Re: Is charge conserved between frames?
From: Gauge (gauge5_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 10/21/04
- Next message: sal: "Re: Is charge conserved between frames?"
- Previous message: Ben Bean: "Re: The Spin Proviso to Relativity"
- In reply to: Dummy: "Re: Is charge conserved between frames?"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Is charge conserved between frames?"
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: Is charge conserved between frames?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 21 Oct 2004 09:43:10 -0700
"Dummy" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote
> I thought it was obvious you needed a reference to have a speed of any
> kind.
Its obvious to everyone who discusses relativity. But it is always
implied what one means by "stationary" etc.
> So what is your dx/dt =0 relative too?
It quite literally means something like "With respect to frame S". But
people don't bother adding this since everyone who discusses
relativity implicitly knows what it means. I can always add in "with
respect to frame S" but that doesn't really help since, to be
meaningful, I'd then have to say what that frame is and what its
motion is with respect to something else.
> You apparently have not studied much of the world around you.
He's done more so than you appear to have.
> Much of
> everyday life revolves around behavior of an object as viewed from its
> "momentarily comoving reference frame", or MCRF.
You're incorrectly assuming that all frames of reference are MCRFs.
That is incorrect. Its quite meaningful to speak of an inertial frame
of reference S and not have anything at rest in it. Thus if one is
concerned only with a single object then its quite meaningful to speak
of motion of such an object with respect to such a frame
> You seem unfamiliar with this concept.
Such a statement tells me that your unfamilar with sal.
> Yes, you are. Einstein was sloppy in a different way to you though. He
> carefully disguised his deliberate fraud by appearing to be meticulous. You
> fell for it, crackpot. This is not meant as an insult -- merely an
> observation.
> Androcles
And hence androcles proves once again that he's totally clueless on
relativity.
I see nothing has changed since I left.
- Next message: sal: "Re: Is charge conserved between frames?"
- Previous message: Ben Bean: "Re: The Spin Proviso to Relativity"
- In reply to: Dummy: "Re: Is charge conserved between frames?"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Is charge conserved between frames?"
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: Is charge conserved between frames?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
