Re: Is charge conserved between frames?

From: WaiteDavid137 (waitedavid137_at_aol.com)
Date: 11/08/04 

Date: 08 Nov 2004 23:49:08 GMT

>Subject: Re: Is charge conserved between frames?
>From: pmb_phy@yahoo.com (Pmb)
>Date: 11/8/2004 2:15 PM US Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <2a7af61a.0411081315.57f2bc09@posting.google.com>
>
>WaiteDavid137@yahoo.com (David) wrote in message
>news:<3a91ee44.0411060843.4447e981@posting.google.com>...
>> pmb_phy@yahoo.com (Pmb) wrote in message
>news:<2a7af61a.0410290640.21efa88a@posting.google.com>...
>> > waitedavid137@aol.com (WaiteDavid137) wrote <snipped whines, insults
>> > and lies>

Flaming proves that you have no valid arguement.

>> > > Had you simply asked nicely ...
>>
>> (snipped flames)
>
>More evidence that waite has a persecution complex - the world is
>agains waite!!!

Flaming proves that you have no valid arguement.

>> > > ... instead of flaming me I would gladly explain to you why the
>electric
>> > > field is not a four-vector.
>> >
>> > Had you made the claim that the Sun didn't rise this morning then I'd
>> > have no reason to bother asking you to back up your claim that F^ab
>> > U_a was not a 4-vector.
>>
>> Your missing the point wasn't my fault as I told you that I'd explain
>> why the electric field wasn't a four-vector if you would ask nicely.
>
>Once more you're very wrong waite. Why do you constantly refuse to
>learn? All of this has been spelled out in quite a lot of detail and
>yet you're too ignorant to grasp it.

Flaming proves that you have no valid arguement.

>Let me tell you again dummy -> There is an electric field 4-vector.

No there isn't.

>Nobody except you said that the electric field *was* a 4-vector.

You and Sal did and you just did again.

>That'd be like saying that momentum was a 3-vector/4-vector without
>first defining the term before you make claims against it.

No its not. Momentum is a four-vector in relativity. It includes energy.

>Let me dumb this down a bit more for the ignorant waite yet once more.

Flaming proves that you have no valid arguement.

>There is a mathematical object called an "electric field 4-vector".

No there isn't.

>The very igorant/dumb waite has taken this to mean that the electric
>field *is* a 4-vector which is very dumb thing to think - but that's
>waite for ya.

Self contradiction and flamming proves that you have no valid arguement.

>The electric field 4-vector is, by definition (which waite is unable
>to understand) a function of (1) The faraday tensor and (2) the
>observer.

Flaming proves that you have no valid arguement.

>There are simple minded people like bilge
>and roberts who need the term "as measured by observer" before they
>are able to understand what it is they're reading - but that's another
>story entirely.

Flaming other people also proves that you have no valid arguement.

>E^a = F^ab U_b is ******defined***** as the "electric field 4-vector"

No it isn't.

>If you're not all that bright and need the "as measured by observer"
>to understand what it means then add it and stop whining.

Flaming proves that you have no valid arguement.

>The "electric field" is altogether a different quantity.

Right, so stop calling it the "electric field" four-vector.

(snipped some flames)
Flaming proves that you have no valid arguement.

>Do you understand that there is
>a thing called "3-momentum" which is different than 4-momentum and
>that the former has meaning only relative to a particular observer
>while the later is an object which has an existance beyong the
>existance of an observer?

Your wrong. 3 momentum merely refers to 3 elements of the 4 momentum.

><pathetic whining of waite's snipped>

Flaming proves that you have no valid arguement.