On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 09:05:21 -0400, Randy Poe <rpoe@nospamatl.lmco.com> wrote:
>eleaticus wrote: >> >> Even the True believer cretins herein such as .... ad infinitum ... >> "know" that the laws of mechanics are invariant under the galilean >> transformation. > >What does this have to do with my comment about Maxwell's >equations changing under Galilean transformation? Do you >have something mathematical to say? Do you know what >"Maxwell's equations" are? >
I t has to do with the fact that the True Believer cretins do not know how to conduct an honest transformation.
They dont know how to transform the laws of mechanics invariantly under the galilean transform - as they "know" is doable .
Nor do you,apparently. No foul there because you aren't claiming erroneous results by reason of f'd up transformation.
Learn to transform mechanics invariantly under the gal xfms, and you have most of what you need to xfm maxwell invariantly.
As I said before. Ask your favorite True Believer cretin to demonstrate the gal invariance of mechanics. Then if (HA!) he does ask hiim why he imagines the process should be conducted any differently for Maxwell.
He can't be told. Rub his nose in his failure and maybe - just maybe - he'll actually learn something.
Innyhoo, my post essentially told you how to establish the illegitimacy of the anti-galilean claims vs Maxwell.
You can lead a horse to water, but not a mule.
Ask your favorite True Believer cretin to demonstrate any law of mechanics - in coordinate form - invariant under the Galilean transforms.
He can't do it unless he is schizo as all hell. doing what is required in one case and then violating the process in the secon case.
eleaticus
> - Randy
"Anything and everything that requires or encourages systematic examination of premises and logic."
