Re: why lorentz transformation?

"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> writes:
>"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote in message
>news:dffeka$1klh$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>| "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>| >I don't see any 1/r^2 term in your work.
>|
>| That is about a SOLUTION of the equations.

>ROFLMAO!
>I don't see sine or cosine mentioned anywhere!

First of all, I was talking about a term which incorporated a 1/r^2
dependence. The term was not explicitly given by Sue or myself.

Secondly, not all solutions of Maxwell's Equations involve sines or
cosines.

The radiation terms are also a solution of Maxwell's Equations.

Try to learn the difference between equations and their solutions, then
you won't embarrass yourself by mixing them up.

Also, you should try to comprehend that there is more than one solution to
Maxwell's Equations, and there is more than one type of solution.

>| Can't you even tell the
>| difference between equations and their solutions, or is this
>distinction
>| too hard for your minuscule intellect?

>http://www.sst.ph.ic.ac.uk/angus/Lectures/compphys/node28.html

This deals with numerical solutions (and computational solutions using
computers) to an equation in 1+1 dimensions. This is not the full wave
equation. The wave equation in 1+1 dimensions is decomposed into two
simpler equations, and this section deals with a COMPUTATIONAL solution of
the first of the two equations (or, more accurately, a computational
approximation to the solution).

On the other hand, in dealing with Maxwell's Equations in vacuo, we can
derive the (possibly inhomogeneous) wave equation in 3+1 dimensions, and
we are not interested in a computational approximation to the solution.

The fact is that the webpage is completely irrelevant to the discussion to
date. But I do find it interesting to see what connections your mind
makes.

>alpha = c dt/dx sin(k dx)

I note that you have written d here, where the original says "delta".
This is particularly important with your factor dt/dx, since the
discussion in that section of the work had nothing to do with any
derivative of t with respect to x (in fact, t and x were independent
variables, so that discussion of such a derivative was pure nonsense in
that context). The fact that you misinterpreted that factor as the
derivative of t with respect to x demonstrates that you did not understand
the first thing about the derivation on that page.

>Too hard for your non-existent neuron?

Isn't it interesting when people of limited comprehension like yourself
attack others with greater comprehension. You attack those with greater
knowledge and greater comprehension by calling them stupid. Your
definition of stupidity in others is that they do not agree with you.
For people of true intellect, this gives the people whom you insult
greater credibility, since you have no credibility whatsoever.

Androcles, you have proven yourself to be ineducable in the past, and of
course, this time will be no different. You will undoubtedly ignore the
rebuttals of above (including the very important point that Equation 2.19
in the webpage that you quoted had nothing to do with any derivative of t
with respect to x - that was just something that YOU tried to force onto
it).

Try reading www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf sometime. What
is being described there is appropriate to your situation with respect to
mathematics and physics. The only reason why you have such confidence in
your abilities in these disciplines is that your incompetence is so great
that it hampers your ability to recognize it, or to recognize competence
in others.

-----
.