Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #401877 > unrolled thread
| Started by | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-14 22:50 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-14 14:06 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 368 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 22:50 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 23:35 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 09:03 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 10:53 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 10:56 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 11:03 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 11:13 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 11:27 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-16 18:05 +0000
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-12-17 01:57 +0100
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-17 17:46 +0000
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-12-18 08:29 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Jacquelyn Schiffer <euefhqheeoeeSfaJn@euefhqhee.eeSfaJn.eue> - 2016-12-21 19:58 +0000
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-22 08:36 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Darleen Sloop <aolenD@nedfdealln.org> - 2016-12-22 21:05 +0000
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 12:54 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-16 17:57 +0000
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 14:02 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 09:32 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 11:02 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 11:08 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 11:31 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 11:40 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 12:00 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 13:01 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 13:07 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 13:10 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 13:41 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 15:21 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 15:46 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-16 21:32 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 22:40 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-20 11:08 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 14:00 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-16 12:54 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-16 21:16 +0000
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-16 17:09 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-17 17:40 +0000
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-18 09:45 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-18 10:38 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-18 11:02 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-18 16:14 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-19 12:13 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-19 14:09 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-20 10:46 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-20 16:33 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-24 07:01 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 12:39 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-19 14:18 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Darron Borton <ororrt@orrtnorr.info> - 2016-12-20 03:38 +0000
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-19 19:49 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 14:43 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-19 16:22 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Darron Borton <ororrt@orrtnorr.info> - 2016-12-20 03:34 +0000
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 16:26 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-19 18:31 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Darron Borton <ororrt@orrtnorr.info> - 2016-12-20 03:32 +0000
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-20 11:03 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-20 11:19 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay furthermore123456@gmail.com - 2016-12-20 12:54 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay furthermore123456@gmail.com - 2016-12-20 12:55 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay furthermore123456@gmail.com - 2016-12-20 13:04 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay furthermore123456@gmail.com - 2016-12-20 13:07 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-21 12:31 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-22 15:20 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-24 07:19 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-24 07:47 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-24 07:56 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 08:50 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-24 09:59 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-24 10:16 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 11:11 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-24 11:45 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 11:58 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-24 12:06 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 12:47 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-24 14:13 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 14:31 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-24 14:37 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 00:07 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-25 07:54 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 11:25 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 16:15 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-27 17:29 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 01:19 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-28 18:35 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 21:08 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-29 10:49 +0100
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 02:41 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-29 10:23 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 16:22 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 20:40 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-29 22:50 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-29 21:28 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-30 08:21 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-30 08:17 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 16:08 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-30 16:30 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 16:59 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-30 17:12 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 20:49 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-30 20:58 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 07:38 +0100
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 11:40 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-31 11:51 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 12:08 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-31 13:01 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 13:22 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-31 14:37 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 15:29 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-01 12:02 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 14:12 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-02 00:01 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-02 10:21 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 12:44 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 13:06 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-31 12:19 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 12:24 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-31 12:30 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 13:19 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 15:39 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-31 17:40 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 15:58 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-01 16:28 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 23:54 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-02 07:04 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 09:36 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 10:04 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-02 10:39 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 12:58 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-02 14:27 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 15:36 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-02 16:00 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 19:23 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-02 19:49 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 00:23 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-03 06:34 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 08:17 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-03 08:30 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 16:48 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-02 18:44 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-02 15:15 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 17:20 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-02 15:34 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 16:43 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-02 18:30 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 16:42 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 10:39 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-27 18:27 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-29 11:26 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-30 08:23 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-27 10:57 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-27 17:37 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-27 23:50 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-27 21:55 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 11:29 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-28 18:31 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 20:45 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-30 08:14 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 20:00 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-29 11:45 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-29 10:13 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 19:10 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-05 21:40 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-06 06:33 +0000
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-06 22:07 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-07 09:18 +0000
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-06 07:01 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 15:37 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-06 16:30 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-08 12:14 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-08 10:39 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-12 14:43 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-12 19:35 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 12:39 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-13 21:06 +0000
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 13:10 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-13 14:38 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 15:47 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-13 16:08 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 16:31 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-13 17:21 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 19:00 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-13 19:24 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 19:51 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-13 22:10 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 23:47 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-14 06:11 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-14 15:20 +0100
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-14 07:14 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 13:42 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 13:30 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-14 22:50 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 00:28 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-15 06:11 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 11:13 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-15 11:31 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 11:45 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-15 11:52 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 12:02 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-15 12:20 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 13:43 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-15 14:29 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 14:44 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-15 14:49 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 14:53 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 13:46 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 13:49 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-15 14:31 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 14:52 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-15 15:03 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-15 20:28 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-15 19:24 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 19:39 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-15 19:44 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 21:05 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-15 21:25 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 08:22 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-16 08:39 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 16:02 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-16 16:53 +0000
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 13:40 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-16 13:46 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 15:11 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-16 13:48 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 15:18 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-16 15:42 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 16:12 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-16 17:42 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 22:35 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-16 20:46 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 21:16 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-16 21:22 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 21:37 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-16 21:45 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 21:58 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-16 22:11 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 22:22 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-16 22:32 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 22:40 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-16 22:42 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 23:26 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 23:57 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 21:50 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-16 20:03 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 21:07 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-16 21:21 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 21:53 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-16 22:14 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 22:33 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-17 17:06 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-17 16:43 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 04:52 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-18 07:09 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 12:41 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 21:16 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-18 21:39 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 23:57 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-19 07:10 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-19 10:17 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-19 08:27 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 15:24 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-16 15:43 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 16:23 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-16 17:45 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 19:31 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-16 19:46 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 10:26 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-19 10:59 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 11:52 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-15 20:44 +0000
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 13:44 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-15 14:30 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 14:46 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-15 14:50 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 14:56 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-16 16:16 +0000
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 11:32 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-16 21:00 +0000
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 13:29 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-17 12:26 +0000
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 22:36 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-13 22:45 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 15:49 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-16 15:54 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 16:16 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 23:35 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-13 22:14 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 23:54 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-14 10:51 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-14 09:02 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 13:46 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-15 11:19 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-15 09:39 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 11:42 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-15 23:47 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-14 12:43 +0000
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 14:04 +0100
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-15 16:08 +0000
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 17:29 +0100
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 10:42 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-07 11:05 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 15:30 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 15:31 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-07 15:38 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:43 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-07 18:04 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-08 11:58 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-08 10:23 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 19:22 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-29 22:58 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 23:32 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-31 16:06 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 05:56 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 13:04 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 03:52 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-04 12:45 -0600
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-04 13:55 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 12:49 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 09:19 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-03 09:47 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-03 11:19 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 12:46 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-03 13:30 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 14:14 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-03 21:43 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-03 21:42 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 12:42 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-05 01:33 +0000
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-05 03:20 +0100
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-05 06:03 +0000
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 00:09 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-06 06:51 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 01:58 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-07 05:48 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 21:09 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-07 21:40 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 00:35 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 03:24 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-08 05:47 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:51 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-08 09:29 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 19:32 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-08 19:49 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-08 20:04 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-09 05:15 +0100
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-08 20:33 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 02:05 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-09 07:13 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 00:05 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-13 07:57 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 10:29 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-13 11:09 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 11:16 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 12:51 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 13:08 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 01:38 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-09 07:12 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:09 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-09 16:13 +0000
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-09 08:13 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:56 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-09 10:04 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 10:14 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-25 09:59 +0100
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-29 11:36 -0800
Re: Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-04 14:08 -0800
Zero-area Sagnac path and its residual time delay "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 14:06 -0800
Page 15 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 19 Next page →
| From | Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 12:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o86q5i$1rfn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409518 |
JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 1:00:14 PM UTC-8, Sanjuanita Peeples > wrote: >> JanPB wrote: >> >> > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 8:17:03 AM UTC-8, Sanjuanita >> > Peeples wrote: >> >> JanPB wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > Hey Tom - looks like a reincarnation of David White, same >> >> >> > debating technique, no? >> >> >> >> >> >> While at it, come up with some proofs for your moon landing. >> >> > >> >> > It is up to you to prove ludicrous claims, not up to me to >> >> > disprove them. >> >> >> >> Great. Give me some proofs to have something to disprove. This is >> >> what I am talking about. >> > >> > This time I have no time for crackpot nonsense. >> >> Fair enough, I wait till you have some. > > You don't understand: it is up to YOU to prove an extraordinary claim, > not up to me to disprove it. I'm simply going to forget the whole > idiocy, life is too short. You treat me like piece of meat. All the other things in Modern Science demands proofs, except your moon landing. This is how your tensors works. Give me a break. I am so depressed. So the Kazakhstanys neither needs proofs for their landing on Mars in 1968. Does your tensors demands proofs, yes or no?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 22:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ff5e70eb-0304-42f1-9feb-0f972e411cd4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409138 |
On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 1:21:49 AM UTC, Dono, wrote: > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 4:31:06 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 4:08:43 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 3:47:48 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 2:38:22 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 12:39:45 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 7:35:15 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > > > > > > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 12:43:41 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2/8/17 2/8/17 12:39 PM, Dono, wrote: > > > > > > > > > Maxwell's equations are invariant to the rotation transform. Therefore the > > > > > > > > > solutions in the frame of the rotating are identical to the ones in the > > > > > > > > > inertial frame of the hub. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not true, for the rotation transform YOU give. You CLEARLY have not > > > > > > > > performed the exercise you want me to do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The transform is: > > > > > > > > > x' |cos \omega*t sin \omega*t 0 0 | x > > > > > > > > > y'= |-sin \omega*t cos \omega*t 0 0 | y > > > > > > > > > z' | 0 0 1 0 | z > > > > > > > > > t' | 0 0 0 1 | t > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OBVIOUSLY you have not actually applied this transform to the Maxwell's > > > > > > > > equations. Or if you think you did, then you did it incorrectly. The ME are NOT > > > > > > > > invariant under this transform. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, unlike you, I DID the calculations. Do them or STFU. > > > > > > > > > > > > You must have made a mistake somewhere. I'm posting a proof below but > > > > > > first a quick observation: when changing the coordinates in Maxwell's > > > > > > equations, it is NOT enough to replace all the coordinate derivative > > > > > > operators by those of the new system: it is ALSO necessary to adjust > > > > > > the electric and magnetic vectors E and B _as well_. > > > > > > > > > > ...which is precisely what I did. One needs to find the transforms E' and B' as a function of E and B. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is _not trivial_, > > > > > > even for a Lorentz transformation, let alone a for a curvilinear > > > > > > one like your rotating system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. Nevertheless , I had no trouble deriving them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This adjustment of E and B is _not_ the same as the transformation of > > > > > > the derivative operators. > > > > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is because E and B fields in whatever > > > > > > coordinates are defined by the mechanical results of _forces_ they > > > > > > generate, and these forces, unlike the derivative operators, do not > > > > > > transform linearly. > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > For example, whenever one says "Maxwell's > > > > > > equations are invariant under Lorentz transformations", this means BOTH > > > > > > derivative operators AND E and B are changed in a certain way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just wanted to state it clearly to avoid further confusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now the proof that Maxwell's equations do not retain their form in the > > > > > > rotating coordinates you've written above. Actually I'm not going to > > > > > > brute-force the calculation but instead set up an experiment which > > > > > > we'll view from both the lab (inertial) coordinates and the above rotating > > > > > > system. The conclusion will be that at least one of Maxwell's equations > > > > > > _in its standard form_ will clearly FAIL in the rotating system. > > > > > > > > > > False. Now I need to find what you did wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means in the rotating system Maxwell's equations develop extra > > > > > > terms, sort of like "F=ma" develops extra terms in rotating coordinates > > > > > > (the usual three fictitious forces). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a bias, all you are going to do is to confirm your bias. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So here is the setup. I believe it's correct (I doodled it while on my > > > > > > train to work): > > > > > > > > > > > > * the lab coordinate system is the standard Cartesian xyz, > > > > > > > > > > > > * your system rotates around the z-axis with angular speed \omega > > > > > > (from now on I'm going to write "w" instead of "\omega"), as this is > > > > > > what your matrix says. The angular velocity _vector_ points _down_ > > > > > > along the z-axis, given your choice of the minus sign before the sines > > > > > > (this is unimportant), > > > > > > > > > > > > * imagine a circular conducting wire in the xy-plane with the origin > > > > > > at its center. Assume there is a steady current I flowing through it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going to examine the E and B fields in the lab system and likewise > > > > > > the corresponding E' and B' fields in the rotating system. We'll conclude > > > > > > that E' and B' CANNOT satisfy Maxwell's equations in their standard form > > > > > > in the rotating system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK > > > > > > > > > > > To gather enough information about E and B, we imagine a bunch of charged > > > > > > particles in space, each of charge q, and rotating in the same fashion as > > > > > > your rotating coordinate system (so to keep them on their circular tracks > > > > > > around the z-axis, imagine them mounted on some mechanical contraption > > > > > > designed to maintain this constraint). > > > > > > > > > > > > Because the wire is electrically neutral, we have E = 0. OTOH due to the > > > > > > nonzero I, we have a nonzero B given by the Biot-Savart law. Because the > > > > > > aforementioned cloud of particles is moving wrt to the lab system, the > > > > > > particles experience the Lorentz force F = q v x B, where a particle > > > > > > at position r has the linear velocity v = w x r. > > > > > > > > > > > > The above E and B satisfies Maxwell's equations in the standard form. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now let's examine this setup in the rotating coordinates. First of all, > > > > > > all the particles in it are _stationary_, therefore NO MATTER what B' is > > > > > > (the magnetic field as observed by the rotating system), they experience > > > > > > _no_ magnetic (Lorentz) force. But they of course _do_ experience _a_ force[#] > > > > > > simply because they did so as measured by the (say) mechanical strain of > > > > > > the contraption mentioned earlier which is a coordinate-independent > > > > > > phenomenon. > > > > > > > > > > > > [#] ignoring the centripetal and centrifugal forces, resp., as they > > > > > > are obviously equal. > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, the electromagnetic force experienced in the rotating system > > > > > > must be due only to the electric field E'. And we know this force is equal > > > > > > to the Lorentz force of the lab system: > > > > > > > > > > > > E' = F/q = v x B > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you don't, this is where you went wrong. There is no reason to surmise that E'=F/q > > > > > > > > Ah, you are probably right. I'll try to fix it tonight. The reason I wrote > > > > it was a momentary lapse of reason when I assumed "constant linear speed" > > > > (of the test particle) meant "constant linear velocity" (which of course it > > > > isn't). > > > > > > > > If that velocity _were_ constant (for example if the wire was a straight line > > > > instead of circle) then Newton's "F = dp/dt" would indeed imply the equality > > > > of forces as I wrote it above (since the two forces would then differ by > > > > "d/dt(a constant vector)", i.e. they would differ by zero). > > > > > > > > But in this case the linear velocity vector v circles around so the correct > > > > expression is probably something like: > > > > > > > > E' = F/q + (some extra term) > > > > > > > > I'll see if I can calculate that extra and we'll see if the contradiction > > > > still persists. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jan > > > > > > Let me help you some more: you will not be able to get the correct result based on dynamics considerations, so, you will get wedged again. You will need to get the resulting transforms of the E,B starting from base principles, without invoking forces. I am telling you that in order to help you avoid more wasted time. > > > > Maybe. Maybe not. Last I checked E and B in classical E&M were defined by > > forces they produced on test particles so you'd have to be explicit if you > > expect a response. Just saying "get the resulting transforms of the E,B > > starting from base principles" is not good enough. > > > > -- > > Jan > E and B are defined in terms of potentials, not forces. If you insist on going the "force" avenue, you will encounter some very serious difficulties, as you already did. E and B are defined by the Lorentz force law; the effects these fields have upon charged particles which can be observed by experiment. Without this, Maxwell's equations lack physical content. Have a look at the "correct" answer to this question: Can the Lorentz force expression be derived from Maxwell's equations? http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20477/can-the-lorentz-force-expression-be-derived-from-maxwells-equations/20488#20488 Larry Harson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 22:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5249a66f-c410-420d-aa6b-93003cf42203@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409154 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 10:36:11 PM UTC-8, Larry Harson wrote: > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 1:21:49 AM UTC, Dono, wrote: > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 4:31:06 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 4:08:43 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 3:47:48 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 2:38:22 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 12:39:45 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 7:35:15 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 12:43:41 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 2/8/17 2/8/17 12:39 PM, Dono, wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Maxwell's equations are invariant to the rotation transform. Therefore the > > > > > > > > > > solutions in the frame of the rotating are identical to the ones in the > > > > > > > > > > inertial frame of the hub. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not true, for the rotation transform YOU give. You CLEARLY have not > > > > > > > > > performed the exercise you want me to do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The transform is: > > > > > > > > > > x' |cos \omega*t sin \omega*t 0 0 | x > > > > > > > > > > y'= |-sin \omega*t cos \omega*t 0 0 | y > > > > > > > > > > z' | 0 0 1 0 | z > > > > > > > > > > t' | 0 0 0 1 | t > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OBVIOUSLY you have not actually applied this transform to the Maxwell's > > > > > > > > > equations. Or if you think you did, then you did it incorrectly. The ME are NOT > > > > > > > > > invariant under this transform. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, unlike you, I DID the calculations. Do them or STFU. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You must have made a mistake somewhere. I'm posting a proof below but > > > > > > > first a quick observation: when changing the coordinates in Maxwell's > > > > > > > equations, it is NOT enough to replace all the coordinate derivative > > > > > > > operators by those of the new system: it is ALSO necessary to adjust > > > > > > > the electric and magnetic vectors E and B _as well_. > > > > > > > > > > > > ...which is precisely what I did. One needs to find the transforms E' and B' as a function of E and B. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is _not trivial_, > > > > > > > even for a Lorentz transformation, let alone a for a curvilinear > > > > > > > one like your rotating system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. Nevertheless , I had no trouble deriving them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This adjustment of E and B is _not_ the same as the transformation of > > > > > > > the derivative operators. > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is because E and B fields in whatever > > > > > > > coordinates are defined by the mechanical results of _forces_ they > > > > > > > generate, and these forces, unlike the derivative operators, do not > > > > > > > transform linearly. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, whenever one says "Maxwell's > > > > > > > equations are invariant under Lorentz transformations", this means BOTH > > > > > > > derivative operators AND E and B are changed in a certain way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just wanted to state it clearly to avoid further confusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now the proof that Maxwell's equations do not retain their form in the > > > > > > > rotating coordinates you've written above. Actually I'm not going to > > > > > > > brute-force the calculation but instead set up an experiment which > > > > > > > we'll view from both the lab (inertial) coordinates and the above rotating > > > > > > > system. The conclusion will be that at least one of Maxwell's equations > > > > > > > _in its standard form_ will clearly FAIL in the rotating system. > > > > > > > > > > > > False. Now I need to find what you did wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means in the rotating system Maxwell's equations develop extra > > > > > > > terms, sort of like "F=ma" develops extra terms in rotating coordinates > > > > > > > (the usual three fictitious forces). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a bias, all you are going to do is to confirm your bias. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So here is the setup. I believe it's correct (I doodled it while on my > > > > > > > train to work): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * the lab coordinate system is the standard Cartesian xyz, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * your system rotates around the z-axis with angular speed \omega > > > > > > > (from now on I'm going to write "w" instead of "\omega"), as this is > > > > > > > what your matrix says. The angular velocity _vector_ points _down_ > > > > > > > along the z-axis, given your choice of the minus sign before the sines > > > > > > > (this is unimportant), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * imagine a circular conducting wire in the xy-plane with the origin > > > > > > > at its center. Assume there is a steady current I flowing through it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going to examine the E and B fields in the lab system and likewise > > > > > > > the corresponding E' and B' fields in the rotating system. We'll conclude > > > > > > > that E' and B' CANNOT satisfy Maxwell's equations in their standard form > > > > > > > in the rotating system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK > > > > > > > > > > > > > To gather enough information about E and B, we imagine a bunch of charged > > > > > > > particles in space, each of charge q, and rotating in the same fashion as > > > > > > > your rotating coordinate system (so to keep them on their circular tracks > > > > > > > around the z-axis, imagine them mounted on some mechanical contraption > > > > > > > designed to maintain this constraint). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because the wire is electrically neutral, we have E = 0. OTOH due to the > > > > > > > nonzero I, we have a nonzero B given by the Biot-Savart law. Because the > > > > > > > aforementioned cloud of particles is moving wrt to the lab system, the > > > > > > > particles experience the Lorentz force F = q v x B, where a particle > > > > > > > at position r has the linear velocity v = w x r. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above E and B satisfies Maxwell's equations in the standard form. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now let's examine this setup in the rotating coordinates. First of all, > > > > > > > all the particles in it are _stationary_, therefore NO MATTER what B' is > > > > > > > (the magnetic field as observed by the rotating system), they experience > > > > > > > _no_ magnetic (Lorentz) force. But they of course _do_ experience _a_ force[#] > > > > > > > simply because they did so as measured by the (say) mechanical strain of > > > > > > > the contraption mentioned earlier which is a coordinate-independent > > > > > > > phenomenon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [#] ignoring the centripetal and centrifugal forces, resp., as they > > > > > > > are obviously equal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, the electromagnetic force experienced in the rotating system > > > > > > > must be due only to the electric field E'. And we know this force is equal > > > > > > > to the Lorentz force of the lab system: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > E' = F/q = v x B > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you don't, this is where you went wrong. There is no reason to surmise that E'=F/q > > > > > > > > > > Ah, you are probably right. I'll try to fix it tonight. The reason I wrote > > > > > it was a momentary lapse of reason when I assumed "constant linear speed" > > > > > (of the test particle) meant "constant linear velocity" (which of course it > > > > > isn't). > > > > > > > > > > If that velocity _were_ constant (for example if the wire was a straight line > > > > > instead of circle) then Newton's "F = dp/dt" would indeed imply the equality > > > > > of forces as I wrote it above (since the two forces would then differ by > > > > > "d/dt(a constant vector)", i.e. they would differ by zero). > > > > > > > > > > But in this case the linear velocity vector v circles around so the correct > > > > > expression is probably something like: > > > > > > > > > > E' = F/q + (some extra term) > > > > > > > > > > I'll see if I can calculate that extra and we'll see if the contradiction > > > > > still persists. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > Let me help you some more: you will not be able to get the correct result based on dynamics considerations, so, you will get wedged again. You will need to get the resulting transforms of the E,B starting from base principles, without invoking forces. I am telling you that in order to help you avoid more wasted time. > > > > > > Maybe. Maybe not. Last I checked E and B in classical E&M were defined by > > > forces they produced on test particles so you'd have to be explicit if you > > > expect a response. Just saying "get the resulting transforms of the E,B > > > starting from base principles" is not good enough. > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > > E and B are defined in terms of potentials, not forces. If you insist on going the "force" avenue, you will encounter some very serious difficulties, as you already did. > > E and B are defined by the Lorentz force law; the effects these fields have upon charged particles which can be observed by experiment. Without this, Maxwell's equations lack physical content. > > Have a look at the "correct" answer to this question: > Can the Lorentz force expression be derived from Maxwell's equations? > > http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20477/can-the-lorentz-force-expression-be-derived-from-maxwells-equations/20488#20488 > > Larry Harson The link you quote contradicts your claim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 15:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1cd593f6-5d8c-449c-8082-0b2147c5eabc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409156 |
On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 6:45:42 AM UTC, Dono, wrote: > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 10:36:11 PM UTC-8, Larry Harson wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 1:21:49 AM UTC, Dono, wrote: > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 4:31:06 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 4:08:43 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 3:47:48 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 2:38:22 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > > > > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 12:39:45 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 7:35:15 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 12:43:41 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 2/8/17 2/8/17 12:39 PM, Dono, wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Maxwell's equations are invariant to the rotation transform. Therefore the > > > > > > > > > > > solutions in the frame of the rotating are identical to the ones in the > > > > > > > > > > > inertial frame of the hub. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not true, for the rotation transform YOU give. You CLEARLY have not > > > > > > > > > > performed the exercise you want me to do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The transform is: > > > > > > > > > > > x' |cos \omega*t sin \omega*t 0 0 | x > > > > > > > > > > > y'= |-sin \omega*t cos \omega*t 0 0 | y > > > > > > > > > > > z' | 0 0 1 0 | z > > > > > > > > > > > t' | 0 0 0 1 | t > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OBVIOUSLY you have not actually applied this transform to the Maxwell's > > > > > > > > > > equations. Or if you think you did, then you did it incorrectly. The ME are NOT > > > > > > > > > > invariant under this transform. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, unlike you, I DID the calculations. Do them or STFU. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You must have made a mistake somewhere. I'm posting a proof below but > > > > > > > > first a quick observation: when changing the coordinates in Maxwell's > > > > > > > > equations, it is NOT enough to replace all the coordinate derivative > > > > > > > > operators by those of the new system: it is ALSO necessary to adjust > > > > > > > > the electric and magnetic vectors E and B _as well_. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...which is precisely what I did. One needs to find the transforms E' and B' as a function of E and B. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is _not trivial_, > > > > > > > > even for a Lorentz transformation, let alone a for a curvilinear > > > > > > > > one like your rotating system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. Nevertheless , I had no trouble deriving them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This adjustment of E and B is _not_ the same as the transformation of > > > > > > > > the derivative operators. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is because E and B fields in whatever > > > > > > > > coordinates are defined by the mechanical results of _forces_ they > > > > > > > > generate, and these forces, unlike the derivative operators, do not > > > > > > > > transform linearly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, whenever one says "Maxwell's > > > > > > > > equations are invariant under Lorentz transformations", this means BOTH > > > > > > > > derivative operators AND E and B are changed in a certain way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just wanted to state it clearly to avoid further confusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now the proof that Maxwell's equations do not retain their form in the > > > > > > > > rotating coordinates you've written above. Actually I'm not going to > > > > > > > > brute-force the calculation but instead set up an experiment which > > > > > > > > we'll view from both the lab (inertial) coordinates and the above rotating > > > > > > > > system. The conclusion will be that at least one of Maxwell's equations > > > > > > > > _in its standard form_ will clearly FAIL in the rotating system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > False. Now I need to find what you did wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means in the rotating system Maxwell's equations develop extra > > > > > > > > terms, sort of like "F=ma" develops extra terms in rotating coordinates > > > > > > > > (the usual three fictitious forces). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a bias, all you are going to do is to confirm your bias. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So here is the setup. I believe it's correct (I doodled it while on my > > > > > > > > train to work): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * the lab coordinate system is the standard Cartesian xyz, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * your system rotates around the z-axis with angular speed \omega > > > > > > > > (from now on I'm going to write "w" instead of "\omega"), as this is > > > > > > > > what your matrix says. The angular velocity _vector_ points _down_ > > > > > > > > along the z-axis, given your choice of the minus sign before the sines > > > > > > > > (this is unimportant), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * imagine a circular conducting wire in the xy-plane with the origin > > > > > > > > at its center. Assume there is a steady current I flowing through it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going to examine the E and B fields in the lab system and likewise > > > > > > > > the corresponding E' and B' fields in the rotating system. We'll conclude > > > > > > > > that E' and B' CANNOT satisfy Maxwell's equations in their standard form > > > > > > > > in the rotating system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To gather enough information about E and B, we imagine a bunch of charged > > > > > > > > particles in space, each of charge q, and rotating in the same fashion as > > > > > > > > your rotating coordinate system (so to keep them on their circular tracks > > > > > > > > around the z-axis, imagine them mounted on some mechanical contraption > > > > > > > > designed to maintain this constraint). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because the wire is electrically neutral, we have E = 0. OTOH due to the > > > > > > > > nonzero I, we have a nonzero B given by the Biot-Savart law. Because the > > > > > > > > aforementioned cloud of particles is moving wrt to the lab system, the > > > > > > > > particles experience the Lorentz force F = q v x B, where a particle > > > > > > > > at position r has the linear velocity v = w x r. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above E and B satisfies Maxwell's equations in the standard form. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now let's examine this setup in the rotating coordinates. First of all, > > > > > > > > all the particles in it are _stationary_, therefore NO MATTER what B' is > > > > > > > > (the magnetic field as observed by the rotating system), they experience > > > > > > > > _no_ magnetic (Lorentz) force. But they of course _do_ experience _a_ force[#] > > > > > > > > simply because they did so as measured by the (say) mechanical strain of > > > > > > > > the contraption mentioned earlier which is a coordinate-independent > > > > > > > > phenomenon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [#] ignoring the centripetal and centrifugal forces, resp., as they > > > > > > > > are obviously equal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, the electromagnetic force experienced in the rotating system > > > > > > > > must be due only to the electric field E'. And we know this force is equal > > > > > > > > to the Lorentz force of the lab system: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > E' = F/q = v x B > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you don't, this is where you went wrong. There is no reason to surmise that E'=F/q > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, you are probably right. I'll try to fix it tonight. The reason I wrote > > > > > > it was a momentary lapse of reason when I assumed "constant linear speed" > > > > > > (of the test particle) meant "constant linear velocity" (which of course it > > > > > > isn't). > > > > > > > > > > > > If that velocity _were_ constant (for example if the wire was a straight line > > > > > > instead of circle) then Newton's "F = dp/dt" would indeed imply the equality > > > > > > of forces as I wrote it above (since the two forces would then differ by > > > > > > "d/dt(a constant vector)", i.e. they would differ by zero). > > > > > > > > > > > > But in this case the linear velocity vector v circles around so the correct > > > > > > expression is probably something like: > > > > > > > > > > > > E' = F/q + (some extra term) > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll see if I can calculate that extra and we'll see if the contradiction > > > > > > still persists. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > Let me help you some more: you will not be able to get the correct result based on dynamics considerations, so, you will get wedged again. You will need to get the resulting transforms of the E,B starting from base principles, without invoking forces. I am telling you that in order to help you avoid more wasted time. > > > > > > > > Maybe. Maybe not. Last I checked E and B in classical E&M were defined by > > > > forces they produced on test particles so you'd have to be explicit if you > > > > expect a response. Just saying "get the resulting transforms of the E,B > > > > starting from base principles" is not good enough. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jan > > > > > E and B are defined in terms of potentials, not forces. If you insist on going the "force" avenue, you will encounter some very serious difficulties, as you already did. > > > > E and B are defined by the Lorentz force law; the effects these fields have upon charged particles which can be observed by experiment. Without this, Maxwell's equations lack physical content. > > > > Have a look at the "correct" answer to this question: > > Can the Lorentz force expression be derived from Maxwell's equations? > > > > http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20477/can-the-lorentz-force-expression-be-derived-from-maxwells-equations/20488#20488 > > > > Larry Harson > > The link you quote contradicts your claim. The link to the "correct" answer says: "Maxwell's equations do not contain any information about the effect of fields on charges. One can imagine an alternate universe where electric and magnetic fields create no forces on any charges, yet Maxwell's equations still hold. (E and B would be unobservable and totally pointless to calculate in this universe, but you could still calculate them!) So you can't derive the Lorentz force law from Maxwell's equations alone. It is a separate law." "Some people take the Lorentz force law to be essentially the definition of electric and magnetic fields, in which case it's part of the foundation on which Maxwell's equations are built." On page 25 of Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics: "Although the thing that eventually gets measured is a force, it is useful to introduce a concept one step removed from the forces, the concept of an electric field due to some array of charged bodies. At the moment, the electric field can be defined as the force per unit charge acting at a given point." Page 175: "The magnitude of the flux density can be defined by the mechanical torque N exerted on the magnetic dipole: N = u x B The conclusion from the above is that the electric and magnetic fields are defined from the start by forces on matter. The Lorentz force summarizes this more elegantly in how stationary and moving charge is affected by these two fields. Larry Harson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 15:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10b579f8-f14a-4b14-8ef0-235dc59ec33b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409556 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 3:49:37 PM UTC-8, Larry Harson wrote: > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 6:45:42 AM UTC, Dono, wrote: > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 10:36:11 PM UTC-8, Larry Harson wrote: > > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 1:21:49 AM UTC, Dono, wrote: > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 4:31:06 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 4:08:43 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 3:47:48 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 2:38:22 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > > > > > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 12:39:45 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 7:35:15 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 12:43:41 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/8/17 2/8/17 12:39 PM, Dono, wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxwell's equations are invariant to the rotation transform. Therefore the > > > > > > > > > > > > solutions in the frame of the rotating are identical to the ones in the > > > > > > > > > > > > inertial frame of the hub. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not true, for the rotation transform YOU give. You CLEARLY have not > > > > > > > > > > > performed the exercise you want me to do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The transform is: > > > > > > > > > > > > x' |cos \omega*t sin \omega*t 0 0 | x > > > > > > > > > > > > y'= |-sin \omega*t cos \omega*t 0 0 | y > > > > > > > > > > > > z' | 0 0 1 0 | z > > > > > > > > > > > > t' | 0 0 0 1 | t > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OBVIOUSLY you have not actually applied this transform to the Maxwell's > > > > > > > > > > > equations. Or if you think you did, then you did it incorrectly. The ME are NOT > > > > > > > > > > > invariant under this transform. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, unlike you, I DID the calculations. Do them or STFU. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You must have made a mistake somewhere. I'm posting a proof below but > > > > > > > > > first a quick observation: when changing the coordinates in Maxwell's > > > > > > > > > equations, it is NOT enough to replace all the coordinate derivative > > > > > > > > > operators by those of the new system: it is ALSO necessary to adjust > > > > > > > > > the electric and magnetic vectors E and B _as well_. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...which is precisely what I did. One needs to find the transforms E' and B' as a function of E and B. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is _not trivial_, > > > > > > > > > even for a Lorentz transformation, let alone a for a curvilinear > > > > > > > > > one like your rotating system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. Nevertheless , I had no trouble deriving them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This adjustment of E and B is _not_ the same as the transformation of > > > > > > > > > the derivative operators. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is because E and B fields in whatever > > > > > > > > > coordinates are defined by the mechanical results of _forces_ they > > > > > > > > > generate, and these forces, unlike the derivative operators, do not > > > > > > > > > transform linearly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, whenever one says "Maxwell's > > > > > > > > > equations are invariant under Lorentz transformations", this means BOTH > > > > > > > > > derivative operators AND E and B are changed in a certain way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just wanted to state it clearly to avoid further confusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now the proof that Maxwell's equations do not retain their form in the > > > > > > > > > rotating coordinates you've written above. Actually I'm not going to > > > > > > > > > brute-force the calculation but instead set up an experiment which > > > > > > > > > we'll view from both the lab (inertial) coordinates and the above rotating > > > > > > > > > system. The conclusion will be that at least one of Maxwell's equations > > > > > > > > > _in its standard form_ will clearly FAIL in the rotating system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > False. Now I need to find what you did wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means in the rotating system Maxwell's equations develop extra > > > > > > > > > terms, sort of like "F=ma" develops extra terms in rotating coordinates > > > > > > > > > (the usual three fictitious forces). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a bias, all you are going to do is to confirm your bias. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So here is the setup. I believe it's correct (I doodled it while on my > > > > > > > > > train to work): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * the lab coordinate system is the standard Cartesian xyz, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * your system rotates around the z-axis with angular speed \omega > > > > > > > > > (from now on I'm going to write "w" instead of "\omega"), as this is > > > > > > > > > what your matrix says. The angular velocity _vector_ points _down_ > > > > > > > > > along the z-axis, given your choice of the minus sign before the sines > > > > > > > > > (this is unimportant), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * imagine a circular conducting wire in the xy-plane with the origin > > > > > > > > > at its center. Assume there is a steady current I flowing through it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going to examine the E and B fields in the lab system and likewise > > > > > > > > > the corresponding E' and B' fields in the rotating system. We'll conclude > > > > > > > > > that E' and B' CANNOT satisfy Maxwell's equations in their standard form > > > > > > > > > in the rotating system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To gather enough information about E and B, we imagine a bunch of charged > > > > > > > > > particles in space, each of charge q, and rotating in the same fashion as > > > > > > > > > your rotating coordinate system (so to keep them on their circular tracks > > > > > > > > > around the z-axis, imagine them mounted on some mechanical contraption > > > > > > > > > designed to maintain this constraint). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because the wire is electrically neutral, we have E = 0. OTOH due to the > > > > > > > > > nonzero I, we have a nonzero B given by the Biot-Savart law. Because the > > > > > > > > > aforementioned cloud of particles is moving wrt to the lab system, the > > > > > > > > > particles experience the Lorentz force F = q v x B, where a particle > > > > > > > > > at position r has the linear velocity v = w x r. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above E and B satisfies Maxwell's equations in the standard form. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now let's examine this setup in the rotating coordinates. First of all, > > > > > > > > > all the particles in it are _stationary_, therefore NO MATTER what B' is > > > > > > > > > (the magnetic field as observed by the rotating system), they experience > > > > > > > > > _no_ magnetic (Lorentz) force. But they of course _do_ experience _a_ force[#] > > > > > > > > > simply because they did so as measured by the (say) mechanical strain of > > > > > > > > > the contraption mentioned earlier which is a coordinate-independent > > > > > > > > > phenomenon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [#] ignoring the centripetal and centrifugal forces, resp., as they > > > > > > > > > are obviously equal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, the electromagnetic force experienced in the rotating system > > > > > > > > > must be due only to the electric field E'. And we know this force is equal > > > > > > > > > to the Lorentz force of the lab system: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > E' = F/q = v x B > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you don't, this is where you went wrong. There is no reason to surmise that E'=F/q > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, you are probably right. I'll try to fix it tonight. The reason I wrote > > > > > > > it was a momentary lapse of reason when I assumed "constant linear speed" > > > > > > > (of the test particle) meant "constant linear velocity" (which of course it > > > > > > > isn't). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If that velocity _were_ constant (for example if the wire was a straight line > > > > > > > instead of circle) then Newton's "F = dp/dt" would indeed imply the equality > > > > > > > of forces as I wrote it above (since the two forces would then differ by > > > > > > > "d/dt(a constant vector)", i.e. they would differ by zero). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in this case the linear velocity vector v circles around so the correct > > > > > > > expression is probably something like: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > E' = F/q + (some extra term) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll see if I can calculate that extra and we'll see if the contradiction > > > > > > > still persists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me help you some more: you will not be able to get the correct result based on dynamics considerations, so, you will get wedged again. You will need to get the resulting transforms of the E,B starting from base principles, without invoking forces. I am telling you that in order to help you avoid more wasted time. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe. Maybe not. Last I checked E and B in classical E&M were defined by > > > > > forces they produced on test particles so you'd have to be explicit if you > > > > > expect a response. Just saying "get the resulting transforms of the E,B > > > > > starting from base principles" is not good enough. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > E and B are defined in terms of potentials, not forces. If you insist on going the "force" avenue, you will encounter some very serious difficulties, as you already did. > > > > > > E and B are defined by the Lorentz force law; the effects these fields have upon charged particles which can be observed by experiment. Without this, Maxwell's equations lack physical content. > > > > > > Have a look at the "correct" answer to this question: > > > Can the Lorentz force expression be derived from Maxwell's equations? > > > > > > http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20477/can-the-lorentz-force-expression-be-derived-from-maxwells-equations/20488#20488 > > > > > > Larry Harson > > > > The link you quote contradicts your claim. > > The link to the "correct" answer says: > > "Maxwell's equations do not contain any information about the effect of fields on charges. One can imagine an alternate universe where electric and magnetic fields create no forces on any charges, yet Maxwell's equations still hold. (E and B would be unobservable and totally pointless to calculate in this universe, but you could still calculate them!) So you can't derive the Lorentz force law from Maxwell's equations alone. It is a separate law." > > "Some people take the Lorentz force law to be essentially the definition of electric and magnetic fields, in which case it's part of the foundation on which Maxwell's equations are built." > > On page 25 of Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics: > > "Although the thing that eventually gets measured is a force, it is useful to introduce a concept one step removed from the forces, the concept of an electric field due to some array of charged bodies. At the moment, the electric field can be defined as the force per unit charge acting at a given point." > > Page 175: > > "The magnitude of the flux density can be defined by the mechanical torque N exerted on the magnetic dipole: N = u x B > > The conclusion from the above is that the electric and magnetic fields are defined from the start by forces on matter. The Lorentz force summarizes this more elegantly in how stationary and moving charge is affected by these two fields. > > Larry Harson You keep missing the conclusion: "If you assume the formulas for the energy and/or momentum of electromagnetic fields, then conservation of energy and/or momentum implies that the fields have to GENERATE forces on charges, and presumably you can DERIVE the exact Lorentz force law." Fields are the generators for the )Lorentz) force.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 16:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <66574670-1929-4ca6-88de-094a2926080d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409557 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 3:54:54 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 3:49:37 PM UTC-8, Larry Harson wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 6:45:42 AM UTC, Dono, wrote: > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 10:36:11 PM UTC-8, Larry Harson wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 1:21:49 AM UTC, Dono, wrote: > > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 4:31:06 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 4:08:43 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > > > > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 3:47:48 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 2:38:22 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 12:39:45 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 7:35:15 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 12:43:41 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/8/17 2/8/17 12:39 PM, Dono, wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxwell's equations are invariant to the rotation transform. Therefore the > > > > > > > > > > > > > solutions in the frame of the rotating are identical to the ones in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > inertial frame of the hub. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not true, for the rotation transform YOU give. You CLEARLY have not > > > > > > > > > > > > performed the exercise you want me to do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The transform is: > > > > > > > > > > > > > x' |cos \omega*t sin \omega*t 0 0 | x > > > > > > > > > > > > > y'= |-sin \omega*t cos \omega*t 0 0 | y > > > > > > > > > > > > > z' | 0 0 1 0 | z > > > > > > > > > > > > > t' | 0 0 0 1 | t > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OBVIOUSLY you have not actually applied this transform to the Maxwell's > > > > > > > > > > > > equations. Or if you think you did, then you did it incorrectly. The ME are NOT > > > > > > > > > > > > invariant under this transform. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, unlike you, I DID the calculations. Do them or STFU. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You must have made a mistake somewhere. I'm posting a proof below but > > > > > > > > > > first a quick observation: when changing the coordinates in Maxwell's > > > > > > > > > > equations, it is NOT enough to replace all the coordinate derivative > > > > > > > > > > operators by those of the new system: it is ALSO necessary to adjust > > > > > > > > > > the electric and magnetic vectors E and B _as well_. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...which is precisely what I did. One needs to find the transforms E' and B' as a function of E and B. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is _not trivial_, > > > > > > > > > > even for a Lorentz transformation, let alone a for a curvilinear > > > > > > > > > > one like your rotating system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. Nevertheless , I had no trouble deriving them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This adjustment of E and B is _not_ the same as the transformation of > > > > > > > > > > the derivative operators. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is because E and B fields in whatever > > > > > > > > > > coordinates are defined by the mechanical results of _forces_ they > > > > > > > > > > generate, and these forces, unlike the derivative operators, do not > > > > > > > > > > transform linearly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, whenever one says "Maxwell's > > > > > > > > > > equations are invariant under Lorentz transformations", this means BOTH > > > > > > > > > > derivative operators AND E and B are changed in a certain way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just wanted to state it clearly to avoid further confusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now the proof that Maxwell's equations do not retain their form in the > > > > > > > > > > rotating coordinates you've written above. Actually I'm not going to > > > > > > > > > > brute-force the calculation but instead set up an experiment which > > > > > > > > > > we'll view from both the lab (inertial) coordinates and the above rotating > > > > > > > > > > system. The conclusion will be that at least one of Maxwell's equations > > > > > > > > > > _in its standard form_ will clearly FAIL in the rotating system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > False. Now I need to find what you did wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means in the rotating system Maxwell's equations develop extra > > > > > > > > > > terms, sort of like "F=ma" develops extra terms in rotating coordinates > > > > > > > > > > (the usual three fictitious forces). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a bias, all you are going to do is to confirm your bias. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So here is the setup. I believe it's correct (I doodled it while on my > > > > > > > > > > train to work): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * the lab coordinate system is the standard Cartesian xyz, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * your system rotates around the z-axis with angular speed \omega > > > > > > > > > > (from now on I'm going to write "w" instead of "\omega"), as this is > > > > > > > > > > what your matrix says. The angular velocity _vector_ points _down_ > > > > > > > > > > along the z-axis, given your choice of the minus sign before the sines > > > > > > > > > > (this is unimportant), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * imagine a circular conducting wire in the xy-plane with the origin > > > > > > > > > > at its center. Assume there is a steady current I flowing through it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going to examine the E and B fields in the lab system and likewise > > > > > > > > > > the corresponding E' and B' fields in the rotating system. We'll conclude > > > > > > > > > > that E' and B' CANNOT satisfy Maxwell's equations in their standard form > > > > > > > > > > in the rotating system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To gather enough information about E and B, we imagine a bunch of charged > > > > > > > > > > particles in space, each of charge q, and rotating in the same fashion as > > > > > > > > > > your rotating coordinate system (so to keep them on their circular tracks > > > > > > > > > > around the z-axis, imagine them mounted on some mechanical contraption > > > > > > > > > > designed to maintain this constraint). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because the wire is electrically neutral, we have E = 0. OTOH due to the > > > > > > > > > > nonzero I, we have a nonzero B given by the Biot-Savart law. Because the > > > > > > > > > > aforementioned cloud of particles is moving wrt to the lab system, the > > > > > > > > > > particles experience the Lorentz force F = q v x B, where a particle > > > > > > > > > > at position r has the linear velocity v = w x r. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above E and B satisfies Maxwell's equations in the standard form. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now let's examine this setup in the rotating coordinates. First of all, > > > > > > > > > > all the particles in it are _stationary_, therefore NO MATTER what B' is > > > > > > > > > > (the magnetic field as observed by the rotating system), they experience > > > > > > > > > > _no_ magnetic (Lorentz) force. But they of course _do_ experience _a_ force[#] > > > > > > > > > > simply because they did so as measured by the (say) mechanical strain of > > > > > > > > > > the contraption mentioned earlier which is a coordinate-independent > > > > > > > > > > phenomenon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [#] ignoring the centripetal and centrifugal forces, resp., as they > > > > > > > > > > are obviously equal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, the electromagnetic force experienced in the rotating system > > > > > > > > > > must be due only to the electric field E'. And we know this force is equal > > > > > > > > > > to the Lorentz force of the lab system: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > E' = F/q = v x B > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you don't, this is where you went wrong. There is no reason to surmise that E'=F/q > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, you are probably right. I'll try to fix it tonight. The reason I wrote > > > > > > > > it was a momentary lapse of reason when I assumed "constant linear speed" > > > > > > > > (of the test particle) meant "constant linear velocity" (which of course it > > > > > > > > isn't). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If that velocity _were_ constant (for example if the wire was a straight line > > > > > > > > instead of circle) then Newton's "F = dp/dt" would indeed imply the equality > > > > > > > > of forces as I wrote it above (since the two forces would then differ by > > > > > > > > "d/dt(a constant vector)", i.e. they would differ by zero). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in this case the linear velocity vector v circles around so the correct > > > > > > > > expression is probably something like: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > E' = F/q + (some extra term) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll see if I can calculate that extra and we'll see if the contradiction > > > > > > > > still persists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me help you some more: you will not be able to get the correct result based on dynamics considerations, so, you will get wedged again. You will need to get the resulting transforms of the E,B starting from base principles, without invoking forces. I am telling you that in order to help you avoid more wasted time. > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe. Maybe not. Last I checked E and B in classical E&M were defined by > > > > > > forces they produced on test particles so you'd have to be explicit if you > > > > > > expect a response. Just saying "get the resulting transforms of the E,B > > > > > > starting from base principles" is not good enough. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > E and B are defined in terms of potentials, not forces. If you insist on going the "force" avenue, you will encounter some very serious difficulties, as you already did. > > > > > > > > E and B are defined by the Lorentz force law; the effects these fields have upon charged particles which can be observed by experiment. Without this, Maxwell's equations lack physical content. > > > > > > > > Have a look at the "correct" answer to this question: > > > > Can the Lorentz force expression be derived from Maxwell's equations? > > > > > > > > http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20477/can-the-lorentz-force-expression-be-derived-from-maxwells-equations/20488#20488 > > > > > > > > Larry Harson > > > > > > The link you quote contradicts your claim. > > > > The link to the "correct" answer says: > > > > "Maxwell's equations do not contain any information about the effect of fields on charges. One can imagine an alternate universe where electric and magnetic fields create no forces on any charges, yet Maxwell's equations still hold. (E and B would be unobservable and totally pointless to calculate in this universe, but you could still calculate them!) So you can't derive the Lorentz force law from Maxwell's equations alone. It is a separate law." > > > > "Some people take the Lorentz force law to be essentially the definition of electric and magnetic fields, in which case it's part of the foundation on which Maxwell's equations are built." > > > > On page 25 of Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics: > > > > "Although the thing that eventually gets measured is a force, it is useful to introduce a concept one step removed from the forces, the concept of an electric field due to some array of charged bodies. At the moment, the electric field can be defined as the force per unit charge acting at a given point." > > > > Page 175: > > > > "The magnitude of the flux density can be defined by the mechanical torque N exerted on the magnetic dipole: N = u x B > > > > The conclusion from the above is that the electric and magnetic fields are defined from the start by forces on matter. The Lorentz force summarizes this more elegantly in how stationary and moving charge is affected by these two fields. > > > > Larry Harson > > You keep missing the conclusion: > > "If you assume the formulas for the energy and/or momentum of electromagnetic fields, then conservation of energy and/or momentum implies that the fields have to GENERATE forces on charges, and presumably you can DERIVE the exact Lorentz force law." > > Fields are the generators for the )Lorentz) force. Point is forces are all that's needed to define E and B. You are free to use some other related mathematical quantities if you want but this is not the essence of the problem. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 23:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <v7qdnfYL_uaPCj_FnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #409108 |
On 2/13/17 2/13/17 2:39 PM, JanPB wrote:
> On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 7:35:15 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote:
>>Maxwell's equations are invariant to the rotation transform. Therefore the
>> solutions in the frame of the rotating are identical to the ones in the
>> inertial frame of the hub. [... and he gave a rotation transform]
>
> You must have made a mistake somewhere. I'm posting a proof below [...]
Yes he clearly did make a mistake, but is too arrogant to consider that
possibility and THINK. The proof is quite simple:
If Dono's claim above were true, then the solutions of Maxwell's equations
corresponding to light pulses in vacuum must have trajectories that are linear
functions of his primed coordinates [#]. So his claim implies that all null
geodesics are linear functions of his primed coordinates, and also linear
functions of his unprimed (inertial) coordinates. This cannot possibly be true
because his coordinate transform is nonlinear.
[#] "identical to the [solutions] in the inertial frame of the hub".
That claim of his is disproved. Similarly, so are the other false claims he has
made in this thread.
This has been mentioned before, just not in these words....
Had his rotation matrix used Moller's parameter \tau in place of the coordinate
t, then the transform would be linear and every transform of the family would be
a member of the invariance group of Maxwell's equations -- his claim would have
been true. But the transform he gave is definitely NOT a member of that group,
and his claim is false.
This suggests a different approach: look up the invariance group
of Maxwell's equations and check to see if Dono's transform is
a member. It isn't -- while fixed rotations are members,
transforms to rotating coordinates like his are definitely NOT.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 22:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <54e86a32-ffea-4e17-8f20-59f0af6a2948@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409150 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:35:21 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > On 2/13/17 2/13/17 2:39 PM, JanPB wrote: > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 7:35:15 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > >>Maxwell's equations are invariant to the rotation transform. Therefore the > >> solutions in the frame of the rotating are identical to the ones in the > >> inertial frame of the hub. [... and he gave a rotation transform] > > > > You must have made a mistake somewhere. I'm posting a proof below [...] > > Yes he clearly did make a mistake, but is too arrogant to consider that > possibility and THINK. The proof is quite simple: > > If Dono's claim above were true, then the solutions of Maxwell's equations > corresponding to light pulses in vacuum must have trajectories that are linear > functions of his primed coordinates [#]. So his claim implies that all null > geodesics are linear functions of his primed coordinates, and also linear > functions of his unprimed (inertial) coordinates. This cannot possibly be true > because his coordinate transform is nonlinear. > > [#] "identical to the [solutions] in the inertial frame of the hub". > > That claim of his is disproved. You have not performed any "disproof" , old fart. Because you can't calculate your way out of a paper bag. You are a fraud, just like the other old fart, PCH. When you approach 70, you become useless. > Similarly, so are the other false claims he has > made in this thread. > > This has been mentioned before, just not in these words.... > > Had his rotation matrix used Moller's parameter \tau in place of the coordinate > t, then the transform would be linear and every transform of the family would be > a member of the invariance group of Maxwell's equations -- his claim would have > been true. But the transform he gave is definitely NOT a member of that group, > and his claim is false. > Eat some more shit, old fart. You are wrong, again. All you can do is talk, you can't perform any math.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 23:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e5911002-9c3d-47c5-9665-0ba45c8b0b20@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409153 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 10:14:38 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:35:21 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 2/13/17 2/13/17 2:39 PM, JanPB wrote: > > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 7:35:15 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > > >>Maxwell's equations are invariant to the rotation transform. Therefore the > > >> solutions in the frame of the rotating are identical to the ones in the > > >> inertial frame of the hub. [... and he gave a rotation transform] > > > > > > You must have made a mistake somewhere. I'm posting a proof below [...] > > > > Yes he clearly did make a mistake, but is too arrogant to consider that > > possibility and THINK. The proof is quite simple: > > > > If Dono's claim above were true, then the solutions of Maxwell's equations > > corresponding to light pulses in vacuum must have trajectories that are linear > > functions of his primed coordinates [#]. So his claim implies that all null > > geodesics are linear functions of his primed coordinates, and also linear > > functions of his unprimed (inertial) coordinates. This cannot possibly be true > > because his coordinate transform is nonlinear. > > > > [#] "identical to the [solutions] in the inertial frame of the hub". > > > > That claim of his is disproved. > > You have not performed any "disproof" , old fart. Because you can't calculate your way out of a paper bag. You are a fraud, just like the other old fart, PCH. When you approach 70, you become useless. > > > Similarly, so are the other false claims he has > > made in this thread. > > > > This has been mentioned before, just not in these words.... > > > > Had his rotation matrix used Moller's parameter \tau in place of the coordinate > > t, then the transform would be linear and every transform of the family would be > > a member of the invariance group of Maxwell's equations -- his claim would have > > been true. But the transform he gave is definitely NOT a member of that group, > > and his claim is false. > > > > Eat some more shit, old fart. You are wrong, again. All you can do is talk, you can't perform any math. But it's hard not to notice that this is all you do: just SAY things negating what others are telling you, never probing your claims. It's also telling you feel it's necessary to resort to invective. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 10:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <5bWdnc7FKK8MqD7FnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #409162 |
On 2/14/17 2/14/17 - 1:54 AM, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 10:14:38 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote:
>> On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:35:21 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
>>> On 2/13/17 2/13/17 2:39 PM, JanPB wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 7:35:15 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote:
>>>>> Maxwell's equations are invariant to the rotation transform. Therefore the
>>>>> solutions in the frame of the rotating are identical to the ones in the
>>>>> inertial frame of the hub. [... and he gave a rotation transform]
>>>>
>>>> You must have made a mistake somewhere. I'm posting a proof below [...]
>>>
>>> Yes he clearly did make a mistake, but is too arrogant to consider that
>>> possibility and THINK. The proof is quite simple:
>>>
>>> If Dono's claim above were true, then the solutions of Maxwell's equations
>>> corresponding to light pulses in vacuum must have trajectories that are linear
>>> functions of his primed coordinates [#]. So his claim implies that all null
>>> geodesics are linear functions of his primed coordinates, and also linear
>>> functions of his unprimed (inertial) coordinates. This cannot possibly be true
>>> because his coordinate transform is nonlinear.
>>>
>>> [#] "identical to the [solutions] in the inertial frame of the hub".
>>>
>>> That claim of his is disproved.
>>
>> You have not performed any "disproof"
So point out my error.
>>> Similarly, so are the other false claims he has
>>> made in this thread.
>>>
>>> This has been mentioned before, just not in these words....
>>>
>>> Had his rotation matrix used Moller's parameter \tau in place of the coordinate
>>> t, then the transform would be linear and every transform of the family would be
>>> a member of the invariance group of Maxwell's equations -- his claim would have
>>> been true. But the transform he gave is definitely NOT a member of that group,
>>> and his claim is false.
>>>
>>
>> Eat some more shit, old fart. You are wrong, again. All you can do is talk, you can't perform any math.
>
> But it's hard not to notice that this is all you do: just SAY things negating what others are
> telling you, never probing your claims.
>
> It's also telling you feel it's necessary to resort to invective.
And it's even more "telling" that he is wrong.
All he has to do is THINK about the properties of null geodesics projected onto
inertial and rotating coordinates, or just LOOK UP the invariance group of
Maxwell's equations and see if his transform is a member.
As you say, Dono does not present anything, he merely makes unsupported claims
and insults others. He keeps claiming that I "can't perform any math", clearly
oblivious to the fact that:
a) I did apply math above (differential geometry and group theory)
b) disproving his claims does not require any algebra
Apparently Dono thinks that algebra is all there is to "math" -- how sad.
Moreover, his algebra clearly contains mistakes that he is too arrogant to find.
Talk to any professional mathematician or mathematical
physicist and you'll learn that we do everything we can to
avoid algebra -- general arguments and proofs (as above) are
MUCH better than algebra. Dono doesn't have a clue.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 09:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <74266f56-09d9-4902-af8e-fe25893d908b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409217 |
On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 8:51:36 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > > All he has to do is THINK about the properties of null geodesics projected onto > inertial and rotating coordinates, or just LOOK UP the invariance group of > Maxwell's equations and see if his transform is a member. > Cretin The fact that the transforms are non-linear does not imply, in itself, that the conditions of invariance are not fulfilled. Since you are INCAPABLE of performing the calculations, you are also INCAPABLE of seeing the error in your reasoning. You are a disgrace for Bell Labs, you should have been fired for incompetence long ago. > As you say, Dono does not present anything, he merely makes unsupported claims > and insults others. He keeps claiming that I "can't perform any math", clearly > oblivious to the fact that: > a) I did apply math above (differential geometry and group theory) Liar, You did not write ONE equation. All you did you flapped your big mouth. > b) disproving his claims does not require any algebra > Actually, algebra (and a little bit of differentiation) DISPROVES your pretentious idiocies. > Apparently Dono thinks that algebra is all there is to "math" -- how sad. > Moreover, his algebra clearly contains mistakes that he is too arrogant to find. > There are no mistakes, imbecile. Actually, the derivation is quite straightforward. > Talk to any professional mathematician or mathematical > physicist and you'll learn that we do everything we can to > avoid algebra -- general arguments and proofs (as above) are > MUCH better than algebra. Dono doesn't have a clue. > > Tom Roberts In translation: Tom Roberts is incapable of providing a mathematical proof, the old fart is only capable of flapping his gums.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 13:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <49bd2f9f-e2a1-4a89-8c19-ccd83d3ddc22@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409219 |
On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 9:02:02 AM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 8:51:36 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > All he has to do is THINK about the properties of null geodesics projected onto > > inertial and rotating coordinates, or just LOOK UP the invariance group of > > Maxwell's equations and see if his transform is a member. > > > > Cretin > > The fact that the transforms are non-linear does not imply, in itself, that the conditions of invariance are not fulfilled. Tom never said that. What he said was, simply: the group of transformations under which Maxwell's equations are invariant is known. Your rotating system is not a member of this group. This kills your argument right there. [Skipping the rest as it's invalid and consists mostly of invective anyway.] -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 11:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <QYWdnYIOJZ46EDnFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #409219 |
On 2/14/17 2/14/17 - 11:02 AM, Dono, wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 8:51:36 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote
>> All he has to do is THINK about the properties of null geodesics projected
>> onto inertial and rotating coordinates,
>
> The fact that the transforms are non-linear does not imply, in itself, that
> the conditions of invariance are not fulfilled.
In itself, no. But you have said nothing about my two arguments:
1. Your claim that Maxwell's equations are invariant over your
transform is self-contradictory -- null geodesics cannot be
linear functions of both your primed and unprimed coordinates,
but your claimed invariance would require it.
2. Maxwell's equations ARE NOT invariant over your transform
because your transform is NOT a member of their invariance
group. This group is well known -- just look it up.
>> a) I did apply math above (differential geometry and group theory)
>
> You did not write ONE equation.
Mathematics is more than equations. You have an outrageously poor understanding
of what mathematics actually is. Each of my two arguments has a broad foundation
in mathematics, and uses mathematical reasoning. That _IS_ mathematics.
> Since you are INCAPABLE of
> performing the calculations,
There is no need of "calculations". See arguments 1 and 2 above.
You're like the little kid who claims to have found a pair
of 30-digit numbers whose sum depends on the order they are
added. When someone points out that he must be wrong because
addition is commutative, the kid says "but you have not
performed the calculation".
There's no point in performing "calculations" to show that group theory is
correct. Unless you don't understand group theory.
So I know that you have not performed the calculations correctly, either. All
you do is CLAIM to have performed them. If you had actually performed them, and
not made any mistakes, then you would not be making claims inconsistent with the
underlying mathematical structure.
>> b) disproving [Dono's] claims does not require any algebra
>
> Actually, algebra (and a little bit of differentiation) DISPROVES your
> pretentious idiocies.
You have never shown this, you merely CLAIM it, and your claims are incompatible
with the underlying mathematical structure.
> There are no mistakes, imbecile. Actually, the derivation is quite
> straightforward.
Yet you have never actually shown this.
Display an error in each of my arguments above, or display your algebra so we
can point out the error that you are unable/unwilling to find.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 09:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <42a29e5c-2217-4ff1-b5cf-da800ecec02a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409356 |
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:19:42 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > On 2/14/17 2/14/17 - 11:02 AM, Dono, wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 8:51:36 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote > >> All he has to do is THINK about the properties of null geodesics projected > >> onto inertial and rotating coordinates, > > > > The fact that the transforms are non-linear does not imply, in itself, that > > the conditions of invariance are not fulfilled. > > In itself, no. But you have said nothing about my two arguments: > > 1. Your claim that Maxwell's equations are invariant over your > transform is self-contradictory -- null geodesics cannot be > linear functions of both your primed and unprimed coordinates, > but your claimed invariance would require it. > There are two steps in proving the invariance: 1. Get the transforms between (E,B) and (E',B'). These transforms are non linear and they do contain some terms that are the derivatives wrt t of the components cos wt and sin wt 2. Insert the above in the Maxwell wave equations. If you do this right the odd terms from point 1 cancel out. > 2. Maxwell's equations ARE NOT invariant over your transform > because your transform is NOT a member of their invariance > group. This group is well known -- just look it up. > Contrary to your claims, I am quite familiar with advanced math (including group theory). For example, Maxwell equations are invariant wrt Lorentz transforms but are not invariant wrt Galilei transforms. I have not seen any proof that the rotation transforms described earlier are not art of the group. > >> a) I did apply math above (differential geometry and group theory) > > > > You did not write ONE equation. > > Mathematics is more than equations. You have an outrageously poor understanding > of what mathematics actually is. Each of my two arguments has a broad foundation > in mathematics, and uses mathematical reasoning. That _IS_ mathematics. > More like the blathering that you do when pinned to for a specific answer. > > There are no mistakes, imbecile. Actually, the derivation is quite > > straightforward. > > Yet you have never actually shown this. > Correct, I want you to find your own mistakes, only this way you will admit to them. Case and point: how is your demented attempt at setting up an experiment that measures relativity of simultaneity progressing? I hate to resort to the disgusting tactics of your sidekick (PCH) but I am just curious. I told you that your idea id fundamentally flawed, have you come with terms with the facts? > Display an error in each of my arguments above, I just did. Your move. Next.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 11:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <094ae53b-f448-4215-adbb-0d5bd141b350@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409360 |
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:39:17 AM UTC-8, Dono, wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:19:42 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 2/14/17 2/14/17 - 11:02 AM, Dono, wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 8:51:36 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote
> > >> All he has to do is THINK about the properties of null geodesics projected
> > >> onto inertial and rotating coordinates,
> > >
> > > The fact that the transforms are non-linear does not imply, in itself, that
> > > the conditions of invariance are not fulfilled.
> >
> > In itself, no. But you have said nothing about my two arguments:
> >
> > 1. Your claim that Maxwell's equations are invariant over your
> > transform is self-contradictory -- null geodesics cannot be
> > linear functions of both your primed and unprimed coordinates,
> > but your claimed invariance would require it.
> >
>
> There are two steps in proving the invariance:
>
> 1. Get the transforms between (E,B) and (E',B'). These transforms are non linear and they do contain some terms that are the derivatives wrt t of the components cos wt and sin wt
>
> 2. Insert the above in the Maxwell wave equations. If you do this right the odd terms from point 1 cancel out.
They won't. You've made a mistake somewhere.
> > 2. Maxwell's equations ARE NOT invariant over your transform
> > because your transform is NOT a member of their invariance
> > group. This group is well known -- just look it up.
> >
>
> Contrary to your claims, I am quite familiar with advanced math (including group theory). For example, Maxwell equations are invariant wrt Lorentz transforms but are not invariant wrt Galilei transforms.
That's marvellous but perhaps not advanced enough. Since you are
apparently unwilling to read the references shown to you, here is
in the covariant form Gauss' and Ampere's laws (simplified slightly
because in your rotating coordinates the metric determinant g = -1):
@F^ab/@x^a = 4 pi J^b (equation (12a))
Because of the way Arendt uses the "tilde" convention for the E and B
components, the above translates for b=0 (i.e., for Gauss' law) into:
div E = 4 pi rho (equation (13a))
...which is the standard form because there is no tilde above
the E (meaning, E here is written wrt. the _inertial_ system of the lab).
To get Gauss' law in your rotating system, one needs to write the above
equation in terms of E-tilde components (this is the equivalent of the
calculation you claim you did, and Tom and I claim you've made a mistake in).
And to get the "tilde" components you need to write the original general
equation (12a) using F_ab instead of F^ab (i.e., lower the indices), like
so:
@(g^ua g^vb F_uv)/@x^a = 4 pi J^b
Thus for b = 0 you get for Gauss' law in your rotating coordinates:
(@g^ua/@x^a) g^v0 F_uv + g^ua (@g^v0/@x^a) F_uv + g^ua g^v0 (@F_uv/@x^a) = 4 pi rho
You clearly get a bunch of extra terms absent from the standard form.
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 23:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7ad874a2-585d-450b-9909-379860b499c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409356 |
W dniu środa, 15 lutego 2017 18:19:42 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > Mathematics is more than equations. Speaking of mathematics, it's always good to remind your idiot guru rejected its oldest part. "Common sense is a set of prejudices".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 12:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o7uu16$isc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409153 |
Dono, wrote: >> That claim of his is disproved. > > You have not performed any "disproof" , old fart. Because you can't > calculate your way out of a paper bag. You are a fraud, just like the > other old fart, PCH. When you approach 70, you become useless. This is nothing but invectives. I can't learn from invectives. I want tensors. Tensors are my favourite math construct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 14:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o7uv68$i2c$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409178 |
On 02/14/2017 01:43 PM, Sanjuanita Peeples wrote: > [..] I want tensors. Tensors are my favourite math construct. "If there is no tool but a hammer, the world may look like a set of nails." -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 16:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o81uea$bqc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409185 |
Poutnik wrote: > On 02/14/2017 01:43 PM, Sanjuanita Peeples wrote: > >> [..] I want tensors. Tensors are my favourite math construct. > > "If there is no tool but a hammer, the world may look like a set of > nails." You seemingly are not aware of the cruciallity of tensors in Divergent Matter, whereas Relativity is a subset of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 17:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o81vi1$8o4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409343 |
On 02/15/2017 05:08 PM, Sanjuanita Peeples wrote: > Poutnik wrote: > >> On 02/14/2017 01:43 PM, Sanjuanita Peeples wrote: >> >>> [..] I want tensors. Tensors are my favourite math construct. >> >> "If there is no tool but a hammer, the world may look like a set of >> nails." > > You seemingly are not aware of the cruciallity of tensors in Divergent > Matter, whereas Relativity is a subset of. Ha ha. BTW, even you are the DM hypothesis author ? Number of its authors increases every week. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web