Following such valuable discussion .

Thanks Christian~

Here is another translation of Einstein's conclusion;

“If a point-mass of electric unit pole moves in an electro-magnetic field, then the force acting upon it is equivalent to the electric force existing at the position of the unit pole, which we obtain by the transformation of the field to a co-ordinate system which is at rest relative to the electric unit pole [New mode of expression].” English translation by Megh Nad Saha(1920)

I do not think you are trying to suggest that Einstein was vague in summing up section 6. If it is so, the section itself is clear in its direction. Feynman also knew that his result was not in agreement with Einstein’s claim, that is why he tried to cover this difference by saying “so for the small velocities we have been considering, the two forces are equal.”

Please have a look at my analysis of the case in the attached file. I think Feynman's analysis of S’ frame is completely wrong. My calculation gives F’=0.

Preprint Electromagnetic Force and Special Relativity

Dear Ziaedin,

I believe, we must discuss additionally the parameter mass and acceleration. A charge doesn't change if the reference system is changed.

If we look from the resting system on the moving system:

If the moving charge approximates to the velocity of light c, than the mass increases. If the force F' = eE doesn't change, the accelaration decreases with a'=eE/m = ya (y = gamma).

If we change into the moving system:

F' = eE and a' = a. If we live in the moving system, we can accelerate to c but in the sum we have due to the addition theorem not 2c but c.

Therefore: The electromagnetic force doesn't depend on the system of relativity. The mass and the kinematic acceleration depend on the system.

With Regard

R. Mitdank

Dear Rüdiger Mitdank

Many thanks for your comments. You are right; more can be said about this experiment. However, Feynman’s example is focused on the specific issue of electromagnetic force pertinent to special relativity.

Regarding relativistic mass, I believe the tendency is that it should not be mentioned any more. I am sure you know about the issue but for those who are not familiar I put two references in my presentation material attached to the question. Funny part is that Dr Don Lincoln from Fermilab appeals to the Bible at some point in the video (Ref. 8) to emphasize his point that there is no such thing as relativistic mass.

Dear Ziaedin,

I attach Einstein's original paper from 1905 in the "Annalen der Physik" (see page 919). He stated that the terms mass, acceleration and force must be used carefully. Indeed, it is possible to avoid the term relativistic mass. But it doesn't change the result. You can use instead of this the term kinetic energy (depending on restmass mo, velocity v and velocity of light c):

F = Ekin*a/c2

Furthermore, I would urgently recommend not to use the bible to explain physics.There is indeed nowhere discussed the term relativistic mass. This only shows that god is no expert in special relativity.

With Regard

R. Mitdank

Dear Rüdiger Mitdank

Thanks for the document. As I have mentioned, the question here is related to section 6 of the paper and Feynman's attempt to support it. What is your comment on the question? Do you agree with me that Feynman's analysis is not convincing?

I would agree with Einstein. The text of Feynman I must still read.

Dear Rüdiger Mitdank

In case you have 5 minutes and want to defend relativistic physics I invite you to participate in a challenge. To appreciate your effort I will donate the amount specified in the challenge to your nominated charity.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_student_defend_special_relativity

Christian Baumgarten suggested:

I understand it so that Einstein suggests to transform into the inertial frame of the particle, in which the magnetic force is (according to the Lorentz force law) zero, i.e. into an IRF in which the force is purely electric.

Indeed, the way of this transformations is illustraded already in Planck's 1905 paper available at

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Translation:The_Principle_of_Relativity_and_the_Fundamental_Equations_of_Mechanics&oldid=7182768

Hopefully, this will be helpful, Joachim

Dear Joachim Domsta

None of the references given at the end of the attached file disagrees with Christian’s take and Plank’s paper. It is clearly explained by Einstein in the 1905 paper. What Einstein is also claimed is that the total EM forces calculated in the two inertial frames are equal. That is the reason for the question.

Every attempt to show the equality of the two forces has failed, including Feynman’s example. Do you have an example to show this equality? If not why?

I think I have shown the correct analysis of the issue in my presentation with clear illustrations. Your feedback is most welcomed.

Preprint Electromagnetic Force and Special Relativity

I am not going to judge any particular sentence of Eistein, since my impression here is just to refute his theories, which - indeed - were written sometimes not sufficiently precisely, sometimes with mistakes (which happen to many of us). Thus if you agree with his main idea, exposed indetails in the Planck paper, ten the subject is closed. OR you thing that the theory is wrong or some calculations were made with mistake. In such cases please formulate a problem, define the scenario of the objects (moving, at rest,) the admitted math model. After this you can state exactly which theorem was wrong. If someone is contrdicting himself - like Einstein in the dummy equality of forces, KNOWING, that his idea was CONTRARY to this statement, then we have just to agree that this and this is wrong. But who cares how many wrong sentences were written by say, Newton, Leibniz, Lorentz Minkowski and whoever. WHAT SEAT IN THE PARTICIPANTS PRODUCING QUESTIONS LIKE "CAN WE REFUTE EINSTEIN?" "IS THE LORENTZ INVARIANCE BROKEN IN THE FORMULAS FOR DOPPLER" "HOW COULD WE RESPECT RELATIVITY THEORY WHEN IT DOES NOT EXPALIN QUANTUM THEORY" "IS THE RELATIVITY THEORY PHYSICAL"

All this questions are put for telling stories about the mathematical models instead of deriving rigorously consequences and compare the model with reality. If it does not fit, then it does not fit. And what is consistent with the reality, then this this is consistent with the reality.

By the way, your excerpt from Einstein:

"If a unit electric point charge is in motion in an electromagnetic field, the force acting upon it is equal to the electric force which is present at the locality of the charge, and which we ascertain by transformation of the field to a system of co-ordinates at rest relatively to the electrical charge.”

if correctly re-read is not in a contradiction to Planck. I have not enough patiency to read about what Einstein meant under these words. It is much better to present what is the result of the LT applied to the electric field generated by a point-charge at rest, which probably lead to some form of the Biot-Savart law. Am I right?

Joachim Domsta

Dear Joachim Domsta

Following such valuable discussion .

Dear Joachim Domsta

Regarding Biot–Savart law, of course Feynman and others used it in their calculations. I have quoted the calculations in the attached file for ease of access. The other reason for necessary quoting is to highlight their analysis, which I think are not correct. You are also welcome to review my pointed criticism and refute my claim, which is illustrated for better clarification.

@ Ziaedin Shafiei, Joachim Domsta Christian Baumgarten Rüdiger Mitdank,

I wonder whether you are going to continue fighting for other more than hundred years, about a theory full of contradictions, as the question in this thread reveals.

Please make an effort for giving a try to some hints I have provided for changing electromagnetism, relativity and quantum theory (let's say all of Physics, except gravitation for the moment). My papers are published here in ResearchGate and, among other things, they suggest: 1) new relativity transformations, based in electromagnetism (alternative to Lorentz transformations equations), 2) new electromagnetic forces equations (alternative to the Lorentz force equation).

These should be enough to answer correctly the present question.

Regards,

Diego Saá

Dear Diego Saa

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_student_defend_special_relativity

Dear Diego Saa

If you think I have not understood your paper correctly, please apply your method to Feynman’s example and show that it results in equal EM force if calculated in any of the two reference frames that specified by Einstein. This can be a convincing proof of your idea.

Dear Ziaedin Shafiei

"please apply your method to Feynman's example"

I have applied "my method" to show, for example, that an electromagnetic field undergoes a Doppler effect, under a displacement, which current Physics does not show.

But I cannot apply "my method" to each problem you or other persons are able to devise. It is necessary that people become aware of what you have dubbed "my method", in order that each one applies it to his own particular problems and interests.

For this to be done, I am disposed to guide you and explain any one of the equations from my theory.

Diego Saá

Dear Diego Saa

I am sorry that I used “method” instead of “theory”. It was not intentional.

You admonished everyone in this thread to stop “fighting” and not waste our valuable time on an inappropriate theory and suggested your all-inclusive theory instead. One then logically thinks that you already have the answer to the problem in hand. However, your response to my invitation to provide your input was

“But I cannot apply "my method" to each problem you or other persons are able to devise” which is completely unacceptable.

I think the least you can do to prove that your theory is the appropriate replacement for special relativity, as you claim, is

Dear Ziaedin Shafiei

Well, I have to recognise that I have not been following your other threads. But I found interesting your assertion: "I refer you to comment 3 of my response in regard to any idea which accepts and uses γ." Which I suppose refers to "I have shown that Lorentz transformation has been a disaster for physics as it is based on a false analysis."

I would be interested in reading about your arguments against the Lorentz transformations, since I have proposed some completely different relativistic transformation equations; which, it seems, you have already found.

However, you ask from me to: "Defend the idea of γ as I requested in my previous answer and the challenge."

Yes, my relativistic transformations do include the inverse of a square root, regularly called "Lorentz contraction factor". But, in my defence, I would say that the classical Lorentz transformations are based on "rods" and "clocks", which do not represent invariant properties of nature; whereas my relativistic transformations reflect properties of the electromagnetic fields and, consequently, should work better for the problem at hand.

Now, you insist in that I should "Show that your theory fixes the EM issue raised in this thread"

Although I have not worked in your "EM issue", I am rather confident that my theory could give a favourable result. In the first place, because I am proposing an EM forces equation very different to the classical one, attributed to Lorentz: F=e(E + v x B) and, besides, my proposed relativistic transformations are also very different.

Diego

Dear Diego Saa

Thanks for your comments. It would be fruitful If you could review my argument and accept/reject my claim regarding the idea of Length contraction.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_student_defend_special_relativity

Dear Ziaedin Shafiei

You wrote: "It would be fruitful If you could review my argument and accept/reject my claim regarding the idea of Length contraction."

Actually this is a different question and thread, but it is somehow related to the present problem, since it has the Lorentz transformations at its base.

You wrote in the conclusion of your referred paper:

"Michelson and Morley experiment does not validate the following three renowned ideas:

* length contraction

* time dilation

* constancy of the speed of light"

Yes. It is not clear what proportion of their null result should be attributed to length contraction and what proportion to time dilation, if any.

Planck's paper begins by quoting Lorentz transformations, which provide a first approximation to these proportions. But, I agree with you, such transformations seem to be wrong.

And here is where my theory enters, by proposing new relativistic transformations, which seem to be correct since they are based in electromagnetism and preserve the constancy and universality of the speed of light.

For easy reference, see equations (19) and (20) in my paper, here at ResearchGate: A REFORMULATION OF ELECTROMAGNETISM AND RELATIVITY THEORY

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14167.52640

Diego Saá

Dear Diego Saa

You are quite right that all relativistic subjects are entangled to each other.

The story of the modern relativity, which separates it from Galilean relativity, starts with the false interpretation of M&M experiment. Its history can be summarized as follows

What is clear is the fact that there has been a chain of scientific/mathematical activities all founded on an erroneous analysis and conclusion.

I thus think we should reject any experiment and theory which accepts and uses LTE or Minkowski spacetime.

Please note Lorentz EM force equation is not related to LTE. Thus, your 2005 paper which proposes a realistic formula for EM force is not affected. However, when LTE is used, it means reliance on that scientifically incorrect foundation.

I am very interested in your subject. In my opinion, Feynman showed a deficiency in the principle of compatibility. We know that the principle of compatibility was not yet at that time, and it was adjusted afterward.

So we have to be careful about applying the principle of compatibility.

Dear Mehryar Husyan Pour Shad

Please elaborate and let the forum know what is the connection and where Feynman has not followed the principle. If Feynman were not aware of it, I am sure professors who teach the same material in top universities could figure out the shortcoming by now.

I wish students could raise this issue in their classrooms and then participate in this debate or encourage their professors to do so to settle this case.

I think I have shown where the problem is, both in this tread and other threads such as https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_student_defend_special_relativity

and the files attached to them.

What is basic research activity?

If based on rationalism and empiricism we can make realism data, our activity is a basic research.

Feynman was a basic researcher. Einstein was not like that.

I mean, Feynman did not use the principle but challenged the principles.