Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?

From: Ken S. Tucker (dynamics_at_vianet.on.ca)
Date: 03/10/05 

Date: 10 Mar 2005 13:17:10 -0800

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> >
> >>Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >
> >
> > [snip non physics stuff]
>
> Still waiting for an apology from you...
>
>
>
> >>>evidently you may want to discuss the norm
> >>>
> >>>p^2 = p_u p^u,
> >>>
> >>>where the components p_u and p^u are the
> >>>measurements of the the "energy-momentum"
> >>>vector, and "p" may be termed invariant
> >>>energy within a context.
> >>
> >>Is there anyone beside you who thinks that the norm
> >>of the energy-momentum vector should be termed "invariant
> >>energy"?

> > And your term would be?

> "magnitude of the energy-momentum four-vector"

By adding "momentum" could you provide us
with an example of "invariant momentum"?

>or "invariant mass times c^2"

Sounds a bit like invariant energy.

> >>>Let's ask Bjoern to differentiate "p".
> >>
> >>With respect to what?
> >
> >
> > You're down to 7/10 for asking that,
>
> And you are already below zero, for posing poorly defined
> questions and then putting the fault on me when I do not
> provide the answer you wished to see.

Sorry, but you accepted the question, you
did understand it in your last post, -1 for
making that error.

> You did not even specify the metric! Is this supposed
> to be an exercise in SR, with Minkowski metric, or in
> GR, where the metric itself is usually a function of
> the position and time?

Bjoern is asking for hints, he should have
decided on the metric, -1 point from him!

> Also a further hint: one should only ask test questions
> about things which one oneself does understand properly.
> And in light of your performance in SR and GR topics in
> this newsgroup, I don't think you really understand it.

Bjoern said "I don't think", +1 point, so
far that's true.

> > you were indecisive. Clearly the parameter
> > was not specified, hence you were required
> > to make that decision.
>
> And on what should I base that decision?
>
> Hey, let's differentiate p with respect to p. Then the
> answer is 1.

Wrong -1 point.

> Or let's differentiate it with respect to invariant mass.
> Then the answer is c^2.

Wrong -1 point.

> Or let's differentiate it with respect to proper time (under
> the assumption that this is an exercise in SR). Then the
> answer is 2 p_u a^u (or 2 a_u p^u, if you prefer),
> where a^u are the contravariant components of the four-acceleration
> vector, and a_u are the covariant components.

How would this be an excersize in SR if fields
are present to account for acceleration?
I.e. how is this acceleration physically real?

> >>>It's an open book test so all he needs
> >>>to do is point to a web site.
> >>>
> >>>Bjoern, we need educating...do it.
> >>
> >>Stop trolling. Get a life.
> >
> >
> > Trolling?
>
> Yes.
>
>
> > I defined a physics question,
> > you're down to 6/10, for avoidance.
>
> And you are now at -10, for continuing your
> trolling and refusing to apologize for your libelling
> of my reputation.

Your at 3/10, you want to be careful if you
want to make it the jeopardy round.

> > If you don't want to help me with my question
> > then say so. To be fair, the question is tough,
>
> The question is simply undefined.

Are stating, for the record, the norm

p^2 = p_u p^u

cannot be differentiated?

> > and I think we would all like to see how a
> > professional with a doctorate degree would
> > approach that problem.
>
> As long as a question is not properly posed,
> *no one* can answer it properly (without guessing
> simply).

> [snip long irrelevant story]

About another so-called Ph.d who crashed
and burned...

> 1) Apologize.
> 2) Phrase your question properly.

> If you don't do both: shut up.

+1 point for insolence, you have 4/10.

> Bjoern

You might win...
Ken S. Tucker

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Some questions about gravity
    ... Creighton Hogg wrote: ... Ken S. Tucker wrote: ... I can prove BJoern is deceptive! ... hadn't heard of the famous Shapiro experiment ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Neutrino Mass and Supernovae
    ... > Ken S. Tucker wrote: ... Bjoern, you need to study "curvilinear CS's", and unitary ... physically measure an infinite slope in an infinitesmal time ... it's equivalent to the number of cheerios ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Analogy Electromagnetism vs.Gravitation
    ... > Ken S. Tucker wrote: ... >> Here, an explicit definition of the volume is helpful, ... Why does Bjoern claim to wear pink panties? ... Christoffel tensor R_abcd, and I've given ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?
    ... > Ken S. Tucker wrote: ... You are the Bjoern Feuerbacher who debates with him ... or internet, only assign a probability. ...
    (sci.physics)