 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / January 2005SR's EM Covariants invariantly unproven?
Are SR's EM Covariants invariably unproven? That's what Bilge has led me believe (through his failure to followup), the following being the entirety of the thread. How are my conclusions from his response wrong? Please be a wee bit specific. Note: one > is my previous, two are Bilge, three me. > "Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message news:slrncv2vpq.16i.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net... >> eleaticus: >> > >> >Is it is or is it ain't true that no EM covariant has ever been >> >demonstrated true/correct/valid by direct physical experiment? > > To the best I can parse that, no, it's not true. >Well, Bilge, thanks for your response. I think - but am not sure - that you >parsed mine correctly. > > Every time I measure a >> magnetic field, I'm measuring a covariant which has a particular value in >> the coordinate system in which I'm measuring it. > Which is to say, no, you have only measured in the 'stationary' frame? >> If you're asking whether >> or not any covariant has ever been measured such that it's value is >> independent of coordinates, then you'll have to explain what it means to >> measure something which depends upon the coordinates in a way that doesn't >> depend on the coordinates. > Certainly. Coordinates are purely figments of the magination. They have no >physical existence. There is absolutely nothing in the physical universe >that actually does depend on coordinates. > Distances, yes. Many physical phenomena depend on distances, from charge >sources, gravitational sources, etc. >Innyhoo, we have Bx, By, Bz, etc, wrt the 'stationary' observer and a moving > observer for whom SR calculates Bx', By', Bz', etc'. > The stationary observer can determine the values by interposing measurement >devices, perhaps in earlier circumstances as a calibration exercise. >The moving observer would also have no way of determining the EM field >values except by interposing his own measurement devices and his readings > would be exactly what the stationary observer would expect non-SRwise, using > the moving observer's charge and its velocity wrt the fields. Right? >> >That only the scalar/etc function is shown valid? >> Say what? To the best I can parse that, what you're asking is equivalent >> to asking if anyone has ever defined the direction, ``north'', but never > > been able to detrmine anything but the distance he/she travels or needs to > > travel to reach where he/she is going. That would imply no one has ever > > gone anywhere and reached their destination, because to do so would mean > > someone found a way to use a map to determine which direction to travel > > such that it's correlated with the direction of the person needs to > > travel. >The direct analogy would be that 'north' is well defined but, for a particle >travelling north in the view of the stationary observer, north becomes some >other direction according to the stationary system's theory, bringing up the >question: has anyone ever proved that north did change for the moving >particle? > Example as given by Gisse: >"A^u = e^u\exp(-i p_u x^u) >Where A^u is the electromagnetic four potential satisfying maxwell's >equations, box A^u = 0. (e^u is the four-polarization, p_u x^u is >the phase, from which one may also derive the doppler shift by >taking it to be invariant). It's not invariant with respect to >galilean transforms (unless the speed of light is infinite) >because (1) p_u x^u is invariant and (2) p_u A^u = 0 independent >of your choice of coordinates unless charge isn't conserved, in > which case maxwell's equations are incorrect. >Take "p_u x^u is invariant" >Under SR, x is not invariant, hence p must change as x changes. So, how has > p' been directly confirmed for a given x'? Any given x'? > From your response, I'd have to say 'never been done'. That, referring to >the original equation, only the invariant A has been confirmed. > Please continue your elucidation. >eleaticus eleaticus [snip] > > Example as given by Gisse: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >of your choice of coordinates unless charge isn't conserved, in > > which case maxwell's equations are incorrect. [snip] Why are you attributing that to me? I never said that. I don't know modern E&M well enough to argue it with anyone, even you. I see you have been misattributing me since October at least. I seem to recall mentioning this at least once in the past. A lie repeated often enough becomes truth, eh eleaticus? > Why are you attributing that to me? I never said that. I don't know > modern E&M well enough to argue it with anyone, even you. > > I see you have been misattributing me since October at least. I seem to > recall mentioning this at least once in the past. A lie repeated often > enough becomes truth, eh eleaticus? And the purpose for a lie would be? eleaticus > > Why are you attributing that to me? I never said that. I don't know > > modern E&M well enough to argue it with anyone, even you. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > eleaticus Ask a psychologist, not a physicist. It is not my job to explain why you are doing it, only to let you know that you are doing it and that it has to stop. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > recall mentioning this at least once in the past. A lie repeated often > enough becomes truth, eh eleaticus? Common crackpot tactics. It was indeed not you who wrote this: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/aff346fea29c224c http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=slrncm0mr9.a2j.dubious@radioactivex.l ebesque-al.net Next time, just throw the pointers at his blockhead :-) Dirk Vdm > Common crackpot tactics. To do what? (a) accurately attribute something? (b) inaccurately attribute something? What would/could be the purpose of the 'lie' of misattributing something that everyone considers correct? Only thing I can think of would be to deny credit to the actual author. If there are h nearby holes in the ground the probability that your head is not in one of them is 1/(h+1). Hint: ask someone else. you are way too stupid to figure it out. eleaticus > > Common crackpot tactics. > > To do what? To try to rationalize your ignorance and your stupidity http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Periodically.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ShowFormula.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Schzoid.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorFiasco.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Crimes.html Dirk Vdm eleaticus, who can't properly format a post: >Are SR's EM Covariants invariably unproven? > >That's what Bilge has led me believe (through his failure to followup), the >following being the entirety of the thread. Failure to followup what? I haven't seen what you've written below. >> "Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message > news:slrncv2vpq.16i.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >> Which is to say, no, you have only measured in the 'stationary' frame? No, I've meaured B fields here on earth, which rotates as well as traverses an elliptical path around the sun. It has no constant velocity in any direction. > >> If you're asking whether or not any covariant has ever been measured > >> such that it's value is independent of coordinates, then you'll have > >> to explain what it means to measure something which depends upon the > >> coordinates in a way that doesn't depend on the coordinates. >> Certainly. Coordinates are purely figments of the magination. Many of us find it convenient to measure quantities that are frame dependent, so we insure that any coordinates we define may be eliminated from the results along with the coordinate dependent quantity we measured. If you find it too difficult to understand how to insure self-consistency between the quantities that depend upon figmants of your imagination and the figments of you imagine, save yourself the trouble of imagining any figments and just measure invariants, e.g., B^2 - E^2, B.E, F, c, etc. Then, you can stop imagining coordinates which are inconsistent with the coordinate dependent quantities maxwell called E and B. >>They have no physical existence. All the more reason you should avoid them all together if you can't figure out how to make coordinates consistent with coordinate dependent quantities. >> There is absolutely nothing in the physical universe that actually >> does depend on coordinates. So what, precisely, was your reason for asking about covariants if you were interested in invariants? >> Distances, yes. Many physical phenomena depend on distances, from >> charge sources, gravitational sources, etc. So long as all you say is that something is located a distance D away, sure. But that isn't what you are trying to do. You want to define coordinates to label the location of D, but you don't want to use all the coordinates needed to insure that D is independent of the coordinates you choose. >>Innyhoo, we have Bx, By, Bz, etc, wrt the 'stationary' observer and a >>moving observer for whom SR calculates Bx', By', Bz', etc'. Your point is what, precisely? You just finished ranting about coordinates being figments of one's imagination, yet you have just written down quantities that depend upon those figments rather than coordinate independent quantities. If you write down coordinate dependent quantities, then don't bitch if you receive an answer in terms of the coordinate dependent quantities you've written. If you want to discuss coordinate _independent_ quantities, then phrase your question in terms of invariants, not covariants. >> The stationary observer can determine the values by interposing >> measurement devices, perhaps in earlier circumstances as a >> calibration exercise. That is a coordinate dependent measurement of coordinate dependent quantities. You just spent several paragraphs bitching about coordinate systems. Either rephrase your question in terms of invariants or retract your entire rant and write some statement which states explicitly that you will not make any objection to the use of coordinates in addressing the coordinate dependent quantities you specify nor will you attempt to create a strawman by misconstruing covariants as invariants or by shirking your responsibility to ask about anything which isn't clear in an attempt to misconstrue my response. Also, format the post correctly, meaning properly wrap and indent anything you think is important enough to read. If it isn't important enough for me to read it, it should be deleted. If I have to format somethin in order to read it and figure out what text goes with which post, then it isn't important enough for me to read. > >Are SR's EM Covariants invariably unproven? > >> "Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message > > news:slrncv2vpq.16i.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net... > > >> eleaticus: > > >> >Is it is or is it ain't true that no EM covariant has ever been > > >> >demonstrated true/correct/valid by direct physical experiment? > >> > To the best I can parse that, no, it's not true. > >> > Every time I measure a magnetic field, I'm measuring a covariant > >> >which has a particular value in the coordinate system in which I'm > >> >measuring it. > >> Which is to say, no, you have only measured in the 'stationary' frame? > No, I've meaured B fields here on earth, which rotates as well as > traverses an elliptical path around the sun. It has no constant velocity > in any direction. Boy, that sounds like 'weasel' wording. Besides being completely non-responsive. I asked nothing and mentioned about a stationary frame. I said 'stationary'. Yes or no: at no time in making any or those measurements - or in interpreting any of them- was any result interpreted as being a primed value. eleaticus eleaticus: >> >Are SR's EM Covariants invariably unproven? > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >non-responsive. I asked nothing and mentioned about a stationary frame. I >said 'stationary'. You said ``stationary frame.'' Just look at your post above. >Yes or no: at no time in making any or those measurements - or in >interpreting any of them- was any result interpreted as being a primed >value. Since the program calculates in the center of momentum, i.e., all of values are primed values. > eleaticus: > >> >> Which is to say, no, you have only measured in the 'stationary' frame? > >Boy, that sounds like 'weasel' wording. Besides being completely > >non-responsive. I asked nothing and mentioned about a stationary frame. I > >said 'stationary'. > You said ``stationary frame.'' Just look at your post above. Just look at your post. Second paragraph above is what I said and what you have quoted twice. "Which is to say, no, you have only measured in the 'stationary' frame?" > >Yes or no: at no time in making any or those measurements - or in > >interpreting any of them- was any result interpreted as being a primed > >value. > Since the program calculates in the center of momentum, i.e., all of > values are primed values. Hmmm. Thank you. A direct answer almost! Please elucidate what it is the program does. But it still avoids the central and continuing question: eleaticus eleaticus: >> eleaticus: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Hmmm. Thank you. A direct answer almost! Please elucidate what it is the >program does. Please assent to the the conditions posted previously, as per the post. > eleaticus, who can't properly format a post: Nonsense. You just couldn't read and understand the simple import of the simple formatting info I provided. > > >> If you're asking whether or not any covariant has ever been measured > > >> such that it's value is independent of coordinates, then you'll have > > >> to explain what it means to measure something which depends upon the > > >> coordinates in a way that doesn't depend on the coordinates. > >> Certainly. Coordinates are purely figments of the magination. > Many of us find it convenient to measure quantities that are > frame dependent, IE, 'stationary' frame only. > so we insure that any coordinates we define may > be eliminated from the results along with the coordinate dependent > quantity we measured. Which, of course, is the point of my repeated insistence on the coordinate difference form for Galilean transforms, which leave the distance info x,y,z represent unscrewed up, unlike the consequences of the Lorentz-Einstein transforms. Which, of course, is central to this thread. Covariance is the 'crooked bookkeeping' technique required to offset the screwed up coordinates actual use of the L-E transforms creates from perfectly fine x,y,z distance info. Hence, too, your avoidance of a direct and honest answer. A direct answer would be so simple if it supported an argument against what I have asked/stated in this thread: "Oh yes, we directly verify the computed covariant values the speeding system supposedly measues for the lab EM experiment night and day a million times." Whereas what you continue to imply by your little dance to the tune 'Bilgy is a buffoon' is instead: "Oh no. We only measure and 'see' exactly those invariant values we'd be looking for even if SR had never been invented and then infer that our transformed covariant values would be correct if ever we could directly verify them." > If you find it too difficult to understand > how to insure self-consistency between the quantities that depend [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > imagining coordinates which are inconsistent with the coordinate > dependent quantities maxwell called E and B. If I parse your evasiveness corrctly, it is exactly the methods of insuring self-consistency to which I seek your 'confession'. Yes or no: any measurement made by a moving measurer of an EM field source stationary wrt to 'lab' frame, must be, and is subject/in accord with, stationary system (x,y,z,Bx,Ez, etc) formulae. Yes or no: that is obvious since any such measurement would be in accord with a stationary field source+observer's equations which would include the velocity term of the measuring device. > >>They have no physical existence. > All the more reason you should avoid them all together if you can't > figure out how to make coordinates consistent with coordinate dependent > quantities. > >> There is absolutely nothing in the physical universe that actually > >> does depend on coordinates. > So what, precisely, was your reason for asking about covariants > if you were interested in invariants? Answered above in exactly the way you knew it would be and thus wanted to avoid direct, honest answers. > >> Distances, yes. Many physical phenomena depend on distances, from > >> charge sources, gravitational sources, etc. > So long as all you say is that something is located a distance D > away, sure. But that isn't what you are trying to do. You want to > define coordinates to label the location of D, but you don't want > to use all the coordinates needed to insure that D is independent > of the coordinates you choose. Why in hell not? Oh. Yes, Lorentz-Einstein screwed up coordinates, not invariant Galilean distances via unscrewed up values. I don't blame you for wanting to avoid being pinned down about the facts, which your avoidance confirms. In a simple equation such as the area of a rectangle of height h located in the first quandrant, with left bottom corner at the origin, A=hx, the invariant form would be A=h(x1-x0) (actually, whereever the object was placed, the non-h side parallel to x axis). You SRians can't even create an invariant transform of that simple equation without making h feloniously covariant! You are such great savants that you can't handle anything that simple. Funny how your cult literature never mentions that when Lorenyz-einstein coordinate trasnforms are applied it screws up EVERYTHING so badly you had to invent covariant forms, and in the case of Maxwell completely avoid the coordinate transforms and instead apply gamma and beta which also invariantly transform' say, the gene mixture in a population of rabbits (three sources) with genetic manipulation being applied over time at a specified maximum rate. Which is why you avoided and lied about your response to my request for actual working (ie calculable) Bx, By, etc, so I could demonstrate for the non-True Believers who don't get it, that Albert's coordinate transforms make a huge, horribly f.cked up mess of EM field equations. > >>Innyhoo, we have Bx, By, Bz, etc, wrt the 'stationary' observer and a > >>moving observer for whom SR calculates Bx', By', Bz', etc'. > Your point is what, precisely? You just finished ranting about > coordinates being figments of one's imagination, yet you have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > written. If you want to discuss coordinate _independent_ quantities, > then phrase your question in terms of invariants, not covariants. No sir, that is not true. There is nothing in 'Bx, By' etc that implies the use of coordinates, although it does imply direction. Bx could easily be based on a distance measure rather than an x value. Supply formulae for Bx, By etc in x,y,z as previously requested and dishonestly handled by you and we will show the invariance under actual coordinate transforms that provide nothing but measureable values rather than the phoney transforms of SR that provide fraudulaent that can't be mesured. Oops. This got deleted from previous, I guess: Measuring and discussing EM invariants doesn't require the SR idiocy, right? You want to avoid discussing the covariants because they are the crooked bookkeeping that allows you to pretend your cult isn't sh.t. Yes or not. You have not and never will be able to experimentally directly confirm a covariant value. eleaticus eleaticus: >> eleaticus, who can't properly format a post: > >Nonsense. You just couldn't read and understand the simple import of the >simple formatting info I provided. I already told you that if the lines are too long and the indents are screwed up, I won't, can't, whatever, read the text. If what you write isn't important enough to write it so that it's easy to read, I assure you that it's orders of magnitude less important to me that I read what you wrote. Too bad. It's your choice. >> > >> If you're asking whether or not any covariant has ever been measured >> > >> such that it's value is independent of coordinates, then you'll have [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >IE, 'stationary' frame only. Wrong. It's usually inconvenient to use the lab (`stationary') frame. Usually, it's simpler to calculate in the center of momentum and then lorentz transform the result to get the values in the lab frame. You neglected to include a statement to the effect that you would not try setting up strawmen or bitch about coordinates as I requested as a precondition for a serious reply. Try again. I'm not going wade through a rant for the privilige of defending your strawman. > You neglected to include a statement to the effect that you would not > try setting up strawmen or bitch about coordinates as I requested as > a precondition for a serious reply. Try again. I'm not going wade through > a rant for the privilige of defending your strawman. We both know that A. I do not 'setup strawmen" B. That you are using the term precisely because I often use it. C. It was not I who brought up coordinates in this thread or its antecedent. It was you. Any 'bitch' of mine about coordinates took place herein precisely because, and after, YOU bitched about them. And you used them to avoid making a straightforward answer to a question you knew the answer to. (As evidenced by your apparently correct 'parsing', as you put it). The thread from the start was about YOUR (SR's) covariants (4-forms in invariant coordinate-based expressions) which are one hundred percent due to the coordinate transforms. But I did not bring up coordinates. YOU did. Coordinates did not have to be invoked in the discussion. And when YOU brought them up you validated my apparently not mistaken view that you couldn't measure any of them directly. Well, Bilge, what else could your rant about/against coordinate dependent measurement mean? The values of the covariants are coordinate dependent. It necessarily follows from your 'the idea of making direct coordinate-dependent measurements is ridiculous' that you can't measure the covariants directly. (Yes, that was a paraphrased summary.) That amounted to an answer to the original question: does SR directly measure the covariant values such as in p_u x^u? (p_u x^u is the phase and invariant, per Bilge). And the major question is still: yes or no, are the coordinate dependent components of p directly measured? In SR there is only one truly coordinate free measurement frame: the lab frame, which is at rest wrt the EM source. How does that make measurements there coordinate free? It is the only frame where actual, ratio scale distances are used instead of interval scale pseudo-distance coordinates. If you don't know what ratio scales and interval scales are then: 1. shame on you.. 2. google them and find out. Both x'=x-vt and x'=g(x-vt) are interval scale except at t=0, assuming a valid, ratio scale x to start with. Well, to summarize: A. covariants (such as p in the p_u x^u that came from you, apparently, and not the child, Gisse) depend on coordinates. B. SR's coordinates depend on time, changing every moment and thus changing the covariant values drastically every moment. C. B. implies, I infer, that you would use time independent, unchanging values of p and x, from x'=gx rather than x'=gx-gvt. (Right?) Is that you mean when you say coordinate-independent/free? You use only t=0 values? LOL. So, tell me how covariants can be coordinate dependent but you can directly measure them coordinate free. And let me tell you: it is precisely the measurement of the values of the covariant 4-form's components that correspond to experimentally proving the validity of the covariant's L-E based values. If the noble or ignoble reader will do nothing else, please verify or invalidate the assumption I made long ago but not used/asserted until now, that in equations where x' actually is used, that it is only an x'=gx without a vt term, or with t=0. Hmmm. How in blazes to you make t' constant? Use t'=t/g, with t=x=y=z=0? (LOL) Well, Bilge, if you don't bitch and create strawmen, neither will I. Covariants are based on a coordinate transform, used either fully or faultily. Until the question of these covariants is settled, the question of B', E' must be addressed separately. They are based on absolute non-use of the coordinate transforms. Gamma, Beta are applied to the numerators, not to the denominators where x,y,z actually reside. With love, hugs, and kisses. eleaticus eleaticus: >> You neglected to include a statement to the effect that you would not >> try setting up strawmen or bitch about coordinates as I requested as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >A. I do not 'setup strawmen" If we knew that, you would have simply agreed to my request that you stipulate to not setting up a strawman. It's obvious that we exactly the opposite. > You neglected to include a statement to the effect that you would not > try setting up strawmen or bitch about coordinates as I requested as > a precondition for a serious reply. Try again. I'm not going wade through > a rant for the privilige of defending your strawman. The coordinates do not get involved in the SRian transforms of the 4-forms B, E, etc, so I agree fully not to 'bitch' about coordinates. And the only 'strawman' here/now or subsequently will be the question itself: are the components of the transformed 4-forms in question directly measureable. OK? You said yes about the direct measurement of Bx' etc. Which is somewhat feasible even to an L-E hostile, there being no transformed coordinate values involved. (Gamma and beta are in the numerators but x,y,z are almost always present in the denominators.) You then said things about a program. But the program's algorithms or heuristics can only make sense in terms of the physical apparatus and the physical process of measurement. So, let's address that, so the program's methods will be grounded in reality. OK? Please use these questions as the starting point. They obviously tell you what info is needed to resolve the situation: A. is the EM source at rest wrt the 'stationary' 'lab' frame? If not, how is it used? B. is the EM field in use distance-dependent or is it a uniform field? C. is the measurement 'active' in the sense that the lab uses the same basic kind of test apparatus/method as it would in any electronics lab while testing electrical or magnetic fields, or while calibrating equipment? But, of course, with the test equipment moving relative to the EM source? D. or, is the measurement 'passive' in the sense that a charged particle or more massive charged body is observed traversing the EM fields? With (a) stationary EM source, (b) moving EM source, (c) either? E. If 'passive', then do you use the particle path to infer the velocity? F. If 'active' with a moving (wrt stationary frame) EM source, is the test apparatus at rest wrt statioanry frame? Your compliant and so submissive correspondent, I am eleaticus eleaticus: >> You neglected to include a statement to the effect that you would not >> try setting up strawmen or bitch about coordinates as I requested as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The coordinates do not get involved in the SRian transforms of the 4-forms >B, E, etc, so I agree fully not to 'bitch' about coordinates. E and B are not 4-forms. E and B are components of a 2-form, F. >And the only 'strawman' here/now or subsequently will be the question >itself: are the components of the transformed 4-forms in question >directly measureable. > >OK? That depends upon what you mean by ``transformed'' and ``directly measureable''. If I measure a field to be, B = (B_x, B_y, B_z) = (B_x, 0, 0) E = (E_x, E_y, E_z) = (0, 0, 0) and rotate what is being measured by an angle A in the x-y plane, to get, B_x' = B_x cos(A) - B_y sin(A) = B_x cos(A) B_y' = B_y cos(A) + B_x sin(A) = B_x sin(A) B_z' = B_z B' = (B_x cos(A), B_x sin(A), 0) E' = (0, 0, 0) Does that qualify as a coordinate transformation according to you? As to what you mean by ``directly measureable'', describe the device which would be used to obtain a ``direct measurement'' of E and B, without being naive. In other words, if it involves the movement of charges to obtain readings on a meter in terms of currents and voltages, supply the assumptions upon which those devices are based. I'm not going to be constrained to a naive measurement based upon ignorance of how a mea- surement is obtained. For example, telling me to use a hall probe to measure B is inadequate. The hall probe is just a convenient way to encapsulate the principle upon which the measurement is based into a piece of semiconductor material. I'm not going to address any strawman in which the only acceptable measurement involves a 50 ton mass spectrometer travellng at 0.99 c nor am I willing to stoop to that level of naivete just to answer a troll. I expect you to provide the precise principles that are behind anything you consider an acceptable measurement of anything. >You said yes about the direct measurement of Bx' etc. Which is somewhat >feasible even to an L-E hostile, there being no transformed coordinate >values involved. There most certainly are transformed quantities involved. >(Gamma and beta are in the numerators but x,y,z are almost >always present in the denominators.) You then said things about a program. > >But the program's algorithms or heuristics can only make sense in terms of >the physical apparatus and the physical process of measurement. So, let's >address that, so the program's methods will be grounded in reality. OK? Then specify them. >Please use these questions as the starting point. They obviously tell you >what info is needed to resolve the situation: > >A. is the EM source at rest wrt the 'stationary' 'lab' frame? If not, how is >it used? Huh? >B. is the EM field in use distance-dependent or is it a uniform field? That is a frame dependent question. >C. is the measurement 'active' in the sense that the lab uses the same basic >kind of test apparatus/method as it would in any electronics lab while >testing electrical or magnetic fields, or while calibrating equipment? But, >of course, with the test equipment moving relative to the EM source? Skip the specific instruments. You specify the process which defines the measurement. >D. or, is the measurement 'passive' in the sense that a charged particle or >more massive charged body is observed traversing the EM fields? With (a) >stationary EM source, (b) moving EM source, (c) either? You are either naive or attempting to set up a strawman. You specify the details regarding what defines a measurement of a B and E field. Lordy, Bilge! Either change medications or the dosage! This is a synopsis of the quoted material below: A. In a thread about SR's covariants such as phase p in p_u x^u I allowed Bilge to divert us to SR's EM field transformations. A1. He ranted some about me ranting about coordinates and I agreed that since there are no x',y,z',t' in getting Bx', etc there would be no coordinate stuff. B. Bilge asserted that he could directly measure B' and said things about how a program made the calculations. C. I said that in order to understand what the program did it would be necessary to know the physical setup in which the measurements the program used were collected. This sort of summarizes his idiocy, delusion, or whatever it is: > As to what you mean by ``directly measureable'', describe the device > which would be used to obtain a ``direct measurement'' of E and B, without [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > that are behind anything you consider an acceptable measurement of > anything. I ask you to simply describe the measurement method you use and you rant about 50 tons and .99c? Look, you idiot, psychotic a.shole, I asked you to give an example of how you get the measurements your program uses. Must I assume you were a goddamned liar in saying you could measure the components of SR's B' directly? Or are you relying on the slimeily corrupt twist of the SR transforms to this: > B = (B_x, B_y, B_z) = (B_x, 0, 0) > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Does that qualify as a coordinate transformation according to you? Look, you slimey, psychotic a.shole, the subject is SR. Are their ANY honest SRians out there? eleaticus eleaticus: >Lordy, Bilge! > >Either change medications or the dosage! I take it that you aren't interested in specifying the conditions under which you will deem an answer acceptable? I've already stated that I'm not interested in addressing your strawman argument. >This is a synopsis of the quoted material below: > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > >eleaticus > Lordy, Bilge! > [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > eleaticus Honest. Relativist. Oxymoron. Androcles. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.