Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #591990 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-09-18 22:39 +0000 |
| Last post | 2022-12-07 23:06 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 290 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-18 22:39 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 17:14 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 17:37 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 17:55 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 23:17 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 19:32 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 20:12 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-19 09:35 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-19 09:44 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-19 09:53 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-20 13:59 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-20 08:23 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-09-19 12:10 +0300
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-19 11:29 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-19 19:42 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-09-20 13:18 +0300
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-20 15:15 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Justus Basurto <trso@subsrbob.au> - 2022-09-20 19:34 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Justus Basurto <trso@subsrbob.au> - 2022-09-20 19:47 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Justus Basurto <trso@subsrbob.au> - 2022-09-20 19:54 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-20 21:45 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Justus Basurto <trso@subsrbob.au> - 2022-09-20 21:56 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-20 15:47 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-20 19:51 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-21 10:59 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-21 06:32 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-21 23:20 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-21 16:53 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-21 19:29 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-09-21 23:14 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Jeiker Carboni <iree@eoaijoje.br> - 2022-09-22 14:26 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Jeiker Carboni <iree@eoaijoje.br> - 2022-09-22 15:27 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-20 22:42 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-09-20 22:51 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-23 07:03 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-23 11:50 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-09-23 07:22 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-23 12:55 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-24 08:21 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-23 23:59 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-24 09:24 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-24 11:24 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-25 08:44 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Paul B. Andersen" <pba@paulba.no> - 2022-09-25 14:56 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-26 20:32 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-01 07:40 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-01 00:23 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-05 08:22 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-05 11:08 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-06 08:41 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-06 10:35 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-07 14:06 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-08 07:19 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-08 00:09 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-08 10:27 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-08 08:54 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-09 09:10 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-16 08:15 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-16 09:14 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-16 12:59 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-16 10:37 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Jules Scotti <ujsl@ocjssuis.os> - 2022-11-16 18:40 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-18 08:33 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-20 20:56 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-23 08:55 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Everly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re> - 2022-11-08 18:52 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-09 09:24 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Everly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re> - 2022-11-09 16:17 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-09 12:34 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Everly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re> - 2022-11-09 19:30 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-09 12:37 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Everly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re> - 2022-11-10 06:21 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-09 23:19 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Everly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re> - 2022-11-10 07:59 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Urbano Napoleoni <uiiu@ilaonpno.ai> - 2022-12-07 23:10 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 15:28 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Everly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re> - 2022-11-10 06:47 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-10 08:34 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-12 01:32 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stefano Martelli <ftor@asanlnit.ir> - 2022-11-12 09:06 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-12 11:27 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-13 09:58 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-13 11:17 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-14 08:11 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-14 11:31 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-15 09:20 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-16 08:06 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-16 09:12 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-16 12:56 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-17 09:03 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-17 10:22 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-18 08:03 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-20 21:01 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Blake Armanni <blea@arrkare.in> - 2022-11-21 10:41 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-21 13:37 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Blake Armanni <blea@arrkare.in> - 2022-11-21 20:33 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-23 13:21 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Forest Vaccaro <asoa@ctrsreca.vr> - 2022-11-23 19:10 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-23 09:14 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-11-17 13:10 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-17 15:07 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-18 08:10 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-09 07:57 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-08 23:15 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-09 12:03 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-10 08:21 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-12 01:55 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-20 09:19 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-20 21:18 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 22:12 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-21 08:52 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-22 08:37 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-23 18:31 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 22:32 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-24 08:49 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-25 13:08 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-26 08:46 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-09-26 09:25 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-26 15:42 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-27 08:33 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-27 13:01 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Nikki Baldini <inai@dilainii.ib> - 2022-09-27 23:17 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-28 08:15 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 00:04 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Nikki Baldini <inai@dilainii.ib> - 2022-09-28 16:10 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 11:55 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Nikki Baldini <inai@dilainii.ib> - 2022-09-28 19:23 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 12:46 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Nikki Baldini <inai@dilainii.ib> - 2022-09-28 21:28 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Nikki Baldini <inai@dilainii.ib> - 2022-09-28 21:34 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-09-28 16:17 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Urbano Napoleoni <uiiu@ilaonpno.ai> - 2022-12-07 23:25 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 15:29 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 11:53 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-29 08:48 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-29 10:54 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-30 09:12 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-01 16:05 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-02 09:58 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-02 03:34 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-03 08:55 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-03 01:02 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-06 08:21 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-06 00:57 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-06 20:04 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-06 12:00 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-07 07:21 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-07 14:14 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Urbano Stilo <nuor@riotlaur.iu> - 2022-10-08 03:37 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-08 08:19 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-10-08 03:37 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-08 14:29 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Michel Marconi <iinc@lcrallem.or> - 2022-10-08 22:21 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-10 08:37 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 01:56 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-11 08:03 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-11 01:06 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-10-11 01:25 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-12 08:17 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-10-11 23:32 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 11:27 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-13 09:33 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 13:58 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Woodrow Adessi <reds@odirsodo.er> - 2022-10-13 21:03 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-14 08:49 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 01:11 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-15 09:24 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 03:05 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-16 09:30 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 13:02 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 13:19 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-17 08:18 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 02:48 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-18 08:56 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-19 14:51 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-20 21:14 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 13:27 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-21 09:03 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-21 02:05 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-22 10:36 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Oscar Alcheri <ohci@iessicsr.rn> - 2022-10-22 08:42 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 12:04 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Oscar Alcheri <ohci@iessicsr.rn> - 2022-10-22 19:47 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 19:54 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 23:00 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-23 09:13 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-23 02:45 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-25 07:49 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-24 23:53 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-25 09:26 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-25 12:32 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-28 09:16 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-28 20:51 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-30 08:25 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-30 13:51 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-31 09:40 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-10-31 11:26 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-31 17:42 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-01 07:59 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-01 00:35 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-02 09:04 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-11-02 11:39 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-04 08:18 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-11-04 12:12 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-04 10:49 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-05 08:35 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-05 11:10 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-06 08:51 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-06 10:47 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-08 07:35 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-08 00:07 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Everly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re> - 2022-11-08 19:28 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-26 08:48 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-10-22 22:31 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 22:57 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-23 09:24 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Oscar Alcheri <ohci@iessicsr.rn> - 2022-10-23 07:46 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-23 02:48 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-10-23 02:51 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-25 08:05 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-10-25 19:48 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-27 08:51 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Chase Rossini <asoi@riisscss.ho> - 2022-10-28 10:49 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Urbano Stilo <nuor@riotlaur.iu> - 2022-10-08 04:01 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-10-08 14:02 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-09 08:30 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Michel Marconi <iinc@lcrallem.or> - 2022-10-09 12:02 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-10-09 22:29 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-10-07 02:05 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Urbano Stilo <nuor@riotlaur.iu> - 2022-10-08 03:57 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-08 08:47 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-10-08 03:43 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-09 08:36 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Michel Marconi <iinc@lcrallem.or> - 2022-10-09 12:14 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-10 08:23 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Mandy Stabile <alts@ilnnnbsl.ed> - 2022-10-10 15:40 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-11 08:08 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Paul B. Andersen" <pba@paulba.no> - 2022-10-02 14:37 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-02 14:27 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-02 14:38 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-03 09:21 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-03 01:08 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-10-03 11:59 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Douglass Nervetti <dlul@esivlen.an> - 2022-10-03 18:31 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Urbano Napoleoni <uiiu@ilaonpno.ai> - 2022-12-07 23:03 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 15:24 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-06 08:29 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-06 00:58 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-06 20:11 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-06 11:31 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-06 11:33 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-30 09:19 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Lee Barsetti <erre@battaete.tr> - 2022-11-30 16:12 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 20:15 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-01 10:46 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-01 12:40 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-01 13:15 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-02 08:22 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 03:17 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-05 08:51 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-05 03:03 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Dallas Basurto <aarr@maramr.sa> - 2022-12-05 18:34 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-06 09:08 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-06 13:01 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-07 09:12 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-07 12:31 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-08 08:06 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-08 10:17 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-09 07:54 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-09 10:56 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-10 07:53 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-12-10 06:53 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-10 10:06 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-11 07:48 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-14 08:29 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-14 06:06 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Fabio Brambilla <oaab@llbaboaa.am> - 2022-12-14 17:36 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-14 13:48 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-15 10:15 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 01:17 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-15 05:57 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-16 12:45 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-15 05:52 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-16 08:43 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-12-07 11:23 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-02 01:25 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Nikki Baldini <inai@dilainii.ib> - 2022-09-28 21:46 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Nikki Baldini <inai@dilainii.ib> - 2022-09-27 16:39 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-27 12:34 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Urbano Napoleoni <uiiu@ilaonpno.ai> - 2022-12-07 23:06 +0000
Page 12 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 Next page →
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-25 19:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tj9sja$28igd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #593985 |
On 10/23/2022 3:24 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 23.10.2022 um 04:31 schrieb Volney: >> On 10/22/2022 4:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 21.10.2022 um 11:05 schrieb JanPB: >>> >>>>>> Then you are wrong. There are no errors in Einstein's paper. >>>>>> Besides Einstein, you also presume the peer reviewers for >>>>>> Annalen der Physik were idiots and that all physicists who >>>>>> read that paper since 1905 were/are idiots. >>>>> Well, then I take a different example. >>>>> >>>>> I take the second last page and this quote: >>>>> >>>>> "...it is clear that the energy withdrawn from the electrostatic field >>>>> has the value integral(epsilon *X*dx). " >>>>> >>>>> This integral has no bounderies, hence integrates over an infinite >>>>> realm. >>>> >>>> No, this integral is written in detail on the previous page where he >>>> calculates the work W using the first of the equations (A). >>>> The limits are omitted because they are obvious from the context. >>>> He puts them back in in the calculation of W. >>>> >>>>> Meant was, of course, something like work and the energy needed to >>>>> push >>>>> an electron inside a repelling static field or the opposite energy >>>>> gained by the oposite direction. >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>>> But work is force times distance and that distance is not infinite. >>>> >>>> Sure, and it's clear what the intent is. Every reader is presumed to >>>> know undergraduate physics material, like the definition of work. >>>> And when it's time to do the actual integration, the limits are there. >>>> >>>>> X is the x-component of the electric field strength vector and epsilon >>>>> the electrons charge. >>>>> >>>>> The product was meant as a force. >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>>> Now the obvious restiction for the intergral would be start and finish >>>>> of the movement. >>>> >>>> Yes. That's what it is. Obvious things need not be written out in >>>> full detail. >>>> >>>>> But since no such limits were mentioned, >>>> >>>> Because that's what they are, as you said. They are obvious. >>>> >>>>> the integral integrates from >>>>> minus infinity to plus infinity, what is nonsense. >> >> Wrong. If the limits aren't specified, it's an indefinite integral. It >> is like a function, with no value until the limits are specified. >> >> As in: "How do you find the energy withdrawn from the electric field?" >> Answer: "Find the function which is the integral(epsilon *X*dx)." >> and: "How do you find the energy withdrawn from the electric field from >> x=10 to x=20?" >> Answer: "Evaluate the integral(epsilon *X*dx) from 10 to 20." > > > The first part can be found in the text, but not the second part. Both parts are present. > > Einstein used actually the first part of your reply only, also in the > subsequent equation (where he derived E=m'c²). > > This was actually wrong, because that electron was not supposed to fly > from one end of the universe to the other, but between some changed > plates and just a short distance. The positions of the charged plates *ARE* the limits of integration. If that was too vague for you to understand, remember the target audience was other educated physicists. > > Now the introduction of these limits would be required, but Einstein > didn't mention them. That's why we have to assume, he wanted to use the > infinite case for 'E=m*c²'. Unspecified integration limits are *never* assumed to be infinite. If you want to specify infinite limits, you have to *explicitly* state limits from -infinity to infinity. Unspecified limits is like writing sin(x) without stating what x is. sin(x) is a function with known properties but no actual value without specifying a value for x. Integration is the same thing, except two limit values are necessary. So this "error" is (yet another) error of yours, not Einstein's, where you simply don't understand what an integral without limits means, and you blame Einstein for your own mistake. Just like every one of the dozen or so of your "errors" I looked at long ago (chosen randomly), each one was either a misunderstanding on your part, or not an error at all. > > But such a case can hardly be intended, because it is physically > impossible. Good, since nothing of the sort was ever intended. > > If the limits were introduced, then the subsequent equation should > become somehow different. Well then, rather than the answer being an integration, there will be an exact numerical value. Just like sin(x) vs. sin(pi/2). If I asked you what sin(x) meant, you would draw a wavy curve along an axis marked x, if I asked you what sin(pi/2) was, you'd say 1. > > I have actually mentioned several times, that E=m*c² should contain > 'deltas' (=the differences between these limits), but nobody agreed. Limits of what? E=mc² is not an integration equation. > > So, E=m*c² requires the limitless case, as nobody wanted such 'deltas'. Doesn't make any sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-27 08:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jruo4fF96t8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #594193 |
Am 26.10.2022 um 01:48 schrieb Volney: > On 10/23/2022 3:24 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 23.10.2022 um 04:31 schrieb Volney: >>> On 10/22/2022 4:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 21.10.2022 um 11:05 schrieb JanPB: >>>> >>>>>>> Then you are wrong. There are no errors in Einstein's paper. >>>>>>> Besides Einstein, you also presume the peer reviewers for >>>>>>> Annalen der Physik were idiots and that all physicists who >>>>>>> read that paper since 1905 were/are idiots. >>>>>> Well, then I take a different example. >>>>>> >>>>>> I take the second last page and this quote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "...it is clear that the energy withdrawn from the electrostatic field >>>>>> has the value integral(epsilon *X*dx). " >>>>>> >>>>>> This integral has no bounderies, hence integrates over an infinite >>>>>> realm. >>>>> >>>>> No, this integral is written in detail on the previous page where he >>>>> calculates the work W using the first of the equations (A). >>>>> The limits are omitted because they are obvious from the context. >>>>> He puts them back in in the calculation of W. >>>>> >>>>>> Meant was, of course, something like work and the energy needed to >>>>>> push >>>>>> an electron inside a repelling static field or the opposite energy >>>>>> gained by the oposite direction. >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>>> But work is force times distance and that distance is not infinite. >>>>> >>>>> Sure, and it's clear what the intent is. Every reader is presumed to >>>>> know undergraduate physics material, like the definition of work. >>>>> And when it's time to do the actual integration, the limits are there. >>>>> >>>>>> X is the x-component of the electric field strength vector and >>>>>> epsilon >>>>>> the electrons charge. >>>>>> >>>>>> The product was meant as a force. >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>>> Now the obvious restiction for the intergral would be start and >>>>>> finish >>>>>> of the movement. >>>>> >>>>> Yes. That's what it is. Obvious things need not be written out in >>>>> full detail. >>>>> >>>>>> But since no such limits were mentioned, >>>>> >>>>> Because that's what they are, as you said. They are obvious. >>>>> >>>>>> the integral integrates from >>>>>> minus infinity to plus infinity, what is nonsense. >>> >>> Wrong. If the limits aren't specified, it's an indefinite integral. It >>> is like a function, with no value until the limits are specified. >>> >>> As in: "How do you find the energy withdrawn from the electric field?" >>> Answer: "Find the function which is the integral(epsilon *X*dx)." >>> and: "How do you find the energy withdrawn from the electric field from >>> x=10 to x=20?" >>> Answer: "Evaluate the integral(epsilon *X*dx) from 10 to 20." >> >> >> The first part can be found in the text, but not the second part. > > Both parts are present. The X is NOT a function of x in Einstein's setting. That 'X' meant the x-component of the electric field strength vector at a certain point (x, y, z). But if Einstein wanted the E-field to be inhomogenous, he had to say so and provide a function, which would describe the spatial dependency of the field. Without such a function, the E-field must be assumed as homogenous, hence X is a constant in the realm of interest. Now the integral(epsilon *X*dx) would in this case contain no variable, to which these limits could apply, because epsilon and X are constant. But it makes no sense to integrate two constants and we could extract them from the integral. This would leave only integral(dx). This integrated from zero to x would gain x. But it's actually easier, to leave the integral away in the first place. If Einstein wanted a distance dependency like for instance in accordance to the inverse square law, this would have been possible, too. He simply had to mention this and the field gets space dependent. But in this case the inverse square law should also be applied in the integration (what cannot be found). >> Einstein used actually the first part of your reply only, also in the >> subsequent equation (where he derived E=m'c²). >> >> This was actually wrong, because that electron was not supposed to fly >> from one end of the universe to the other, but between some changed >> plates and just a short distance. > > The positions of the charged plates *ARE* the limits of integration. If > that was too vague for you to understand, remember the target audience > was other educated physicists. Not quite. The two plates of a large capacitor had to be placed before the position x=0 and beyond the postion x. It would have been necessary to mention their location and if this setting was intended in the first place. But no such statement can be found. Now we are forced to discuss the question, whether or not Einstein meant a homogenous field and how that is created, in case he wanted that. But an author should say, what he wants. It's not the duty of the readers to marter their brains in the attempt to figure out, what the author wanted. >> Now the introduction of these limits would be required, but Einstein >> didn't mention them. That's why we have to assume, he wanted to use >> the infinite case for 'E=m*c²'. > > Unspecified integration limits are *never* assumed to be infinite. If > you want to specify infinite limits, you have to *explicitly* state > limits from -infinity to infinity. Unspecified limits is like writing > sin(x) without stating what x is. sin(x) is a function with known > properties but no actual value without specifying a value for x. > Integration is the same thing, except two limit values are necessary. In my world a limitless integral means 'limitless integral', what could be understood as infinite. In your world similar constructs have (apperently) a different meaning. I have actually trouble with that. That's why we need a meta-discussion about this topic and whether missing of the limits mean 'limitless' or what else. > So this "error" is (yet another) error of yours, not Einstein's, where > you simply don't understand what an integral without limits means, and > you blame Einstein for your own mistake. Just like every one of the > dozen or so of your "errors" I looked at long ago (chosen randomly), > each one was either a misunderstanding on your part, or not an error at > all. Well, 'my errors' are actually based on my own education in math and engineering. But appently physicists live in a different world and use codes with meanings, that differ from other sciences. That would make discussions difficult. >> But such a case can hardly be intended, because it is physically >> impossible. > > Good, since nothing of the sort was ever intended. If something else was intended, than what was that actually? >> If the limits were introduced, then the subsequent equation should >> become somehow different. > > Well then, rather than the answer being an integration, there will be an > exact numerical value. Just like sin(x) vs. sin(pi/2). If I asked you > what sin(x) meant, you would draw a wavy curve along an axis marked x, > if I asked you what sin(pi/2) was, you'd say 1. >> >> I have actually mentioned several times, that E=m*c² should contain >> 'deltas' (=the differences between these limits), but nobody agreed. > > Limits of what? E=mc² is not an integration equation. I have not said so, but that the other side of the equal sign of E contained an integral ( integral(epsilon *X*dx) ). Now it would require some sort of justification, why and how the integral had vanished. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chase Rossini <asoi@riisscss.ho> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-28 10:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tjgc3i$31g9m$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #594193 |
Volney wrote: > On 10/23/2022 3:24 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> This was actually wrong, because that electron was not supposed to fly >> from one end of the universe to the other, but between some changed >> plates and just a short distance. > > The positions of the charged plates *ARE* the limits of integration. If > that was too vague for you to understand, remember the target audience > was other educated physicists. it's a tool, you idiot, the govs don't want to destroy. Are using it to thin the herd, killing, to eliminate the poverty, depopulate and underdevelop for life. Watch this retard lying, knowingly he is lying. "Vaccinated" and got covid, how many times. listen to me, you fucking moron, the govs *WILL_NEVER* destroy this *tool*. Donald Trump says,＂The Covid Vaccine Is One Of The Greatest Miracles In The History of Mankind.＂ https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/OskwtnBqV36M/ the "miracles" are depopulation and "eliminate_poverty". Capisci?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Urbano Stilo <nuor@riotlaur.iu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-08 04:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <thqsml$41ku$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #593001 |
Thomas Heger wrote: >> It must be because the waves are planar. But it makes no differnece >> where it is anyway. Only the waves are important to express the >> Doppler question fully. > > You think as a physicist and I as an engineer. > Engineers say: "Sorry, but we cannot place antennas at infinity" > Physicsts say: "Inifinity is required, because we want plane waves" your country is at war with the wrong enemy, again. You bite the hand feeding you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-08 14:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1pzi3e3.1x318vpwaiam9N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #593001 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > You think as a physicist and I as an engineer. > > Engineers say: "Sorry, but we cannot place antennas at infinity" > > Physicsts say: "Inifinity is required, because we want plane waves" > > >> (To use infinities here would be a very bad idea.) > > > > The location of the source is not used. Besides, it's merely a limiting > > case of a faraway source. Again, none of this is relevant. > > > How can you say 'The location of the source is not used. ' ??? > > 'The location of the source' is actually used, while the location of the > observer or the center of the coordinate system K is not. Your whole position is complete nonsense. The -free- Maxwell equations have plane wave solutions, (that is, the Maxwell eqns. without the source terms) Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-09 08:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jqf846Frs00U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #593082 |
Am 08.10.2022 um 14:02 schrieb J. J. Lodder: > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > >> You think as a physicist and I as an engineer. >> >> Engineers say: "Sorry, but we cannot place antennas at infinity" >> >> Physicsts say: "Inifinity is required, because we want plane waves" >> >>>> (To use infinities here would be a very bad idea.) >>> >>> The location of the source is not used. Besides, it's merely a limiting >>> case of a faraway source. Again, none of this is relevant. >> >> >> How can you say 'The location of the source is not used. ' ??? >> >> 'The location of the source' is actually used, while the location of the >> observer or the center of the coordinate system K is not. > > Your whole position is complete nonsense. Why? I meant, that the source of the wave has an influence on the wave and the points it hits, while the position of the observer has none. I mean: if you see the Eiffel-tower, for instance, the tower is the source of the image you see, not your location. Your location influences, how you see the tower. It could e.g. shrink, if you move further away. But this would not make the tower shrink, but the image of the tower. Now this image exists only in your brain, hence is not 'the real deal', while the tower is. > The -free- Maxwell equations have plane wave solutions, > (that is, the Maxwell eqns. without the source terms) oh dear.... TH >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michel Marconi <iinc@lcrallem.or> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-09 12:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <thud8q$g2f1$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #593161 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > I mean: if you see the Eiffel-tower, for instance, the tower is the > source of the image you see, not your location. > Your location influences, how you see the tower. It could e.g. shrink, > if you move further away. > But this would not make the tower shrink, but the image of the tower. > Now this image exists only in your brain, hence is not 'the real deal', > while the tower is. assume something else, not a brain. A photo, from a detector. How would that tower look like from a distance? You talk lika nigga. Are you a nigga?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-09 22:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1pzknal.x3xtwd17t5i70N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #593161 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 08.10.2022 um 14:02 schrieb J. J. Lodder: > > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > > > >> You think as a physicist and I as an engineer. > >> > >> Engineers say: "Sorry, but we cannot place antennas at infinity" > >> > >> Physicsts say: "Inifinity is required, because we want plane waves" > >> > >>>> (To use infinities here would be a very bad idea.) > >>> > >>> The location of the source is not used. Besides, it's merely a limiting > >>> case of a faraway source. Again, none of this is relevant. > >> > >> > >> How can you say 'The location of the source is not used. ' ??? > >> > >> 'The location of the source' is actually used, while the location of the > >> observer or the center of the coordinate system K is not. > > > > Your whole position is complete nonsense. > > Why? > > I meant, that the source of the wave has an influence on the wave and > the points it hits, while the position of the observer has none. > > > I mean: if you see the Eiffel-tower, for instance, the tower is the > source of the image you see, not your location. > > Your location influences, how you see the tower. It could e.g. shrink, > if you move further away. > > But this would not make the tower shrink, but the image of the tower. > > Now this image exists only in your brain, hence is not 'the real deal', > while the tower is. > > > > The -free- Maxwell equations have plane wave solutions, > > (that is, the Maxwell eqns. without the source terms) > > oh dear.... Yes dear, that's the way it is, Ja
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-07 02:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <thofid$3k47n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #592963 |
On 10/6/2022 2:21 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 03.10.2022 um 10:02 schrieb JanPB: > > ... >>> Quote (§ 7, page 15) >>> >>> "In the system K, very far from the origin of co-ordinates, let there be >>> a source of electrodynamic waves, >> >> This is just a fancy way of saying "let there be a plane wave in space >> given". >> >>> which in a part of space containing >>> the origin of co-ordinates may be represented to a sufficient degree of >>> approximation by the equations >>> X = X_0 sinΦ, L = L_0 sinΦ, >>> ... >>> " >> >> Yes, thats' the plane wave. >> >>> X is the x-component of the electric field strength vector and X_0 the >>> maximum of this vector (the amplitude) in the x-direction. >>> >>> The point , to which this vector belongs is the point (x,y,z) (measured >>> in K-coordinates). >> >> It's not "the" point, it's the formula describing this wave in all >> space (for >> all values of (x, y, z) ). > > If you want to adress all points, you need to say so. > If you write just (x,y,z) without any comment, this would mean: > take an arbitrary but fixed point with the coordinates x, y and z. > > This point (x, y, z) is therefor one single point, which can be > arbitrarily chosen, but only once. Once for the duration of the analysis. You can always repeat it with different (x,y,z) coordinates. > > If you like to adress all points, which have coodinates like (x, y, z) > in K, you could do that just by saying so. > > But without such a statement, (x,y,z) is just one single point. For the duration of the particular calculation. You can always do it again for a different (x,y,z) to get different value(s), as often as you want. It's like a function in a computer language like C. > > >>> Now these coordinates are entirely irrelevant for the field strength at >>> that point, because the coordinate system K is only used as reference to >>> define the point, but has no physical impact on its state. >> >> You are completely mixed up in the basics. It is assumed that a plane >> wave is travelling through (all) space. At each point (x, y, z) (as >> labelled >> by K) the value of the electric field is (X, Y, Z), where X, Y, >> Z are >> defined by the formulas you quoted above. > > > The formulas are wrong, because they contain the coordinates in repspect > to coordinate system K instead of coordinates in respect to the emitter. The first postulate states you can choose ANY set of (inertial) coordinates you wish. Usually the one easiest to analyze is chosen. The location of the emitter is irrelevant. All we care about is that the wave is a plane wave. It simply exists for this example. > > The cordinates in respect to K are entirely irrelevant, because K can be > arbitrarily chosen. So why did you say we have to use the coordinates of the emitter? > And any such decision would have an effect on the > coordinates, but not on the state of these points. > > Also irrelevant are the angles of the wave in respect to the coordinate > system K, because coordinate systems can also be rotated. > > This would influence the direction cosines, but not the state of these > points. It would change the problem because now the plane wave arrives at a different angle. > > Therefore the equations of Einstein are nonsense, not because they are > mathematically wrong, but because the wrong quantities went into them. WHAT "wrong quantities"? > >>> If he had the intentions you mentioned, then he should have derived >>> equations, which served his purpose. >> >> Those equations are basic and predate Maxwell, their derivation does >> not belong in a 1905 physics paper, it's appropriate in textbooks. >> Likewise, >> mathematical papers do not define real numbers, sets, and the like, even >> if they use them. In other words: get real. > > Just try to explain, how the numbers x,y,z, l, m and n are used in these > equations, even if they havn't any influence on the situation, the > equations are supposed to describe. > >>> But instead he wrote equations, >>> that contain the irrelavant quantities x,y and z, >> >> They are very relevant, the values X, Y, Z depend on x, y, z (the >> wave >> changes its value from point to point, it's not a constant function). > > NO!!!!! Yes. Plane waves are functions of their x,y,z and t coordinates. > > The value X, Y an Z are components of the electric field strength vector > at point (x, y, z). > > You could leave the coordinates away entirely or move or rotate system > K, but still you would have an electric field strength vector at that > point. This field would also not be effected by any change of the > coordinate system. 1) They are also functions of time t. 2) By rotation, the x,y,z coordinates are also rotated and take on different values. > > Coordinates are actually human artifacts and the points they describe > are not supposed to know anything about them. That's right. The end result won't change, but the coordinates of the end result will. > >>> which are the >>> coordinates of the point in respect to coordinate system K. >> >> Yes. They are necessary there. Just like when you describe a >> sine wave in one dimension: value = sin(x). The x is necessary and >> affects the values from point to point. This is just a certain 3D >> version of it. > > If you like to describe the wave and its effect on the space it passes > through, you certainly will concentrate on the wave. > > Waves usually start from a certain emitter and pass through space. The > points the wave hits on its way are influenced and set into a certain > state. > > Let the wave move with c, then we have a function of the wave like > psi= A * sin (t*c). > > (something like that) > > BUT: the coordinates of the wave start at the emitter, not at an > arbitrary observer. > > But the values l, m, n, x, y, and z are measures, which relate to the > observer, instead of to the emitter. The emitter is irrelevant. We only care about the function at (x,y,z). We can always choose the origin and choose the wave function relative to it, if necessary. (Remember: First Postulate) > >>> But K can be placed aribitrary to the liking of the experimenter, >>> because it is only the reference to measure the location, but not the >>> location itself. >> >> K is fixed. Reread the beginning of the paper. And obviously for the >> Doppler calculation it must be fixed since Einstein wants to see how >> the result depends on the angle phi of the wave direction. > > What do you mean with 'fixed'??? It is chosen once, and does not change for the duration of the analysis. > > In the context of SRT K is called 'stationary'. > > As inertial motion cannot be distinguished from being stationary in SRT, > any coordinate system in inertial motion can also be called 'stationary'. "Stationary" is just a name for the first inertial frame he used, also called K. > > I usually use a setting, where the observer calls his own system > stationary and rests in the center. > > This setting is very intuitive, because it reflects our usual > subjectivistic view on the world. > > But 'fixed' is not defined, because only relative velocities are defined > and absolute space was rejected. "Fixed" meaning it is chosen once, for the duration of the analysis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Urbano Stilo <nuor@riotlaur.iu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-08 03:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <thqsfg$41ku$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #593002 |
Volney wrote: > On 10/6/2022 2:21 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 03.10.2022 um 10:02 schrieb JanPB: >>> It's not "the" point, it's the formula describing this wave in all >>> space (for all values of (x, y, z) ). >> >> If you want to adress all points, you need to say so. >> If you write just (x,y,z) without any comment, this would mean: take an >> arbitrary but fixed point with the coordinates x, y and z. >> This point (x, y, z) is therefor one single point, which can be >> arbitrarily chosen, but only once. > > Once for the duration of the analysis. You can always repeat it with > different (x,y,z) coordinates. see you in Odessa. You can't do that without an additional evolution parameter, say time here, otherwise you use one of the three as evolution parameter. You failed Math Modeling and Scientific Computation once again. You guys, beyond blowing life significant pipelines under water, knows nothing at all in physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-08 08:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jqcknhFfi50U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #593002 |
Am 07.10.2022 um 08:05 schrieb Volney: > On 10/6/2022 2:21 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 03.10.2022 um 10:02 schrieb JanPB: >> >> ... >>>> Quote (§ 7, page 15) >>>> >>>> "In the system K, very far from the origin of co-ordinates, let >>>> there be >>>> a source of electrodynamic waves, >>> >>> This is just a fancy way of saying "let there be a plane wave in >>> space given". >>> >>>> which in a part of space containing >>>> the origin of co-ordinates may be represented to a sufficient degree of >>>> approximation by the equations >>>> X = X_0 sinΦ, L = L_0 sinΦ, >>>> ... >>>> " >>> >>> Yes, thats' the plane wave. >>> >>>> X is the x-component of the electric field strength vector and X_0 the >>>> maximum of this vector (the amplitude) in the x-direction. >>>> >>>> The point , to which this vector belongs is the point (x,y,z) (measured >>>> in K-coordinates). >>> >>> It's not "the" point, it's the formula describing this wave in all >>> space (for >>> all values of (x, y, z) ). >> >> If you want to adress all points, you need to say so. >> If you write just (x,y,z) without any comment, this would mean: >> take an arbitrary but fixed point with the coordinates x, y and z. >> >> This point (x, y, z) is therefor one single point, which can be >> arbitrarily chosen, but only once. > > Once for the duration of the analysis. You can always repeat it with > different (x,y,z) coordinates. this is actually ok. (x, y, z) is just an arbitrary point and meant as represetative for the entire space. >> If you like to adress all points, which have coodinates like (x, y, z) >> in K, you could do that just by saying so. >> >> But without such a statement, (x,y,z) is just one single point. > > For the duration of the particular calculation. > You can always do it again for a different (x,y,z) to get different > value(s), as often as you want. It's like a function in a computer > language like C. Einstein was not really calculating something. He used math to explain the behaviour of real world space, which is influenced by a real world wave. >> >>>> Now these coordinates are entirely irrelevant for the field strength at >>>> that point, because the coordinate system K is only used as >>>> reference to >>>> define the point, but has no physical impact on its state. >>> >>> You are completely mixed up in the basics. It is assumed that a plane >>> wave is travelling through (all) space. At each point (x, y, z) >>> (as labelled >>> by K) the value of the electric field is (X, Y, Z), where X, Y, >>> Z are >>> defined by the formulas you quoted above. >> >> >> The formulas are wrong, because they contain the coordinates in >> repspect to coordinate system K instead of coordinates in respect to >> the emitter. > > The first postulate states you can choose ANY set of (inertial) > coordinates you wish. Usually the one easiest to analyze is chosen. > > The location of the emitter is irrelevant. All we care about is that the > wave is a plane wave. It simply exists for this example. >> >> The cordinates in respect to K are entirely irrelevant, because K can >> be arbitrarily chosen. > > So why did you say we have to use the coordinates of the emitter? I didn't say, the coordinates of the emitter should be used!!!! I wanted to place the emitter at the center of the coordinate system K and use the coordinates of the points the wave hits in the equations for the fields of those points. If you don't do that and place the coordinate system K remotely, then we have the problem to solve, which purpose that coordinate system serves. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-08 03:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <thr9mk$56jk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #593074 |
On 10/8/2022 2:47 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 07.10.2022 um 08:05 schrieb Volney: >> On 10/6/2022 2:21 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 03.10.2022 um 10:02 schrieb JanPB: >>>>> Now these coordinates are entirely irrelevant for the field >>>>> strength at >>>>> that point, because the coordinate system K is only used as >>>>> reference to >>>>> define the point, but has no physical impact on its state. >>>> >>>> You are completely mixed up in the basics. It is assumed that a plane >>>> wave is travelling through (all) space. At each point (x, y, z) >>>> (as labelled >>>> by K) the value of the electric field is (X, Y, Z), where X, Y, >>>> Z are >>>> defined by the formulas you quoted above. >>> >>> >>> The formulas are wrong, because they contain the coordinates in >>> repspect to coordinate system K instead of coordinates in respect to >>> the emitter. >> >> The first postulate states you can choose ANY set of (inertial) >> coordinates you wish. Usually the one easiest to analyze is chosen. >> >> The location of the emitter is irrelevant. All we care about is that the >> wave is a plane wave. It simply exists for this example. >>> >>> The cordinates in respect to K are entirely irrelevant, because K can >>> be arbitrarily chosen. >> >> So why did you say we have to use the coordinates of the emitter? > > > I didn't say, the coordinates of the emitter should be used!!!! Yes you did. Quote: >>> The formulas are wrong, because they contain the coordinates in >>> repspect to coordinate system K instead of coordinates in respect to >>> the emitter. > > I wanted to place the emitter at the center of the coordinate system K Which is the same thing. > and use the coordinates of the points the wave hits in the equations for > the fields of those points. That is of no use. We are examining what happens at a given point, not at the emitter. > > If you don't do that and place the coordinate system K remotely, then we > have the problem to solve, which purpose that coordinate system serves. Duh-h-h-h! It is a reference frame for the point being examined!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-09 08:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jqf8foFrtgbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #593076 |
Am 08.10.2022 um 09:43 schrieb Volney: > On 10/8/2022 2:47 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 07.10.2022 um 08:05 schrieb Volney: >>> On 10/6/2022 2:21 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 03.10.2022 um 10:02 schrieb JanPB: > >>>>>> Now these coordinates are entirely irrelevant for the field >>>>>> strength at >>>>>> that point, because the coordinate system K is only used as >>>>>> reference to >>>>>> define the point, but has no physical impact on its state. >>>>> >>>>> You are completely mixed up in the basics. It is assumed that a plane >>>>> wave is travelling through (all) space. At each point (x, y, z) >>>>> (as labelled >>>>> by K) the value of the electric field is (X, Y, Z), where X, Y, >>>>> Z are >>>>> defined by the formulas you quoted above. >>>> >>>> >>>> The formulas are wrong, because they contain the coordinates in >>>> repspect to coordinate system K instead of coordinates in respect to >>>> the emitter. >>> >>> The first postulate states you can choose ANY set of (inertial) >>> coordinates you wish. Usually the one easiest to analyze is chosen. >>> >>> The location of the emitter is irrelevant. All we care about is that the >>> wave is a plane wave. It simply exists for this example. >>>> >>>> The cordinates in respect to K are entirely irrelevant, because K can >>>> be arbitrarily chosen. >>> >>> So why did you say we have to use the coordinates of the emitter? >> >> >> I didn't say, the coordinates of the emitter should be used!!!! > > Yes you did. Quote: > > >>> The formulas are wrong, because they contain the coordinates in > >>> repspect to coordinate system K instead of coordinates in respect to > >>> the emitter. > >> >> I wanted to place the emitter at the center of the coordinate system K > > Which is the same thing. > >> and use the coordinates of the points the wave hits in the equations >> for the fields of those points. > > That is of no use. We are examining what happens at a given point, not > at the emitter. > YES! I agree here! But how can an observer influence, what happens at that point, if the observer has no influence on the action going on at that point? 'What happens at the emitter' HAS an influence, because the emitter is the active part in the story and emitts the wave we are discussing now. The observer does what observers usually do and look at things or in, at or through instruments, which is entirely passive. Now you claim, the passive part has all relevance and the active none ??? TH >> If you don't do that and place the coordinate system K remotely, then >> we have the problem to solve, which purpose that coordinate system >> serves. > > Duh-h-h-h! It is a reference frame for the point being examined!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michel Marconi <iinc@lcrallem.or> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-09 12:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <thudv5$g2f1$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #593163 |
Thomas Heger wrote: >>> and use the coordinates of the points the wave hits in the equations >>> for the fields of those points. >> >> That is of no use. We are examining what happens at a given point, not >> at the emitter. > > YES! I agree here! > But how can an observer influence, what happens at that point, if the > observer has no influence on the action going on at that point? you two mix shit together. There are two ways of work for an observer. An Eulerian observer and a Lagrange observer. The one is moving with the particle, the other is stationary wrt the particle. You two talks like two dindoo nothen nigga.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-10 08:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jqhs30F9qhaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #593174 |
Am 09.10.2022 um 14:14 schrieb Michel Marconi: > Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>> and use the coordinates of the points the wave hits in the equations >>>> for the fields of those points. >>> >>> That is of no use. We are examining what happens at a given point, not >>> at the emitter. >> >> YES! I agree here! >> But how can an observer influence, what happens at that point, if the >> observer has no influence on the action going on at that point? > > you two mix shit together. There are two ways of work for an observer. An > Eulerian observer and a Lagrange observer. The one is moving with the > particle, the other is stationary wrt the particle. You two talks like two > dindoo nothen nigga. > Are you on drugs? anyhow... 'The observer' is just a fancy name for 'someone' (possibly you). Don't know, if you belong to the Eulerians or the Langrangians. But it doesn't matter, anyhow, even if you were a '..dindoo nothen nigga'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mandy Stabile <alts@ilnnnbsl.ed> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-10 15:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ti1eeb$raaq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #593209 |
Thomas Heger wrote: >> you two mix shit together. There are two ways of work for an observer. >> An Eulerian observer and a Lagrange observer. The one is moving with >> the particle, the other is stationary wrt the particle. You two talks >> like two dindoo nothen nigga. > > Are you on drugs? anyhow... > 'The observer' is just a fancy name for 'someone' (possibly you). Don't > know, if you belong to the Eulerians or the Langrangians. But it doesn't > matter, anyhow, even if you were a '..dindoo nothen nigga'. but this is essential in physics, fucking stupid, where have you been? You have to chose one. The first you learn as a practitioner. Are you observing from your particle, or not? And that's *NOT* a *"fancy_name"*, but reflects your settings-up for the equations, ETC, you depraved berliner idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-11 08:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jqkfjbFm6pcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #593221 |
Am 10.10.2022 um 17:40 schrieb Mandy Stabile: > Thomas Heger wrote: > >>> you two mix shit together. There are two ways of work for an observer. >>> An Eulerian observer and a Lagrange observer. The one is moving with >>> the particle, the other is stationary wrt the particle. You two talks >>> like two dindoo nothen nigga. >> >> Are you on drugs? anyhow... >> 'The observer' is just a fancy name for 'someone' (possibly you). Don't >> know, if you belong to the Eulerians or the Langrangians. But it doesn't >> matter, anyhow, even if you were a '..dindoo nothen nigga'. > > but this is essential in physics, fucking stupid, where have you been? You > have to chose one. The first you learn as a practitioner. Are you observing > from your particle, or not? And that's *NOT* a *"fancy_name"*, but reflects > your settings-up for the equations, ETC, you depraved berliner idiot. > Actually I'm not a Berliner, but stem from Hamburg, (Sometime I say '... I'm a hamburger...', but only as a joke.) Another issue is, that I'm not a physicist and don't know, what physicists do to entertain themselves. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <pba@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-02 14:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <DCf_K.549163$5p2.457858@fx15.ams4> |
| In reply to | #592728 |
Den 02.10.2022 09:58, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am 02.10.2022 um 01:05 schrieb JanPB:
>>
>> (l, m, n) points in the direction of the wave (perpendicular to the
>> wavefronts which are surfaces of constant phase).
>
> I would agree, but a point has no direction!
I will try to explain the first 7 equations in §7 of
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
I don't expect you to even try to read and understand it,
but maybe you will surprise me by showing that you are
able to learn?
To read the following, your editor must be able to display
Unicode symbols.
The electric and magnetic fields in an EM-wave can be written:
E⃗ = E⃗₀⋅sin(Φ) H⃗ = H⃗₀⋅sin(Φ) (the first six equations)
where Φ(t,x,y,z) is the phase of the wave in the point (x,y,z)
at the time t.
Let's address those mysterious l, m and n.
But first:
Let X̂, Ŷ, and Ẑ be unity vectors along the x, y and z axes
Let r⃗ be the position vector, r⃗ = x⋅X̂+y⋅Ŷ+z⋅Ẑ
Let k⃗ be the wave propagation vector, that is a vector
showing the direction of propagation.
Its 'length' is 2π/λ = ω/c, so k⃗ = (ω/c)⋅k̂
where k̂ is a unity vector perpendicular to
the planes of equal phase ('wave normal')
k̂ = l⋅X̂+m⋅Ŷ+n⋅Ẑ
Note that l,m and n give the direction of propagation.
(l = cosine to the angle between k⃗ and X̂,
m = cosine to the angle between k⃗ and Ŷ'
n = cosine to the angle between k⃗ and Ẑ,
l² + m² + n² = 1)
Now the phase can be written
Φ = ω⋅t − k⃗⋅r⃗ = ω⋅t - (ω/c)⋅k̂⋅r⃗ = ω⋅t - (ω/c)⋅(lx+my+nz)
Φ = ω{t - (1/c)⋅(lx + my + nz)} (the 7th equation)
The obvious:
If r⃗ = 0, then sin(Φ) = sin(wt)
Observed at the origin of K, the amplitude
is changing sinusoidally with time.
(Same at any constant r⃗ )
If t = 0, then sin(Φ) = sin(-(ω/c)⋅(lx+my+nz))
Observed at t = 0 (or any constant time) we have
a "frozen" sinusoidal wave with wavelength λ = 2π⋅c/ω
This is extremely basic, Thomas.
If you still do not understand this elementary
wave equation, you shouldn't make a fool of yourself
by claiming it is nonsense.
>
> A wave front, which hits a certain point (x, y, z), could come from any
> direction with the exact same effect on that point, because points
> cannot detect directions.
This statement makes no sense, and is therefore not even wrong.
>
> Observers can, however, but are not involved.
>
> It is therefore nonsense to use the coordinates x, y and z and also the
> direction cosines l, m and n, if you want to describe the state of the
> fields at that point.
You dropped out after the first 10 lines of §7,
and have even claimed that those ten lines are nonsense.
You will find these equations in any elementary book
where waves are mentioned.
Are you really claiming that everything that is written
about waves in physics books is nonsense?
I don't think you should try to address what
the rest of the paragraph is about.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-02 14:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c54d4d1a-bc1b-4ab3-b16d-622653318b21n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #592741 |
On Sunday, October 2, 2022 at 5:37:59 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 02.10.2022 09:58, skrev Thomas Heger:
> > Am 02.10.2022 um 01:05 schrieb JanPB:
> >>
> >> (l, m, n) points in the direction of the wave (perpendicular to the
> >> wavefronts which are surfaces of constant phase).
> >
> > I would agree, but a point has no direction!
> I will try to explain the first 7 equations in §7 of
> https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
>
> I don't expect you to even try to read and understand it,
> but maybe you will surprise me by showing that you are
> able to learn?
>
> To read the following, your editor must be able to display
> Unicode symbols.
>
> The electric and magnetic fields in an EM-wave can be written:
>
> E⃗ = E⃗₀⋅sin(Φ) H⃗ = H⃗₀⋅sin(Φ) (the first six equations)
>
> where Φ(t,x,y,z) is the phase of the wave in the point (x,y,z)
> at the time t.
>
> Let's address those mysterious l, m and n.
>
> But first:
>
> Let X̂, Ŷ, and Ẑ be unity vectors along the x, y and z axes
>
> Let r⃗ be the position vector, r⃗ = x⋅X̂+y⋅Ŷ+z⋅Ẑ
>
> Let k⃗ be the wave propagation vector, that is a vector
> showing the direction of propagation.
> Its 'length' is 2π/λ = ω/c, so k⃗ = (ω/c)⋅k̂
> where k̂ is a unity vector perpendicular to
> the planes of equal phase ('wave normal')
> k̂ = l⋅X̂+m⋅Ŷ+n⋅Ẑ
>
> Note that l,m and n give the direction of propagation.
> (l = cosine to the angle between k⃗ and X̂,
> m = cosine to the angle between k⃗ and Ŷ'
> n = cosine to the angle between k⃗ and Ẑ,
> l² + m² + n² = 1)
>
> Now the phase can be written
> Φ = ω⋅t − k⃗⋅r⃗ = ω⋅t - (ω/c)⋅k̂⋅r⃗ = ω⋅t - (ω/c)⋅(lx+my+nz)
> Φ = ω{t - (1/c)⋅(lx + my + nz)} (the 7th equation)
>
>
> The obvious:
>
> If r⃗ = 0, then sin(Φ) = sin(wt)
> Observed at the origin of K, the amplitude
> is changing sinusoidally with time.
> (Same at any constant r⃗ )
>
> If t = 0, then sin(Φ) = sin(-(ω/c)⋅(lx+my+nz))
> Observed at t = 0 (or any constant time) we have
> a "frozen" sinusoidal wave with wavelength λ = 2π⋅c/ω
>
> This is extremely basic, Thomas.
> If you still do not understand this elementary
> wave equation, you shouldn't make a fool of yourself
> by claiming it is nonsense.
> >
> > A wave front, which hits a certain point (x, y, z), could come from any
> > direction with the exact same effect on that point, because points
> > cannot detect directions.
> This statement makes no sense, and is therefore not even wrong.
> >
> > Observers can, however, but are not involved.
> >
> > It is therefore nonsense to use the coordinates x, y and z and also the
> > direction cosines l, m and n, if you want to describe the state of the
> > fields at that point.
> You dropped out after the first 10 lines of §7,
> and have even claimed that those ten lines are nonsense.
>
> You will find these equations in any elementary book
> where waves are mentioned.
>
> Are you really claiming that everything that is written
> about waves in physics books is nonsense?
>
>
>
> I don't think you should try to address what
> the rest of the paragraph is about.
On top of all that, there were a few typos in the original
paper which Einstein partially corrected in reprints. Some
of those corrections were made in the well-known old
English translation (aka. "Dover"), some are corrected in the
new (superior, recommended) Princeton U. translation.
It's probably worth the (small) effort to open a new thread
about it, with all the corrections in place.
None of those affect the conclusions, it's just that they
introduce bits of sloppiness and sometimes even the
conclusions that are opposite to the intended ones
(like the last formula of the section which implies the
opposite of what's stated in the text).
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-02 14:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1c871f36-f9cc-4c23-96d3-11683240b99en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #592765 |
On Sunday, October 2, 2022 at 2:27:51 PM UTC-7, I wrote: > > On top of all that, there were a few typos in the original > paper which Einstein partially corrected in reprints. Some > of those corrections were made in the well-known old > English translation (aka. "Dover"), some are corrected in the > new (superior, recommended) Princeton U. translation. > > It's probably worth the (small) effort to open a new thread > about it, with all the corrections in place. > > None of those affect the conclusions, it's just that they > introduce bits of sloppiness and sometimes even the > conclusions that are opposite to the intended ones > (like the last formula of the section which implies the > opposite of what's stated in the text). BTW, the Editor's Note on p. 16 of the file quoted ( https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf ) is actually INCORRECT: the left-hand side ( cos phi' ) _is_ actually equal to l'. The whole point here is that this is simply the formula for l', only trivially rewritten in terms of the angles. Strangely, that editor left without comment a few instances of genuine typos there. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web