Burak Polat - Revision history

BPolatX at 13:07, 10 May 2020

2020-05-10T13:07:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:07, 10 May 2020
Line 33:		Line 33:
	<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.1:</b>		<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.1:</b>

	The first ~~conceptual failure~~ of Special Relativity ~~reveals~~ upon the application of Lorentz Transformations to Maxwell's Equations which involve convection currents. This is known as Maxwell-Minkowski Electrodynamics. While convection currents are fully capable of modeling mechanical motion of sources with ARBITRARY velocity, one applies Lorentz Transformations to understand the action of "uniform rectilinear motion" over a system already "in general arbitrary motion"! Funnier is the fact that the motion in moving frame is described by Maxwell's Equations involving convection currents which obey Newtonian Mechanics in Euclidean 4D Space, while the motion in observer frame is described via Lorentz Transformations assuming that Newtonian Mechanics is incorrect. Sheer absurdity !		The first logical fallacy of Special Relativity comes off upon the application of Lorentz Transformations to Maxwell's Equations which involve convection currents. This is known as Maxwell-Minkowski Electrodynamics. While convection currents are fully capable of modeling mechanical motion of sources with ARBITRARY velocity, one applies Lorentz Transformations to understand the action of "uniform rectilinear motion" over a system already "in general arbitrary motion"! Funnier is the fact that the motion in moving frame is described by Maxwell's Equations involving convection currents which obey Newtonian Mechanics in Euclidean 4D Space, while the motion in observer frame is described via Lorentz Transformations assuming that Newtonian Mechanics is incorrect. Sheer absurdity !

	<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.2:</b>		<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.2:</b>

BPolatX at 13:04, 10 May 2020

2020-05-10T13:04:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:04, 10 May 2020
Line 29:		Line 29:

	CONVECTION CURRENTS IS ONLY A KINEMATIC EFFECT THAT SIGNIFIES MATERIAL DISPLACEMENT! Maxwell's Equations only govern electromagnetism of STATIONARY MEDIA and do not involve convection currents. The inclusion of convection currents into Maxwell's Equations always yield physically unsupported results that VIOLATE continuity of current as the partial time derivatives in Faraday-Maxwell and Ampere-Maxwell Equations require to be replaced with material (aka convective, substantial) derivate when the velocity field is a function of time and with Oldroyd (aka upper convected material or comoving time) derivative when the velocity field is an arbitrary function of space and time. The presence of convection currents in Ampere-Maxwell's Law functions analytically same as conduction currents that radiate electromagnetic waves. The belief that <i> the observation of static magnetic field in the laboratory frame due to a STATIC point source in motion or due to		CONVECTION CURRENTS IS ONLY A KINEMATIC EFFECT THAT SIGNIFIES MATERIAL DISPLACEMENT! Maxwell's Equations only govern electromagnetism of STATIONARY MEDIA and do not involve convection currents. The inclusion of convection currents into Maxwell's Equations always yield physically unsupported results that VIOLATE continuity of current as the partial time derivatives in Faraday-Maxwell and Ampere-Maxwell Equations require to be replaced with material (aka convective, substantial) derivate when the velocity field is a function of time and with Oldroyd (aka upper convected material or comoving time) derivative when the velocity field is an arbitrary function of space and time. The presence of convection currents in Ampere-Maxwell's Law functions analytically same as conduction currents that radiate electromagnetic waves. The belief that <i> the observation of static magnetic field in the laboratory frame due to a STATIC point source in motion or due to
	rotation of circular a disk supporting free charges around its own axis (known as Rowland's Disk) supports Relativity Theory <i> is incorrect. Actually, these experimental facts are based on simple theoretical results of Hertz-Heaviside field equations.		rotation of circular a disk supporting free charges around its own axis (known as Rowland's Disk) supports Relativity Theory </i> is incorrect. Actually, these experimental facts are based on simple theoretical results of Hertz-Heaviside field equations.

	<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.1:</b>		<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.1:</b>

BPolatX at 13:03, 10 May 2020

2020-05-10T13:03:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:03, 10 May 2020
Line 28:		Line 28:
	<b>On Convection Currents:</b>		<b>On Convection Currents:</b>

	CONVECTION CURRENTS ~~SIGNIFY~~ MATERIAL DISPLACEMENT! ~~Please be advised that laws of~~ electromagnetism of STATIONARY MEDIA ~~cannot~~ involve convection currents. ~~Their~~ inclusion into Maxwell's Equations always yield physically unsupported results that VIOLATE continuity of current as the partial time derivatives in Faraday-Maxwell and Ampere-Maxwell Equations require to be replaced with material (aka convective, substantial) derivate when the velocity field is a function of time and with Oldroyd (aka upper convected material or comoving time) derivative when the velocity field is an arbitrary function of space and time. The presence of convection currents in Ampere-Maxwell's Law functions analytically same as conduction currents that radiate electromagnetic waves. ~~Let me address two common misinterpretations:~~		CONVECTION CURRENTS IS ONLY A KINEMATIC EFFECT THAT SIGNIFIES MATERIAL DISPLACEMENT! Maxwell's Equations only govern electromagnetism of STATIONARY MEDIA and do not involve convection currents. The inclusion of convection currents into Maxwell's Equations always yield physically unsupported results that VIOLATE continuity of current as the partial time derivatives in Faraday-Maxwell and Ampere-Maxwell Equations require to be replaced with material (aka convective, substantial) derivate when the velocity field is a function of time and with Oldroyd (aka upper convected material or comoving time) derivative when the velocity field is an arbitrary function of space and time. The presence of convection currents in Ampere-Maxwell's Law functions analytically same as conduction currents that radiate electromagnetic waves. The belief that <i> the observation of static magnetic field in the laboratory frame due to a STATIC point source in motion or due to
			rotation of circular a disk supporting free charges around its own axis (known as Rowland's Disk) supports Relativity Theory <i> is incorrect. Actually, these experimental facts are based on simple theoretical results of Hertz-Heaviside field equations.
	~~1) ''~~The belief that ~~a STATIC point source in motion RADIATES electromagnetic energy described via Lienard - Wiechert Potentials''. What actually happens is that~~ the static field ~~lines (flux) generated by~~ the point ~~charge move~~ in ~~accord with the arbitrary~~ motion ~~of the source AS A WHOLE, without any deformation in shape.~~

	~~2) ''Generation~~ of ~~magnetostatic field when~~ a disk supporting free charges ~~rotates uniformly~~ around its own axis (known as Rowland's Disk)~~. And in presence of acceleration there~~ is ~~believed to occur electromagnetic radiation mechanism''~~. Actually, ~~uniform rotation~~ of ~~such a disk of free static charges cannot generate magnetic~~ field. ~~One always observes the circulation of static electric field lines (flux) in space REGARDLESS OF acceleration.~~

	<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.1:</b>		<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.1:</b>

	The first conceptual failure of Special Relativity reveals upon the application of Lorentz Transformations to Maxwell's Equations which involve convection currents. This is known as Maxwell-Minkowski Electrodynamics. While convection currents are fully capable of modeling mechanical motion of sources with ARBITRARY velocity, one applies Lorentz ~~Transformation~~ to understand the action of "rectilinear ~~unaccelerated~~ motion" over a system already "in general arbitrary motion"! Funnier is the fact that the motion in moving frame is described by Maxwell's Equations involving convection currents which obey Newtonian Mechanics in Euclidean 4D Space, while the motion in observer frame is described via Lorentz Transformations assuming that Newtonian Mechanics is incorrect. Sheer absurdity !		The first conceptual failure of Special Relativity reveals upon the application of Lorentz Transformations to Maxwell's Equations which involve convection currents. This is known as Maxwell-Minkowski Electrodynamics. While convection currents are fully capable of modeling mechanical motion of sources with ARBITRARY velocity, one applies Lorentz Transformations to understand the action of "uniform rectilinear motion" over a system already "in general arbitrary motion"! Funnier is the fact that the motion in moving frame is described by Maxwell's Equations involving convection currents which obey Newtonian Mechanics in Euclidean 4D Space, while the motion in observer frame is described via Lorentz Transformations assuming that Newtonian Mechanics is incorrect. Sheer absurdity !

	<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.2:</b>		<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.2:</b>

	In Maxwell-Minkowski Electrodynamics, upon the application of Lorentz Transformations on Maxwell's Equations, electrical field in the moving frame is observed as magnetic field in the laboratory frame as multiplied by VELOCITY. This is only one out of countless examples to realize that Special Relativity is PHYSICALLY UNSUPPORTED. In material media electrical and magnetic fields occur due to microscobic mechanisms of DIFFERENT nature. In that regard, velocity, as a nonphysical quantity, is never capable of transforming an electrical field quantity into a magnetic one, same as an apple does not turn into an orange as it starts to move.		In Maxwell-Minkowski Electrodynamics, upon the application of Lorentz Transformations on Maxwell's Equations, electrical field in the moving frame is observed as magnetic field in the laboratory frame as multiplied by VELOCITY. This is only one out of countless examples to realize that Special Relativity is PHYSICALLY UNSUPPORTED. In material media electrical and magnetic fields occur due to microscobic mechanisms of DIFFERENT nature. In that regard, velocity, as a nonphysical quantity, is never capable of transforming an electrical field quantity into a magnetic one, same as an apple does not turn into an orange as it starts to move. Besides, that the influence of static charges in the moving frame is observed as magnetic field as explained in the upper paragraph, which is irrelevant to the logic behind Lorentz Transformations..

	<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.3:</b>		<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.3:</b>

	It should not be forgotten that Lorentz Transformations DO NOT yield Galilean Transformations exactly in the limiting case as the relativistic factor Beta=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) tends to 1. This means that Special (and General) Relativity is NOT A COVERING THEORY for Newtonian Mechanics. On the contrary, the physical evidences of these two theories are on opposite ends. Therefore anyone who "believes" that Special (and General) Relativity is correct, then he/she is in a position NOT to utilize any mathematical tool and physical law devised in Classical Continuum Physics in Euclidean 4D Space in describing any physical mechanism. This includes claiming the classical Faraday's Law (emf induction mechanism) ~~and~~ Doppler Effect from Hertzian Electromagnetism, which are widely used and tested every single day in every technological area since late 19th century till date, to be ERRONEOUS.		It should not be forgotten that Lorentz Transformations DO NOT yield Galilean Transformations exactly in the limiting case as the relativistic factor Beta=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) tends to 1. This means that Special (and General) Relativity is NOT A COVERING THEORY for Newtonian Mechanics. On the contrary, the physical evidences of these two theories are on opposite ends. Therefore anyone who "believes" that Special (and General) Relativity is correct, then he/she is in a position NOT to utilize any mathematical tool and physical law devised in Classical Continuum Physics in Euclidean 4D Space in describing any physical mechanism. He/she should bring along a mathematically consistent relativistic version for all physical phenomena. This includes claiming the classical Faraday's Law (emf induction mechanism), Doppler Effect from Hertzian Electromagnetism, Clock Synchronization in GPS based on Newtonian space-time, which are widely used and tested every single day in every technological area since late 19th century till date, to be ERRONEOUS.

	UNFORTUNATELY, EINSTEIN DID NOT PROPERLY UNDERSTAND AND THEREFORE MISINTERPRETED ~~ASYMMETRY~~ IN ELECTROMAGNETISM IN HIS SO CALLED ORIGINAL(!) 1905 PAPER. HE TURNED PHYSICS INTO A BELIEF SYSTEM WHICH WAS NOTHING BUT A WASTE OF TIME AND ENERGY FOR THE "MAIN STREAM" ("DISCIPLES") WHO WORSHIPPED HIM, AND SO MUCH PAIN AND TORTURE FOR THE RATIONAL "DISSIDENTS" WHO STOOD AGAINST THIS CHURCH.		UNFORTUNATELY, EINSTEIN DID NOT PROPERLY UNDERSTAND AND THEREFORE MISINTERPRETED ELECTROMAGNETIC INDUCTION MECHANISM (AS ASYMMETRIC) IN ELECTROMAGNETISM IN HIS SO CALLED ORIGINAL(!) 1905 PAPER. HE TURNED PHYSICS INTO A BELIEF SYSTEM WHICH WAS NOTHING BUT A WASTE OF TIME AND ENERGY FOR THE "MAIN STREAM" ("DISCIPLES") WHO WORSHIPPED HIM, AND SO MUCH PAIN AND TORTURE FOR THE RATIONAL "DISSIDENTS" WHO STOOD AGAINST THIS CHURCH.

	It should be realized that invoking Special (or General) Relativity into classical electromagnetism is totally UNNECESSARY and yields INSUFFICIENT AND INCORRECT results that contradict with well established experiments in the context of Electrical Engineering. Relativity theory does not stem from the so called experimental proofs of unpresence of aether in the second half of 19th century, but its origin lies on the fact that Einstein was not able to grasp papers of Hertz and Heaviside on electrodynamics of moving bodies due to lack of background on advanced calculus.		It should be realized that invoking Special (or General) Relativity into classical electromagnetism is totally UNNECESSARY and yields INSUFFICIENT AND INCORRECT results that contradict with well established experiments in the context of Electrical Engineering. Relativity theory does not stem from the so called experimental proofs of unpresence of aether in the second half of 19th century, but its origin lies on the fact that Einstein was not able to grasp papers of Hertz and Heaviside on electrodynamics of moving bodies due to lack of background on advanced calculus.
Line 62:		Line 59:
	<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.6:</b>		<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.6:</b>

	A system in rectilinear motion with constant velocity does not correspond to any actual PHYSICAL mechanism. This means that a relativist can study and explain, say the simplest case of EMF induction mechanism which occurs when a closed circuit rotates in presence of a static magnetic field, only in the context of General Relativity, compulsorily taking gravitational forces into account using Riemannian geometry and tensor calculus. By the way, EMF induction is bound to be taught in the curriculum of sophomore students! It is not by chance that the topics of Electrical Engineering are beyond the area of interest for Relativists.		A system in rectilinear motion with constant velocity does not correspond to any actual PHYSICAL mechanism. This means that a relativist can study and explain, say the simplest case of EMF induction mechanism which occurs when a closed circuit rotates in presence of a static magnetic field, only in the context of General Relativity, compulsorily taking gravitational forces into account using Riemannian geometry and tensor calculus. It is no suprise that Faraday's Law of Induction in a rotating circuit is not supported by SRT. By the way, EMF induction is bound to be taught in the curriculum of sophomore students! It is not by chance that the topics of Electrical Engineering are beyond the area of interest for Relativists.
	Another failure of making a physical correspondence to Lorentz Transformation comes up when one tries to extend its capability to bodies in arbitrary motion. Lorentz Transformations only apply for a POINT in unaccelerated rectilinear motion. Any attempt to generalize the velocity vector is MATHEMATICALLY UNSUPPORTED. "Instantaneous Rest Frame Approach" by Jean Van Bladel and "Quasi-Lorentz Transformations" by Dan Censor are two such examples. One can realize that these two respected scientists BOTH consent on calling their attempts HEURISTIC.		Another failure of making a physical correspondence to Lorentz Transformation comes up when one tries to extend its capability to bodies in arbitrary motion. Lorentz Transformations only apply for a POINT in unaccelerated rectilinear motion. Any attempt to generalize the velocity vector is MATHEMATICALLY UNSUPPORTED. "Instantaneous Rest Frame Approach" by Jean Van Bladel and "Quasi-Lorentz Transformations" by Dan Censor are two such examples. One can realize that these two respected scientists BOTH consent on calling their attempts HEURISTIC.

Line 77:		Line 74:
	* the structural form and content of any physical law, and		* the structural form and content of any physical law, and
	* the result of any measurement taken		* the result of any measurement taken
	in the two frames. The well known Hertzian formulation of electromagnetism where velocity vector of motion is a function of time, constitute a special case of the frame indifferent formulation		in the two frames. The well known Hertzian formulation of electromagnetism where velocity vector of motion is solely a function of time, constitute a special case of the frame indifferent formulation

	In short,		In short,
Line 96:		Line 93:
	* Burak POLAT, “Scattering by a Moving Circular Cylinder in Hertzian Electrodynamics”, Selçuk Journal of Applied Mathematics Vol.13 No.1 (2012).		* Burak POLAT, “Scattering by a Moving Circular Cylinder in Hertzian Electrodynamics”, Selçuk Journal of Applied Mathematics Vol.13 No.1 (2012).
	* Burak POLAT, “Scattering by a Moving PEC Plane and a Dielectric Half-Space in Hertzian Electrodynamics”, TWMS Journal of Applied and Engineering Mathematics Vol.2 No.2 pp.123-144 (2012).		* Burak POLAT, “Scattering by a Moving PEC Plane and a Dielectric Half-Space in Hertzian Electrodynamics”, TWMS Journal of Applied and Engineering Mathematics Vol.2 No.2 pp.123-144 (2012).
	* Burak POLAT and Ramazan DAŞBAŞI, Canonical Scattering Problems for Rotating Bodies in Hertzian Electrodynamics, Proceedings of The 41st PIERS (PhotonIcs & Electromagnetics Research Symposium) University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome – ITALY, 2019.
	* Burak POLAT, Plane Wave Scattering by a Moving PEC Half-Plane in Hertzian Electrodynamics, Abstract at The 41st PIERS (PhotonIcs & Electromagnetics Research Symposium) University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome – ITALY, 2019.		* Burak POLAT, Plane Wave Scattering by a Moving PEC Half-Plane in Hertzian Electrodynamics, Abstract at The 41st PIERS (PhotonIcs & Electromagnetics Research Symposium) University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome – ITALY, 2019.
			* Burak POLAT and Ramazan DAŞBAŞI, “Validation of Hertzian Electromagnetism in a Rectangular Waveguide with Rotating PEC Termination”, 2019 PhotonIcs & Electromagnetics Research Symposium – Spring (PIERS-Spring), Rome, Italy, 2019, pp. 2850-2856. DOI: 10.1109/PIERS-Spring46901.2019.9017394
			* Burak POLAT and Ramazan DAŞBAŞI, “Plane Wave Reflection by a PEC Plane in Harmonic Motion”, Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Electrical, Communication and Computer Engineering, ICECCE June 12-13, 2020 Istanbul, TURKEY (6 pages).
			* Burak POLAT and Ramazan DAŞBAŞI, “On Conservation of Electromotive Force in Hertzian Electrodynamics”, Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Electrical, Communication and Computer Engineering, ICECCE June 12-13, 2020 Istanbul, TURKEY (6 pages).

	[[Category:Scientist\|Polat Burak]]		[[Category:Scientist\|Polat Burak]]

BPolatX at 08:38, 23 June 2019

2019-06-23T08:38:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:38, 23 June 2019
Line 96:		Line 96:
	* Burak POLAT, “Scattering by a Moving Circular Cylinder in Hertzian Electrodynamics”, Selçuk Journal of Applied Mathematics Vol.13 No.1 (2012).		* Burak POLAT, “Scattering by a Moving Circular Cylinder in Hertzian Electrodynamics”, Selçuk Journal of Applied Mathematics Vol.13 No.1 (2012).
	* Burak POLAT, “Scattering by a Moving PEC Plane and a Dielectric Half-Space in Hertzian Electrodynamics”, TWMS Journal of Applied and Engineering Mathematics Vol.2 No.2 pp.123-144 (2012).		* Burak POLAT, “Scattering by a Moving PEC Plane and a Dielectric Half-Space in Hertzian Electrodynamics”, TWMS Journal of Applied and Engineering Mathematics Vol.2 No.2 pp.123-144 (2012).
	* Burak ~~Polat~~ and Ramazan ~~Daşbaşı~~, Canonical Scattering Problems for Rotating Bodies in Hertzian Electrodynamics, Proceedings of The 41st PIERS (PhotonIcs & Electromagnetics Research Symposium) University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome – ITALY, 2019.		* Burak POLAT and Ramazan DAŞBAŞI, Canonical Scattering Problems for Rotating Bodies in Hertzian Electrodynamics, Proceedings of The 41st PIERS (PhotonIcs & Electromagnetics Research Symposium) University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome – ITALY, 2019.
	* Burak ~~Polat~~, Plane Wave Scattering by a Moving PEC Half-Plane in Hertzian Electrodynamics, Abstract at The 41st PIERS (PhotonIcs & Electromagnetics Research Symposium) University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome – ITALY, 2019.		* Burak POLAT, Plane Wave Scattering by a Moving PEC Half-Plane in Hertzian Electrodynamics, Abstract at The 41st PIERS (PhotonIcs & Electromagnetics Research Symposium) University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome – ITALY, 2019.
	[[Category:Scientist\|Polat Burak]]		[[Category:Scientist\|Polat Burak]]

BPolatX at 08:37, 23 June 2019

2019-06-23T08:37:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:37, 23 June 2019
Line 78:		Line 78:
	* the result of any measurement taken		* the result of any measurement taken
	in the two frames. The well known Hertzian formulation of electromagnetism where velocity vector of motion is a function of time, constitute a special case of the frame indifferent formulation		in the two frames. The well known Hertzian formulation of electromagnetism where velocity vector of motion is a function of time, constitute a special case of the frame indifferent formulation

	~~Validation of Hertzian Electromagnetism in a Waveguide with Rotating Termination:~~
	~~https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSp1Nq35Ry8~~

	In short,		In short,
Line 99:		Line 96:
	* Burak POLAT, “Scattering by a Moving Circular Cylinder in Hertzian Electrodynamics”, Selçuk Journal of Applied Mathematics Vol.13 No.1 (2012).		* Burak POLAT, “Scattering by a Moving Circular Cylinder in Hertzian Electrodynamics”, Selçuk Journal of Applied Mathematics Vol.13 No.1 (2012).
	* Burak POLAT, “Scattering by a Moving PEC Plane and a Dielectric Half-Space in Hertzian Electrodynamics”, TWMS Journal of Applied and Engineering Mathematics Vol.2 No.2 pp.123-144 (2012).		* Burak POLAT, “Scattering by a Moving PEC Plane and a Dielectric Half-Space in Hertzian Electrodynamics”, TWMS Journal of Applied and Engineering Mathematics Vol.2 No.2 pp.123-144 (2012).
			* Burak Polat and Ramazan Daşbaşı, Canonical Scattering Problems for Rotating Bodies in Hertzian Electrodynamics, Proceedings of The 41st PIERS (PhotonIcs & Electromagnetics Research Symposium) University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome – ITALY, 2019.
			* Burak Polat, Plane Wave Scattering by a Moving PEC Half-Plane in Hertzian Electrodynamics, Abstract at The 41st PIERS (PhotonIcs & Electromagnetics Research Symposium) University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome – ITALY, 2019.
	[[Category:Scientist\|Polat Burak]]		[[Category:Scientist\|Polat Burak]]

BPolatX at 09:18, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T09:18:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:18, 25 February 2019
Line 78:		Line 78:
	* the result of any measurement taken		* the result of any measurement taken
	in the two frames. The well known Hertzian formulation of electromagnetism where velocity vector of motion is a function of time, constitute a special case of the frame indifferent formulation		in the two frames. The well known Hertzian formulation of electromagnetism where velocity vector of motion is a function of time, constitute a special case of the frame indifferent formulation

			Validation of Hertzian Electromagnetism in a Waveguide with Rotating Termination:
			https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSp1Nq35Ry8

	In short,		In short,

BPolatX at 09:33, 29 January 2019

2019-01-29T09:33:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:33, 29 January 2019
Line 34:		Line 34:
	2) ''Generation of magnetostatic field when a disk supporting free charges rotates uniformly around its own axis (known as Rowland's Disk). And in presence of acceleration there is believed to occur electromagnetic radiation mechanism''. Actually, uniform rotation of such a disk of free static charges cannot generate magnetic field. One always observes the circulation of static electric field lines (flux) in space REGARDLESS OF acceleration.		2) ''Generation of magnetostatic field when a disk supporting free charges rotates uniformly around its own axis (known as Rowland's Disk). And in presence of acceleration there is believed to occur electromagnetic radiation mechanism''. Actually, uniform rotation of such a disk of free static charges cannot generate magnetic field. One always observes the circulation of static electric field lines (flux) in space REGARDLESS OF acceleration.

	<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.1:</b>		<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.1:</b>

	~~In Maxwell-Minkowski Electrodynamics,~~ upon the application of Lorentz Transformations on Maxwell's Equations, ~~electrical field~~ in the moving frame is ~~observed as magnetic field~~ in the ~~laboratory~~ frame ~~as multiplied by VELOCITY. This~~ is ~~only one out of countless examples to realize~~ that ~~Special Relativity~~ is PHYSICALLY UNSUPPORTED. In material media electrical and magnetic fields occur due to microscobic mechanisms of DIFFERENT nature. In that regard, velocity, as a nonphysical quantity, is never capable of transforming an electrical field quantity into a magnetic one, same as an apple does not turn into an orange as it starts to move.		The first conceptual failure of Special Relativity reveals upon the application of Lorentz Transformations to Maxwell's Equations which involve convection currents. This is known as Maxwell-Minkowski Electrodynamics. While convection currents are fully capable of modeling mechanical motion of sources with ARBITRARY velocity, one applies Lorentz Transformation to understand the action of "rectilinear unaccelerated motion" over a system already "in general arbitrary motion"! Funnier is the fact that the motion in moving frame is described by Maxwell's Equations involving convection currents which obey Newtonian Mechanics in Euclidean 4D Space, while the motion in observer frame is described via Lorentz Transformations assuming that Newtonian Mechanics is incorrect. Sheer absurdity !

			<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.2:</b>

	~~<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.2:</b>~~		In Maxwell-Minkowski Electrodynamics, upon the application of Lorentz Transformations on Maxwell's Equations, electrical field in the moving frame is observed as magnetic field in the laboratory frame as multiplied by VELOCITY. This is only one out of countless examples to realize that Special Relativity is PHYSICALLY UNSUPPORTED. In material media electrical and magnetic fields occur due to microscobic mechanisms of DIFFERENT nature. In that regard, velocity, as a nonphysical quantity, is never capable of transforming an electrical field quantity into a magnetic one, same as an apple does not turn into an orange as it starts to move.

	~~Another conceptual failure of Special Relativity reveals~~ upon the application of Lorentz Transformations to Maxwell's Equations ~~which involve convection currents. This is known as Maxwell-Minkowski Electrodynamics. While convection currents are fully capable of modeling mechanical motion of sources with ARBITRARY velocity~~, ~~one applies Lorentz Transformation to understand the action of "rectilinear unaccelerated motion" over a system already "~~in ~~general arbitrary motion"! Funnier is~~ the ~~fact that the motion in~~ moving frame is ~~described by Maxwell's Equations involving convection currents which obey Newtonian Mechanics~~ in ~~Euclidean 4D Space, while~~ the ~~motion in observer~~ frame is ~~described via Lorentz Transformations assuming~~ that ~~Newtonian Mechanics~~ is ~~incorrect~~. ~~Sheer absurdity !~~

	<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.3:</b>		<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.3:</b>
Line 88:		Line 87:
	* '''Yes:''' Frame Indifference '''No:''' Form Invariance		* '''Yes:''' Frame Indifference '''No:''' Form Invariance

	* '''Yes:''' Frame Indifferent Electromagnetic Theory that Covers Hertz-Heaviside ~~Electrdynamics~~ '''No:''' Maxwell-Minkowski Electrodynamics and General Relativity Theory		* '''Yes:''' Frame Indifferent Electromagnetic Theory that Covers Hertz-Heaviside Electrodynamics '''No:''' Maxwell-Minkowski Electrodynamics and General Relativity Theory

	* '''Yes:''' Principle of Material Frame Indifference '''No:''' Principle of General Space-Time Covariance		* '''Yes:''' Principle of Material Frame Indifference '''No:''' Principle of General Space-Time Covariance

BPolatX at 16:24, 28 January 2019

2019-01-28T16:24:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:24, 28 January 2019
Line 55:		Line 55:
	<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.4:</b>		<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.4:</b>

	Lorentz Transformations are ONLY a set of MATHEMATICAL transformations between one point to another. Since space, time and velocity are only mathematical quantities as explained above, a transformation involving these quantities cannot have a physical meaning by itself, either. ~~The~~ transformation only has a mathematical/geometrical significance. It cannot be interpreted as length contraction and time dilation specific to a material body. This was never pronounced in the works of Voigt, Larmor, Cohn, Lorentz, Wiechert and Poincare published prior to the so called miracle year 1905, when Einstein originated this idea upon the works of the aforementioned respected scientists WITHOUT MAKING ANY CITATION.		Lorentz Transformations are ONLY a set of MATHEMATICAL transformations between one point to another. Since space, time and velocity are only mathematical quantities as explained above, a transformation involving these quantities cannot have a physical meaning by itself, either. Such a transformation only has mathematical/geometrical significance. It cannot be interpreted as length contraction and time dilation specific to a material body. This was never pronounced in the works of Voigt, Larmor, Cohn, Lorentz, Wiechert and Poincare published prior to the so called miracle year 1905, when Einstein originated this idea upon the works of the aforementioned respected scientists WITHOUT MAKING ANY CITATION.

	<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.5:</b>		<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.5:</b>

BPolatX at 07:37, 19 January 2019

2019-01-19T07:37:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:37, 19 January 2019
Line 63:		Line 63:
	<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.6:</b>		<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.6:</b>

	A system in rectilinear motion with constant velocity does not correspond to any actual PHYSICAL mechanism. This means that a relativist can study and explain, say the simplest case of EMF induction mechanism which occurs when a closed circuit rotates in presence of a static magnetic field, only in the context of General Relativity, compulsorily taking gravitational forces into account ~~with~~ Riemannian geometry and tensor calculus. By the way, EMF induction is bound to be taught in the curriculum of sophomore students! It is not by chance that the topics of Electrical Engineering are beyond the area of interest for Relativists.		A system in rectilinear motion with constant velocity does not correspond to any actual PHYSICAL mechanism. This means that a relativist can study and explain, say the simplest case of EMF induction mechanism which occurs when a closed circuit rotates in presence of a static magnetic field, only in the context of General Relativity, compulsorily taking gravitational forces into account using Riemannian geometry and tensor calculus. By the way, EMF induction is bound to be taught in the curriculum of sophomore students! It is not by chance that the topics of Electrical Engineering are beyond the area of interest for Relativists.
	Another failure of making a physical correspondence to Lorentz Transformation comes up when one tries to extend its capability to bodies in arbitrary motion. Lorentz Transformations only apply for a POINT in unaccelerated rectilinear motion. Any attempt to generalize the velocity vector is MATHEMATICALLY UNSUPPORTED. "Instantaneous Rest Frame Approach" by Jean Van Bladel and "Quasi-Lorentz Transformations" by Dan Censor are two such examples. One can realize that these two respected scientists BOTH consent on calling their attempts HEURISTIC.		Another failure of making a physical correspondence to Lorentz Transformation comes up when one tries to extend its capability to bodies in arbitrary motion. Lorentz Transformations only apply for a POINT in unaccelerated rectilinear motion. Any attempt to generalize the velocity vector is MATHEMATICALLY UNSUPPORTED. "Instantaneous Rest Frame Approach" by Jean Van Bladel and "Quasi-Lorentz Transformations" by Dan Censor are two such examples. One can realize that these two respected scientists BOTH consent on calling their attempts HEURISTIC.

BPolatX at 07:35, 19 January 2019

2019-01-19T07:35:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:35, 19 January 2019
Line 63:		Line 63:
	<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.6:</b>		<b> Relativity Theory is WRONG ! Argument No.6:</b>

	A system in rectilinear motion with constant velocity does not correspond to any actual PHYSICAL mechanism. This means that a relativist can study and explain, say the simplest case of EMF induction mechanism which occurs when a closed circuit rotates in presence of a static magnetic field, only in the context of General Relativity, compulsorily taking gravitational forces into account. ~~Clearly it~~ is ~~not a very practical methodology~~ to ~~explain~~ in the curriculum of sophomore students. It is not by chance that the topics of Electrical Engineering are beyond the area of interest for Relativists.		A system in rectilinear motion with constant velocity does not correspond to any actual PHYSICAL mechanism. This means that a relativist can study and explain, say the simplest case of EMF induction mechanism which occurs when a closed circuit rotates in presence of a static magnetic field, only in the context of General Relativity, compulsorily taking gravitational forces into account with Riemannian geometry and tensor calculus. By the way, EMF induction is bound to be taught in the curriculum of sophomore students! It is not by chance that the topics of Electrical Engineering are beyond the area of interest for Relativists.
	Another failure of making a physical correspondence to Lorentz Transformation comes up when one tries to extend its capability to bodies in arbitrary motion. Lorentz Transformations only apply for a POINT in unaccelerated rectilinear motion. Any attempt to generalize the velocity vector is MATHEMATICALLY UNSUPPORTED. "Instantaneous Rest Frame Approach" by Jean Van Bladel and "Quasi-Lorentz Transformations" by Dan Censor are two such examples. One can realize that these two respected scientists BOTH consent on calling their attempts HEURISTIC.		Another failure of making a physical correspondence to Lorentz Transformation comes up when one tries to extend its capability to bodies in arbitrary motion. Lorentz Transformations only apply for a POINT in unaccelerated rectilinear motion. Any attempt to generalize the velocity vector is MATHEMATICALLY UNSUPPORTED. "Instantaneous Rest Frame Approach" by Jean Van Bladel and "Quasi-Lorentz Transformations" by Dan Censor are two such examples. One can realize that these two respected scientists BOTH consent on calling their attempts HEURISTIC.

Line 97:		Line 97:
	* Burak POLAT, “Scattering by a Moving Circular Cylinder in Hertzian Electrodynamics”, Selçuk Journal of Applied Mathematics Vol.13 No.1 (2012).		* Burak POLAT, “Scattering by a Moving Circular Cylinder in Hertzian Electrodynamics”, Selçuk Journal of Applied Mathematics Vol.13 No.1 (2012).
	* Burak POLAT, “Scattering by a Moving PEC Plane and a Dielectric Half-Space in Hertzian Electrodynamics”, TWMS Journal of Applied and Engineering Mathematics Vol.2 No.2 pp.123-144 (2012).		* Burak POLAT, “Scattering by a Moving PEC Plane and a Dielectric Half-Space in Hertzian Electrodynamics”, TWMS Journal of Applied and Engineering Mathematics Vol.2 No.2 pp.123-144 (2012).
	~~available online.~~

	[[Category:Scientist\|Polat Burak]]		[[Category:Scientist\|Polat Burak]]