a conjecture that is widely shared. It is falsified by
experimental evidence.
Of course, that is from the scientific standpoint, not the theological
standpoint.
But then, physics is pure theology now, with e=mcc as dogma and Einstein
as God-Clown-Baby.
>
> FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
> do conserve energy-momentum.

No, they do not. Force = Magnetic field times current times length of
conductor in a nice vector relationship, with only one current as
variable, is intrinsically without reaction. It is most widely used by
all electrical and electronics engineers. It is the basis for modern
electric motor design.

> If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you
> to tell the world what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
> and how these equations must be modified.

Nothing wrong with them. They are perfectly correct. My only grouse is why
the name of Lorentz should be there, it should be replaced by Heaviside,
for the vector notation he introduced. And the Lorentz force must be
renamed as Thomson-Heaviside Force, or abbreviated as THE force. Out with
Lorentz!

Maxwell in, Einstein out, is the word.
The universe is full of aether, it is infinite, and all matter linked with
lines of electric force.
No big bang, no black holes, extreme cold below our feet at the cores of
the planets and stars.
Stars have trillion year cycles of birth and death, with gaining hydrogen
cover from nebulas and losing them to nebulas.
Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon, like strong nuclear force.

> As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,

Hardly. The Arindam-Newton Laws of Motion will take humanity to the stars,
after expanding all over the solar system.

And all the books on relativity-depravity and quantum-bunkum will be burnt
in a huge bonfire that will make the fires in Nalanda and Alexandria
universities look like small campfires.

Cheers,
Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time,
sole god among lotsa devils.

> Jan

On 04/27/2024 06:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Le 27/04/2024 à 19:50, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
>> bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force
>>> does
>>> NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely
>>> theoretical.
>>> My evidence is experimental.
>>
>> Correct, merely experimental.
>
> Heh-heh.
> Now the e=mcc wallahs will say the Sun goes around the Earth.
> And the Moon is a superstructure, created by our distant ancestors. They
> have even made a movie about it, "Moonfall" that I saw yesterday.
> These guys si
>
>> It stands falsified by a reliable theory.
>
> A theory is a conjecture that is widely shared. It is falsified by
> experimental evidence.
> Of course, that is from the scientific standpoint, not the theological
> standpoint.
> But then, physics is pure theology now, with e=mcc as dogma and Einstein
> as God-Clown-Baby.
>>
>> FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
>> do conserve energy-momentum.
>
> No, they do not. Force = Magnetic field times current times length of
> conductor in a nice vector relationship, with only one current as
> variable, is intrinsically without reaction. It is most widely used by
> all electrical and electronics engineers. It is the basis for modern
> electric motor design.
>
>
>> If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you to tell the world
>> what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
>> and how these equations must be modified.
>
> Nothing wrong with them. They are perfectly correct. My only grouse is
> why the name of Lorentz should be there, it should be replaced by
> Heaviside, for the vector notation he introduced. And the Lorentz force
> must be renamed as Thomson-Heaviside Force, or abbreviated as THE force.
> Out with Lorentz!
>
> Maxwell in, Einstein out, is the word. The universe is full of aether,
> it is infinite, and all matter linked with lines of electric force.
> No big bang, no black holes, extreme cold below our feet at the cores of
> the planets and stars.
> Stars have trillion year cycles of birth and death, with gaining
> hydrogen cover from nebulas and losing them to nebulas.
> Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon, like strong nuclear force.
>
>
>> As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,
>
> Hardly. The Arindam-Newton Laws of Motion will take humanity to the
> stars, after expanding all over the solar system.
>
> And all the books on relativity-depravity and quantum-bunkum will be
> burnt in a huge bonfire that will make the fires in Nalanda and
> Alexandria universities look like small campfires.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time,
> sole god among lotsa devils.
>
>> Jan
>
>

Force is a function of time.

(Was, "Heyy, Einstein, what are you, retarded?" The notion of
the accelerated and retarded potentials of course is a usual
thing in physics to effect to reflect the sum-of-histories /
sum-of-potentials that represents the instantaneous classical
with regards to the non-linear/un-linear, the multipole,
and all the higher orders of acceleration, in a model
of classical motion, and accelerated/accelerating potentials.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential

The empirical already has this stuff all over the place.
The role of the fundamental and foundations, is for mathematics,
what OWES physics more and better mathematics of continuity
and infinity and infinitesimals and infinite expressions
of the infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration
in dynamics in motion, to provide these mathematics,
what results MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS and the "ubiquitous
success of mathematics in physics".

Which is never wrong, ....

IP, as they say.

Force: is a function of time.

It's sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials, and, "GR first".

GPS satellites and driving the world, today,
are as according to the PPN ephemeris.

-
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
(See "Moment and Motion" under "Philosophical Foreground".)

Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 04/27/2024 06:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> Le 27/04/2024 à 19:50, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
>>> bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force
>>>> does
>>>> NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely
>>>> theoretical.
>>>> My evidence is experimental.
>>>
>>> Correct, merely experimental.
>>
>> Heh-heh.
>> Now the e=mcc wallahs will say the Sun goes around the Earth.
>> And the Moon is a superstructure, created by our distant ancestors. They
>> have even made a movie about it, "Moonfall" that I saw yesterday.
>> These guys si
>>
>>> It stands falsified by a reliable theory.
>>
>> A theory is a conjecture that is widely shared. It is falsified by
>> experimental evidence.
>> Of course, that is from the scientific standpoint, not the theological
>> standpoint.
>> But then, physics is pure theology now, with e=mcc as dogma and Einstein
>> as God-Clown-Baby.
>>>
>>> FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
>>> do conserve energy-momentum.
>>
>> No, they do not. Force = Magnetic field times current times length of
>> conductor in a nice vector relationship, with only one current as
>> variable, is intrinsically without reaction. It is most widely used by
>> all electrical and electronics engineers. It is the basis for modern
>> electric motor design.
>>
>>
>>> If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you to tell the world
>>> what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
>>> and how these equations must be modified.
>>
>> Nothing wrong with them. They are perfectly correct. My only grouse is
>> why the name of Lorentz should be there, it should be replaced by
>> Heaviside, for the vector notation he introduced. And the Lorentz force
>> must be renamed as Thomson-Heaviside Force, or abbreviated as THE force.
>> Out with Lorentz!
>>
>> Maxwell in, Einstein out, is the word. The universe is full of aether,
>> it is infinite, and all matter linked with lines of electric force.
>> No big bang, no black holes, extreme cold below our feet at the cores of
>> the planets and stars.
>> Stars have trillion year cycles of birth and death, with gaining
>> hydrogen cover from nebulas and losing them to nebulas.
>> Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon, like strong nuclear force.
>>
>>
>>> As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,
>>
>> Hardly. The Arindam-Newton Laws of Motion will take humanity to the
>> stars, after expanding all over the solar system.
>>
>> And all the books on relativity-depravity and quantum-bunkum will be
>> burnt in a huge bonfire that will make the fires in Nalanda and
>> Alexandria universities look like small campfires.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time,
>> sole god among lotsa devils.
>>
>>> Jan
>>
>>

> Force is a function of time.

Force is mass multiplied by the acceleration on the mass.
When there is no movement the result is static, causing stress.
When there is movement for the mass we enter the world of dynamics.
Overall it is called mechanics.

> (Was, "Heyy, Einstein, what are you, retarded?" The notion of
> the accelerated and retarded potentials of course is a usual
> thing in physics to effect to reflect the sum-of-histories /
> sum-of-potentials that represents the instantaneous classical
> with regards to the non-linear/un-linear, the multipole,
> and all the higher orders of acceleration, in a model
> of classical motion, and accelerated/accelerating potentials.)

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential

> The empirical already has this stuff all over the place.
> The role of the fundamental and foundations, is for mathematics,
> what OWES physics more and better mathematics of continuity
> and infinity and infinitesimals and infinite expressions
> of the infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration
> in dynamics in motion, to provide these mathematics,
> what results MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS and the "ubiquitous
> success of mathematics in physics".

> Which is never wrong, ....

> IP, as they say.

> Force: is a function of time.

> It's sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials, and, "GR first".

> GPS satellites and driving the world, today,
> are as according to the PPN ephemeris.

> -
> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
> (See "Moment and Motion" under "Philosophical Foreground".)

bertietaylor wrote:

> Ross Finlayson wrote:

>> On 04/27/2024 06:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> Le 27/04/2024 à 19:50, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
>>>> bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force
>>>>> does
>>>>> NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely
>>>>> theoretical.
>>>>> My evidence is experimental.
>>>>
>>>> Correct, merely experimental.
>>>
>>> Heh-heh.
>>> Now the e=mcc wallahs will say the Sun goes around the Earth.
>>> And the Moon is a superstructure, created by our distant ancestors. They
>>> have even made a movie about it, "Moonfall" that I saw yesterday.
>>> These guys si
>>>
>>>> It stands falsified by a reliable theory.
>>>
>>> A theory is a conjecture that is widely shared. It is falsified by
>>> experimental evidence.
>>> Of course, that is from the scientific standpoint, not the theological
>>> standpoint.
>>> But then, physics is pure theology now, with e=mcc as dogma and Einstein
>>> as God-Clown-Baby.
>>>>
>>>> FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
>>>> do conserve energy-momentum.
>>>
>>> No, they do not. Force = Magnetic field times current times length of
>>> conductor in a nice vector relationship, with only one current as
>>> variable, is intrinsically without reaction. It is most widely used by
>>> all electrical and electronics engineers. It is the basis for modern
>>> electric motor design.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you to tell the world
>>>> what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
>>>> and how these equations must be modified.
>>>
>>> Nothing wrong with them. They are perfectly correct. My only grouse is
>>> why the name of Lorentz should be there, it should be replaced by
>>> Heaviside, for the vector notation he introduced. And the Lorentz force
>>> must be renamed as Thomson-Heaviside Force, or abbreviated as THE force.
>>> Out with Lorentz!
>>>
>>> Maxwell in, Einstein out, is the word. The universe is full of aether,
>>> it is infinite, and all matter linked with lines of electric force.
>>> No big bang, no black holes, extreme cold below our feet at the cores of
>>> the planets and stars.
>>> Stars have trillion year cycles of birth and death, with gaining
>>> hydrogen cover from nebulas and losing them to nebulas.
>>> Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon, like strong nuclear force.
>>>
>>>
>>>> As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,
>>>
>>> Hardly. The Arindam-Newton Laws of Motion will take humanity to the
>>> stars, after expanding all over the solar system.
>>>
>>> And all the books on relativity-depravity and quantum-bunkum will be
>>> burnt in a huge bonfire that will make the fires in Nalanda and
>>> Alexandria universities look like small campfires.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time,
>>> sole god among lotsa devils.
>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>
>>>

>> Force is a function of time.

> Force is mass multiplied by the acceleration on the mass.
> When there is no movement the result is static, causing stress.
> When there is movement for the mass we enter the world of dynamics.
> Overall it is called mechanics.

So for the first two semesters of my engineering studies we had to grapple with the book
"Engineering Mechanics" by Irving Shames.
It was the most difficult course for most freshers, responsible for most of the dropouts.
Those who made that course went on to become engineers.

>> (Was, "Heyy, Einstein, what are you, retarded?" The notion of
>> the accelerated and retarded potentials of course is a usual
>> thing in physics to effect to reflect the sum-of-histories /
>> sum-of-potentials that represents the instantaneous classical
>> with regards to the non-linear/un-linear, the multipole,
>> and all the higher orders of acceleration, in a model
>> of classical motion, and accelerated/accelerating potentials.)

blah-blah. What struck Arindam was that the most loquacious of those who dropped out from the mechanics course spoke jargon as above. They were thought clever when actually they were retarded.

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential

Talking of retarded... :-)

>> The empirical already has this stuff all over the place.
>> The role of the fundamental and foundations, is for mathematics,
>> what OWES physics more and better mathematics of continuity
>> and infinity and infinitesimals and infinite expressions
>> of the infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration
>> in dynamics in motion, to provide these mathematics,
>> what results MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS and the "ubiquitous
>> success of mathematics in physics".

>> Which is never wrong, ....

The simpler the maths, the greater its genius for change.
Like f=ma
c(v)=(c+v)/L
e=0.5mVVN(N-k)
V=Nv

>> IP, as they say.

>> Force: is a function of time.

>> It's sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials, and, "GR first".

>> GPS satellites and driving the world, today,
>> are as according to the PPN ephemeris.

GPS does not prove relativity, rather uses its intrinsic property of conformal mapping - like holding the Earth still and the space warped around it.

Yes, there are higher orders involved, like jerk, which is the rate of change of acceleration.
But that is another story.

bt

>> -
>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
>> (See "Moment and Motion" under "Philosophical Foreground".)