Re: Is charge conserved between frames?
From: Gauge (gauge5_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 10/26/04
- Next message: jahn: "Re: Maxwell's Displacement Current"
- Previous message: V ertner Vergon: ""TIME DILATION" ADDENDUM"
- In reply to: Androcles: "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: 26 Oct 2004 08:30:50 -0700
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message news:<fpTdd.131467$BI5.50668@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> "Gauge" <gauge5@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e7203033.0410210834.4af67231@posting.google.com...
> : "Dummy" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
> news:<fkC9d.11537$ay5.5933@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> : > "sal" <pragmatist@nospam.org> wrote in message
> : > news:pan.2004.10.08.19.34.18.638852@nospam.org...
> : > > On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 19:15:56 +0000, Dave wrote:
> : > >
> : > >> again, you can't be momentarily stationary, either you are or
> you aren't.
> : > >
> : > > You apparently have not studied general relativity. This is not
> meant as
> : > > an insult -- merely an observation. Much of GR revolves around
> behavior
> : > > of an object as viewed from its "momentarily comoving reference
> frame", or
> : > > MCRF. You seem unfamiliar with this concept. It's the inertial
> frame
> : > > which is moving at the same velocity as the object at the
> _single_
> : > > _moment_ under discussion ... in other words, the frame in which
> the
> : > > object is _momentarily_ _stationary_.
> : > >
> : > > momentarily stationary, at time t, means (dx/dt)(t) = 0.
> : >
> : > With respect to what? The stationary frame called the Universe?
> : > The frame in which time is universal, gyroscopes maintain
> attitude,
> : > pendulums swing like a pendula do?
> :
> : Whenever someone uses the term "at rest" or "stationary" etc. in
> : relativity they *always* mean "at rest in a particular frame of
> : reference". I can call that "frame S" etc. but that gives no more
> : information since this is implicit when someone is speaking of
> : something like speed etc. A space station can serve to define a
> frame
> : of reference. As such all clocks and rods which define a frame of
> : reference, and hence an observer, are at rest with respect to the
> : space station. So now when I say "The particle is moving.." it
> : literally means "There is a relative velocity of particle and
> : spacestation and in my frame of reference the space station is at
> : rest.
> :
> : > > Using the MCRF an object is often the simplest and most
> practical
> : > > way to study the behavior of objects in accelerated frames of
> reference,
> : > > or in curved space.
> : > There is no "curved space". I thought you crackpots always talked
> about
> : > curved "spacetime".
> :
> : That is incorrect. There is such thing as "curved space" AND "curved
> : spacetime" and they mean two different things. In cosmology one can
> : speak of a "flat" universe or a "curved" universe. In a flat
> universe
> : it is the "space" which is flat. But the spacetime is still curved.
> :
> : In mathematical terms "space" refers to a manifold and thus when one
> : is working with a spacetime manifold then one imlicitly identifies
> the
> : terms "curved space" and "curved spacetime" as being identical.
> :
> : Pmb
> Why don't you build a couple of light clocks, ..
Why would I? There are a huge number of experiments which have already
been done on every aspect of relativity that you've ever posted on.
Too bad you're too arrogant to learn and understand them.
> ...all you need is an old
> fluorescent tube, stick a mirror in one end and a LED and photo
> sensitive transistor in the other. Make sure the detector can only
> see
> the LED in the mirror, add some electronics so that the light turns
> on when it can't be seen and off when it can. Count the pulses and
> you have a very nice light clock.
Construction of such a device is not as simple as you'd like to
believe it is.
> Make two. Calibrate one against the
> other. You'll need a micrometer screw to adjust one of the mirrors.
> Now cross them, so that one is aligned North/South and the other
> East/West.
> Being in the same frame, they should count in synch, but of course
> they
> won't.
Here is where your ignorance is showing yet again. The fact that the
rate a light clock ticks is independant of the clocks orientation in
space seems beyond your comprehension.
<snipped androcles usual bs>
- Next message: jahn: "Re: Maxwell's Displacement Current"
- Previous message: V ertner Vergon: ""TIME DILATION" ADDENDUM"
- In reply to: Androcles: "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
|
