Re: Is charge conserved between frames?
From: sal (pragmatist_at_nospam.org)
Date: 10/31/04
- Next message: TMG: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Previous message: Max Keon: "zero and infinity Revisited"
- In reply to: WaiteDavid137: "Re: Is charge conserved between frames?"
- Next in thread: Bilge: "Re: Is charge conserved between frames?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 22:18:00 -0400
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 14:44:49 +0000, WaiteDavid137 wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Is charge conserved between frames? From: sal
>>pragmatist@nospam.org
>>Date: 10/29/2004 1:14 PM US Mountain Standard Time Message-id:
>><pan.2004.10.29.20.14.12.497549@nospam.org>
>>
>>On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:24:21 +0000, WaiteDavid137 wrote:
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: Is charge conserved between frames? From: sal
>>>>pragmatist@nospam.org
>>>>Date: 10/29/2004 9:04 AM US Mountain Standard Time Message-id:
>>>><1099065845.5pehvDZUdK6iR3V1+eE7Qg@teranews>
>>>>
>>>>On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 08:44:09 -0700, Pmb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message
>>>>> news:<slrnco468n.93p.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
>>>>>> Pmb:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Ah, darn it. I was hoping to catch bilge in one of his retreat
>>>>>> >modes. This was going to be a perfect example of his
>>>>>> >backpeddeling. I stated "the electric field 4-vector" at first so
>>>>>> >that'd he see it and claim there's no such thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're either a moron, ignorant or arrogant - which is it bilge? I'm
>>>>> wagering that you're still too arrogant to admit your mistakes
>>>>>
>>>>> Its prettu clear to everyone here that when someone speaks of the
>>>>> "electric field 4-vector", E, that you are unable to comprehend that
>>>>> they are speaking of the geometric object whose full/precise name is
>>>>>
>>>>> "Electric field 4-vector as measured by the observer whose 4-velocity
>>>>> is U."
>>>>>
>>>>> and whose components are E^u = F^uv U_v. That's quite expected from
>>>>> the extremly arrogant bilge.
>>>>>
>>>>> For those other than bilge (whose too scared to look for fear that
>>>>> he'd actuallty have to admit his screwup) - The electric field
>>>>> 4-vector is defined as
>>>>> http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/efield_4vector.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Thorne and Blanchard define it on page 39 of their new text at
>>>>> http://www.pma.caltech.edu/Courses/ph136/yr2002/chap01/0201.2.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> bilge is also too scared to read this for the same reason
>>>>>
>>>>> So what is it bilge? Was I correct when I explained to sal that you
>>>>> didn't know that I was refering to "Electric field 4-vector as
>>>>> measured by the observer whose 4-velocity is U."?? Or are you also
>>>>> claiming that this doesn't exist either?
>>>>
>>>>You used my name again, so I'll toss in a response.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, if you read Bilge's response to me which arrived this
>>>>morning, he seems to have a much better grasp of this than Dave Waite.
>>>>.........
>>>
>>> You are speculating. I grasp the matter perfectly.
>>
>>Of course you do. It's OK, Dave, we all realize that you grasp
>>everything perfectly.
>
> Flames aren't getting you the answer.
>
>>> If Bilge does to then we grasp it equally. You just don't understand
>>> why the electric field isn't a four-vector because instead of asking me
>>> nicely you chose to flame me
>>
>>Got me mixed up with somebody, Dave? I didn't flame you, not in this
>>thread, anyway. Not before this moment, anyway.
>
> BS
>
>>> so I chose to leave you in the dark instead of explaining why.
>>
>>What's this ... uh.. I can't quite ... oh, OW! Darn, I banged my nose on
>>a door. Can't see anything, with all this darkness Dave stuck me in...
>
> Thats right and continued flamming is getting you no answer.
>
>>> I had already explained why in my online short text on relativity
>>> anyway.
>>
>>Yeah, I saw your explanation.
>
> Based on what you say next, no you didn't.
>
>> You allowed that U and F were tensors then
>>said their contraction was a set of invariant components that didn't
>>constitute a tensor.
>>Good job, Dave!
>
> You didn't get what I said. Now you can remain clueless. I don't care.
>
>>> If you apoligize and ask nicely I'll give you the URL to the page that
>>> explains it.
>>
>>But that's a page on your website, right? Then I'd have to go and read
>>it, just so I could keep on being polite. UGH! Please, Dave, don't do
>>that! Spare me!
>
> If you like to be ignorant thats your problem.
>
>>Oh, well, maybe I'm not more polite than you, after all.
>
> No, you flamed me. I haven't flammed you. I just said I won't explain it
> to you until you apologize. Just to make you face that you are wrong even
> if you don't understand why consider this. Take an ordinary bar magnet.
> According to a frame in which it is at rest there is a magnetic field but
> no electric field. Go to a frame with respect to which the magnet is in
> motion. At a given point in space according to that frame the magnetic
> field is changing with respect to time. This means that this frame yields
> an EMF or voltage there. The emf varies throughout space as it must vanish
> at infinity thus there is a gradient to that electric potential and
> therefor an electric field there. This demonstrates a case where the
> electric field can be transformed away. A tensor can not be transformed
> away, therefor the electric field is not a tensor even though according to
> any "particular" frame it can be expressed as a product of tensors, the
> electromagnetic field tensor and the four-vector velocity of the observer.
> Even though it is expressed according to any given frame as a product of
> tensors this experiment demonstrates that is can not be a tensor itself.
> You are ignorant as to why that it thinking it is a tensor up to now. I
> told you that it is not and never explained why. I could explain why if
> you apologize and ask nicely but since you chose to continue flaming I
> don't care to. Tough.
Poor Dave -- solemnly slogging on, not realizing that you missed the point
completely. Have you read none of the discussion that's been going on
around you? Or did you fail to understand it?
It doesn't matter. I find your accusations of "flamming" and "BS"
and your demands that I "apoligize" for some imagined insult before you
will discuss anything further both rude and offensive.
I also find your posts uninformative -- I cannot think of a single post
of yours from which I learned anything, on this news group or in other
forums where I have seen them.
And I find your posts boring.
So I ask myself, if I find your posts offensive, uninformative, and
boring, why am I reading them?
And I haven't got an answer.
'Bye, Dave.
**plonk**
-- I can be contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org
- Next message: TMG: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Previous message: Max Keon: "zero and infinity Revisited"
- In reply to: WaiteDavid137: "Re: Is charge conserved between frames?"
- Next in thread: Bilge: "Re: Is charge conserved between frames?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
