maxwell is super well known in science and engineering community. his those four equations was my nightmare in undergrad 1 st year. we had to derive all four from nothing. and heavside modified those, even after that it was complex. he was a supreme genius.
4:53 Maxwell is underrated; Feynmann is high off of his own fog machine. FYI, Maxwell originally had many equations. Oliver Heaviside condensed them down to FOUR. And, FYI, you can condense all four into a single equation. (THAT is what God "said.")
I'm not going to explain it, because i am going to try to publish it properly first. But, the issue is lenght contraction, it isnt an invariant quantity it depends on ether velocity in a way that cannot be made mutual for representations of all systems as stationary and moving in a frame. That means essentially thatnsuch systems can be used to measure the velocity of the ether. Lorentz was right.
You might have noticed that kwnght contraction is never derived in special relativity class, it is imposed to time dilation the same for logitudinal and transverse light clocks moving in a frame, or equivalently moving innthe ether. That is all well and good, but lenght contraction can't be made independent of frame, some consequences associated with it are simply different in different frames according to Einsteins way of doing it, or in minkowsky space for that matter. Certain systems have measurable stresses, that depend on ether velocity directly, and these stresses are simply different in different inertial frames. The scrub einstein got it wrong because he assumed what others were trying to prove to satisfy a silly principle, relativity, there is no apriori reason it should be true with respect to motion in a medium, none what so ever. If you are moving in a medium, are youoving in absolute terms of with respect to something material? Is it strange that your mother gets angry is you run into her but happy if you walk up andngive her a hug? No, absolute not, the ether was supposed to be a material medium, something moving around like your mom, nobody has ever batted an eye at motion relative to mom possibly having physical effects, only the ether gets that treatment. For what reason? Idk a lot of people are convinced it is synonyms with soace and everybody else seems to disbelieve in it because of some crackpot that got it all wrong. I'm almost temoted to tell you how, but there are real measurable stresses in certain systems that will tell you your exact speed relative to the ether. This is because the stresses are obtained by different parts of a system that tug on each other due to lenght contraction of different magnitudes. This is easily realizable in principle and of you plug such a system into einsteins version of relativity, the result is that one observer will predict one set of measurment outcomes and another a different set, the causality is not invariant in these cases and that breaks the theory in half. other examples like the twin paradox are bullshit, they are not contradictions because they simply are about time dilation and signals, lenght contraction is not appearing in the problem. The only cases with lenght contraction that do not admit multiple frames to be accurate, are the ones where two or mire lirentz factors for different parts of the system produce stresses that are measurable because they produce different stresses in different frames. You might thing this contradicts the lorentz invariance of the theories that givern the behavior of matter, but that is why we have spacetime my friend, why nobody managed to make ether theory consistent with relativity really, because relativity is just plain wrong. The lorentz theory with a preferred frame is self consistent in its implementation of lenght contraction, but Einsteins theore isnt, it doesn't work, it doesn't admit descriptions innterms of multiple frames for a lot of system with internal motion, most often in subtle ways, but the dynamics of matter cannot actually be made fully lorentz invariant, it is impossible, because it isn't lorentz invariant, lenght contraction is dependent on velocity in the medium, and systems with internal motion cant always be given representations in terms of being stationary.
You don't even know hiw bad it is. Einstein is just wrong. Special relativity is just wrong. Lenght contraction isnt even really lorentz invariant. Lorentz never managed to out itnin a fully invariant form as he said, because Special relativity is straight up inconsistent. And my argument to show it is both simple and novel, you have never seen this exact argument. Most arguments for a preferred frame are silly nonsense. But there is at least one rhat is irrefutable, and it is all about the non lorentz invariant, assumed quantity of lenght contraction. Lorentz was better than Einstein, many physicists alive today are better than Einstein, maxwell is one of the best ever, along with gibbs, maybe newton, leibnitz and a few others.
@MrVerseKAC wrong. What exactly killed it in your opinion? If you are knowledgeable enough and nice, i might actually tell you why special relativity is wrong in detail, I will bet you a thousand dollars that you didnt know, and that afterwards you will never view the theory the same again, it instantly becomes plastic.
@@MrVerseKAC a non linear version of the ether model maxwell used to derive his equations oroduces gravity and the expansion of the universe. And quantum effects.
@@MrVerseKAC most physicists have no idea what they are talking about regarding ether theory. And worst if all is that lorentz had a consistent theory, and einstein never did. Special relativity cannot treat all systems as stationary, it is contradictory, and i do not mean i Don't like mutual frames contradictory i mean in one fram you have a clown outfit and in another you are a cowboy inconsistent. It is possible ti build a machine and show it on the dials.
maxwell is super well known in science and engineering community. his those four equations was my nightmare in undergrad 1 st year. we had to derive all four from nothing. and heavside modified those, even after that it was complex. he was a supreme genius.
Maxwell is GOAT.
4:53 Maxwell is underrated; Feynmann is high off of his own fog machine. FYI, Maxwell originally had many equations. Oliver Heaviside condensed them down to FOUR. And, FYI, you can condense all four into a single equation. (THAT is what God "said.")
Nope, maxwell is a linear approximation to what the ether is really upto. And special relativity is inconsistent.
I'm not going to explain it, because i am going to try to publish it properly first. But, the issue is lenght contraction, it isnt an invariant quantity it depends on ether velocity in a way that cannot be made mutual for representations of all systems as stationary and moving in a frame. That means essentially thatnsuch systems can be used to measure the velocity of the ether. Lorentz was right.
You might have noticed that kwnght contraction is never derived in special relativity class, it is imposed to time dilation the same for logitudinal and transverse light clocks moving in a frame, or equivalently moving innthe ether. That is all well and good, but lenght contraction can't be made independent of frame, some consequences associated with it are simply different in different frames according to Einsteins way of doing it, or in minkowsky space for that matter. Certain systems have measurable stresses, that depend on ether velocity directly, and these stresses are simply different in different inertial frames. The scrub einstein got it wrong because he assumed what others were trying to prove to satisfy a silly principle, relativity, there is no apriori reason it should be true with respect to motion in a medium, none what so ever. If you are moving in a medium, are youoving in absolute terms of with respect to something material? Is it strange that your mother gets angry is you run into her but happy if you walk up andngive her a hug? No, absolute not, the ether was supposed to be a material medium, something moving around like your mom, nobody has ever batted an eye at motion relative to mom possibly having physical effects, only the ether gets that treatment. For what reason? Idk a lot of people are convinced it is synonyms with soace and everybody else seems to disbelieve in it because of some crackpot that got it all wrong. I'm almost temoted to tell you how, but there are real measurable stresses in certain systems that will tell you your exact speed relative to the ether. This is because the stresses are obtained by different parts of a system that tug on each other due to lenght contraction of different magnitudes. This is easily realizable in principle and of you plug such a system into einsteins version of relativity, the result is that one observer will predict one set of measurment outcomes and another a different set, the causality is not invariant in these cases and that breaks the theory in half. other examples like the twin paradox are bullshit, they are not contradictions because they simply are about time dilation and signals, lenght contraction is not appearing in the problem. The only cases with lenght contraction that do not admit multiple frames to be accurate, are the ones where two or mire lirentz factors for different parts of the system produce stresses that are measurable because they produce different stresses in different frames. You might thing this contradicts the lorentz invariance of the theories that givern the behavior of matter, but that is why we have spacetime my friend, why nobody managed to make ether theory consistent with relativity really, because relativity is just plain wrong. The lorentz theory with a preferred frame is self consistent in its implementation of lenght contraction, but Einsteins theore isnt, it doesn't work, it doesn't admit descriptions innterms of multiple frames for a lot of system with internal motion, most often in subtle ways, but the dynamics of matter cannot actually be made fully lorentz invariant, it is impossible, because it isn't lorentz invariant, lenght contraction is dependent on velocity in the medium, and systems with internal motion cant always be given representations in terms of being stationary.
You don't even know hiw bad it is. Einstein is just wrong. Special relativity is just wrong. Lenght contraction isnt even really lorentz invariant. Lorentz never managed to out itnin a fully invariant form as he said, because Special relativity is straight up inconsistent. And my argument to show it is both simple and novel, you have never seen this exact argument. Most arguments for a preferred frame are silly nonsense. But there is at least one rhat is irrefutable, and it is all about the non lorentz invariant, assumed quantity of lenght contraction. Lorentz was better than Einstein, many physicists alive today are better than Einstein, maxwell is one of the best ever, along with gibbs, maybe newton, leibnitz and a few others.
Ether is a dead theory. Amazing how people can't seem to give it up. 😊
@MrVerseKAC wrong. What exactly killed it in your opinion? If you are knowledgeable enough and nice, i might actually tell you why special relativity is wrong in detail, I will bet you a thousand dollars that you didnt know, and that afterwards you will never view the theory the same again, it instantly becomes plastic.
@@MrVerseKAC a non linear version of the ether model maxwell used to derive his equations oroduces gravity and the expansion of the universe. And quantum effects.
@@MrVerseKAC most physicists have no idea what they are talking about regarding ether theory. And worst if all is that lorentz had a consistent theory, and einstein never did. Special relativity cannot treat all systems as stationary, it is contradictory, and i do not mean i Don't like mutual frames contradictory i mean in one fram you have a clown outfit and in another you are a cowboy inconsistent. It is possible ti build a machine and show it on the dials.
Can you give a reason why we still need Ether theory? Is there any experiment where we need a absolute frame?