Re: Bunch of corrections (multipart message)

On Jul 22, 4:35 am, "Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I am not sure what on above replies is more funny. There are several
candidates and the decision is difficult one: their recurrent
misunderstandings about relativistic potential energies, ignoring
published literature and the sci.physics.research thread; the
distraction techniques to hide mistakes done in the past; etc.
Finally, I think that more funny part may be next

Well, you could either address what I say or whine in a most passively
aggressive fashion.

I see you chose the latter option.

[...]


Well, from the initial 4 self-proclaimed physists now remain only two
in the table.

....and your qualifications in physics are what, exactly?

PhD? Masters? Bachelors? "Learned via osmosis"? Devry?


Now it will be funny to see like they explain how Bilge "a
professionally qualified physicist" does not know dimensional analysis
and Karandash the other "professionally qualified physicist" is again
unable to write the *general* lagrangian and the *full* equation of
motion, which I asked him many times but he cannot write because does
not know the answer (he only know the easy part, the first
approximation appears in undergrad textbooks).

This is amusing considering how many times you have simply copied and
pasted from other textbooks - like Goldstein for example.

[...]

To summarize, in page 8 of english version of Mechanics, Landau and
Lifshitz write the Lagrangian L = T - U where U is the potential
energy. Next, they explain why *that* explicit expression for U (with
implies instantaneous interactions) is compatible with _Galileo_
relativity. They also explain otherwise the Lagrangian would be
incompatible with the principle of relativity. But wait a moment they
are speaking about -I cite from page 8- "Galileo's principle of
relativity".

Try to pay attention. Special relativity is the topic under
discussion, not Galilean relativity.

[galilean..galilean...yet more galilean...who the *** cares]


That is, Landau and Lifschitz are limiting their discussion to
potential energies of kind U = U(r1, r2, ...). They do *not* discuss
more general potential energies.

[iii]
There exist several ways to write relativistic potential energies U.

Finally. Back on special relativity.


A popular way is adding velocity components. This is done in
electromagnetism (see Goldstein or [1]). Then the potential energy is
not just U = U(r) like in Landau non-relativist treatise but a more
complex expression U = U(r, v).

That's because the Lagrangian has to be Lorentz invariant. Potential
energies that are only functions of position, in general, do not
qualify.


In the non-relativistic regime (c--> infinity)

U(r, v) --> U(r).

I would LOVE to see you try to prove this statement.


See also extra remarks about velocity dependent potential energies in
[5].

The use of velocity-dependent potential energies is very common in
nuclear and atomic physics. The Darwin potential energy (valid up to
c^2 aprox.) is a popular choice in relativistic quantum chemistry
(higher order terms are too expensive computationally).

You are drifting - yet more irrelevant verbiage about a subject that
is completely off-topic.

[yawn, irrelevant crap snipped]


That are bad news for relativists because they thought everyone that
gravity is curvature of spacetime, whereas ignoring alternative
formulations (they dislike).

That's right - alternative formulations are universally crap or are
theories in which general relativity is a direct mathematical subset.
Physicists [don't try to frame the debate via language by saying
'relativists'] have no use for theories that make either untestable or
incorrect predictions.


Another way to generalize non-relativistic potential energies is via a
direct covariant generalization U = U(x^b) with b = 0,1,2,3. This
leads to the covariant relativistic theory discussed with detail in
[4], where the relativistic potential energy plays a fundamental role
in the study of multi-body dynamics, including chaotic regimes. The
theory defined in [4] can be used for modelling phenomena where other
relativistic theories fail. From page 268 of monograph [4]:

Really, where do any relativistic theories fail?

Do you actually have a reference, or are you bullshitting as usual?


{BLOCKQUOTE
Of course, the most interesting results derivable from the
many-body theory are for systems for which field theory is not
capable of producing the equations of motion.

}


.