Some troubling assumptions of SR

On Mar 1, 4:20 pm, "Randy Poe" wrote:
On Mar 1, 3:27 pm, "Androcles"
Here's one of the vector equations:

curl E = -dB/dt

and here it is in component form:

dEz/dy - dEy/dz = -dBx/dt

dEx/dz - dEz/dx = -dBy/dt

dEy/dx - dEx/dy = -dBz/dt

One vector equation = three scalar equations.


On another topic, I'm aware that you (Androcles) think
that
curl E = -dB/dt
means
Ex = -dBx/dt

Ey = -dBy/dt

Ez = -dBz/dt

However, the above is the correct expansion.
http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/reid/b...ook/node7.html

- Randy

"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"George Dishman" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

Air cannot support transverse waves at all.

And crystals do not allow planets to pass through.

That was the model of the aether. Imagine a rigid crystal made
of particles that interact less than neutrinos. Regardless, if
you want to use sound as a test vehicle for an aether theory,
crystals would be the closest equivalent. You need the rigidity
for a shear wave to propagate.

***{There were lots of models of the aether, with properties that varied
depending on the facts known at the time and the extant theories about
electromagnetism, etc. The only thing all those theories had in common
was the belief that what was known could not be explained by a theory of
empty space, and, thus, that space had to be filled by some sort of
transparent medium. One possibility was the one you have mentioned: that
light was transverse (shear) waves in a rigid medium. That notion,
however, was refuted by the Michelson-Morley experiment, ..

No, only the Galilean relativity of the model was refuted.
For example the Lorentz invariant aether is still unproven
withing the limitations of special relativity.

.. more than a
hundred years ago, and it serves no purpose to discuss it here. More
recent aether theories (e.g., the so called "Dirac Sea") involve
particles that move freely with respect to one another, rather than the
archaic notion of a transparent, solid aether. Such modernized aether
theories are compatible with the view that light waves are composed of
photons rather than continua without discrete parts.

The problem with that idea is that there seems to be no reason
why those photons couldn't propagate through a true vacuum.

My own view is that
the aether is composed of a series of particulate substrates, which I
denote by E1, E2, E3, etc. The largest particles are electron-positron
pairs, analogous to the Dirac Sea, which comprise the E1 substrate.
However, between the particles of that "sea" there are smaller particles
that comprise a lesser sea, which I call E2. And so on. Such aethers are
not rigid, and, as a result, are subject to internal motions. Since one
region of the aether can be in rapid motion with respect to other
regions, there is no universal or "absolute" frame against which all
motions can be usefully referenced. Gravitationally entrained aethers,
however, do provide a preferred frame against which electromagnetic
phenomena can be referenced locally--i.e., within the zone of
gravitational dominance of a particular celestial body. --MJ}***

What you are describing is merely an environment through which
the photons pass, not a medium.

George

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 26, 11:55 pm, "George Dishman"
wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 25, 2:13 pm, "George Dishman" wrote:
wrote in message
groups.com...
On Feb 24, 4:12 am, "George Dishman"
wrote:
...
I don't agree, I think the experiment has already been
done first by Bradley in the 1850s IIRC and recently by
Hipparcos. The observed amount of aberration is well
documented. What is in question is whether a dragged
aether predicts the obsereved aberration or not and my
take is that Maxwell's Equations would be the definitive
way to check that.

Yes, I am aware of Bradley's work which established that stellar
aberration exists. The experiment I was suggesting shows that a
dragged media could could account for the effect. You seemed
receptive to the idea, even suggesting what equipment should be
used.
But now you want to revert to calculating a result.

What I was saying was that I felt a slightly different
experiment would be needed to simulate it, EM waves are
transverse and we need a sliding boundary so the
alternative I suggested seemed closer and perhaps
feasible although still not perfect. However, I still
maintain that to test a theory, you make a prediction
using that theory and compare against actual observation.
The observations already exist so I really see no need to
try to duplicate them with a poorer equivalent when we
know the result from the real thing.

And it was my contention that improper analysis of how signals travel
through a medium could be revealed by examining how sound travels
through air.

No, all that will do is show the difference between sound
and light which we already know exist. There are major
differences.

There are similarities as well. Those similarities can be used to
show that a particular analysis was incorrect since it used those
shared features.

As you have said, the observations already exist, so
what we need to determine is if the theory can account for the
observations. I am saying the classical analysis uses the wrong path
for the signal. Correct that error and the predictions agree with
observations.

It isn't about choosing to use any particular path, the
theory must predict the path.

I disagree. A choice was made for the analysis.

Sorry, no. You can choose what frame you use to do
the analysis but the path must be predicted. You
cannot just assume an answer.

It would seem that
the path would come from the center of the circular wave that reaches
the emitter, but the origin of that circle is not the origin of the
sound.

In the rest frame of the medium, a wavefront expands
symmetrically around the source because speed is
isotropic in that frame. To convert to the frame of
the receiver, apply the trransforms appropriate to
the theory. For a classical aether those are the
galilean Transforms. That gives you the equation of
the wavefront in the receiver frame, and so on. The
whole thing _must_ be derived by application of the
relevant theory.

Just because an incorrect analysis has been made in the past
does not mean it cannot be corrected.

Of course, but first you have to show there was an
error made in applying the theory, and so far you
haven't done that.

Well as I understand it, only an un-dragged Lorentzian
aether is fully compatible with SR so some differences
should show up using a dragged Galilean aether. The
question would be whether there is a difference in this
particular observation. For example there is no difference
in the MMx so perhaps that could apply here too.

Maxwell was not using Lorentzian aether when he developed his
equations, and I would assume that a "vortex aether" would involve
some dragging. That would suggest that if there was any
incompatability between the aether theory and SR, Maxwell's equations
would not reveal it.

Then you need to find alternative equations to Maxwell's
that are valid for your style of aether before a proper
analysis can be done.

I feel no need to do so. It was your idea to use Maxwell's equations.

OK but if they won't show an "incompatability" and you
believe one exists then they must be wrong. So how do
you intend to calculate the revised path?

Air cannot support transverse waves at all.

And crystals do not allow planets to pass through.

That was the model of the aether. Imagine a rigid crystal made
of particles that interact less than neutrinos. Regardless, if
you want to use sound as a test vehicle for an aether theory,
crystals would be the closest equivalent. You need the rigidity
for a shear wave to propagate.

Ha Ha, You tell me what my aether theory must be, and then tell me it
doesn't work. I will let you continue to debate that one with
yourself.

No, I'm only telling you we know experimentally that
the wave is transverse hence I will not accept your
analogy using sound waves which are longitudinal.
there are other differences too like the Doppler
Equation which mean I don't think there is any
relevant similarity to sound. If you want to convince
me that there is an error in the standard analysis,
you need to find some valid evidence to support your
claim.

George

"Randy Poe" wrote in message ups.com...
On Mar 1, 3:27 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Mar 1, 2:22 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in oglegroups.com...
On Mar 1, 12:06 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Feb 28, 6:10 pm, Lester Zick wrote:
On 28 Feb 2007 18:31:39 GMT, (Daniel Grubb)
wrote:
Well, first of all, because E and B are three dimensional vectors, not
4-vectors. Also, the force law shows they don't transform
that simply. Finally, because what *does* transform is
the Faraday *tensor*, not the electric and magnetic field vectors.
Alternatively, you can transform the 4-vector consisting of the electric
potential (as the time component) and the magnetic potential (as the
spatial part).

No idea what you're talking about. The E vector is one dimensional and
certainly appears bidirectional.

A "three-dimensional vector" is one that has an x, y and z component.

Nothing more complicated than that. An E vector can point in
any direction, so it has components Ex, Ey and Ez.

Maxwell's famous four equations in vectors E and
B are actually 12 equations in terms of the
scalar quantities Ex, Ey, Ez, Bx, By, Bz.

You've goofed. Ex, Ey, Ez, Bx, By, Bz are vectors, E is a sum of vectors
and so is B.

No score. I'm afraid you've already had this fumble enshrined.

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...torSpaces.html

Doesn't matter to me what the imbecile writes or what scares you, Blind Poe,
even wackypedia states:
"A component of a vector is the influence of that vector in a given direction. Components are vectors themselves."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_(spatial)

The dangers of Wiki and authorship by committee. A contradictory
passage in the same article:

"Any vector a in R3 can be written as a = a1 e1 + a2 e2 + a3 e3 with
real numbers a1, a2 and a3 (the components ) which are uniquely
determined by a and the choice of basis vectors e1, e2 and e3 ."

That's why I call it wackypedia, but it remains true that "components
are vectors themselves" even though scaled by a scalar.



The e's are vectors.

Correct, they are the base vectors, the a's are scalars.

The products like a1*e1 are what the introductory
paragraph calls the vector components. The a's are real numbers,
also called "components".

This should be just right for a dumb**** like you, it has pictures:
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSC...ors/u3l1d.html

Just about every math text book uses bold type for a vector.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpace.html

Yes it does. The passage from the Wiki I quoted uses bold
face for the unit vectors e1, e2, and e3, and normal type for
the scalars a1, a2, a3.

So Ex, Ey and Ez are the component vectors (not scalars) of E.

Not usually.

Yes usually. In fact, always usually, retard.


For instance, the operation div E is expanded in terms
of Ex, Ey, Ez as (dEx/dx + dEy/dy + dEz/dz). That is a
sum of three real-valued derivatives of real-valued
functions. The sum is a real number, not a vector.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence

"The divergence of a continuously differentiable vector
field F = F1 i + F2 j + F3 k is defined to be the
scalar-valued function..."

Do you have any clue what divergence is?
http://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/images/divergence.gif
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/...ivergence.jpeg

We are not discussing divergence, we are discussing vectors,
so quit diverging off the subject.
Notice that the equation for div F is written in terms
of the real numbers F1, F2, and F3.

No, I will not notice it. **** off.
Ex, Ey and Ez are the component vectors (not scalars) of E. Always.



Actually, my statement about Maxwell's equations
was wrong. Two of them are scalar equations (the
ones in terms of div). The other two are vector
equations (the ones in terms of curl). So that's
a total of 1 + 1 + 3 + 3 = 8 scalar equations.

Here's one of the vector equations:

curl E = -dB/dt

and here it is in component form:

dEz/dy - dEy/dz = -dBx/dt

dEx/dz - dEz/dx = -dBy/dt

dEy/dx - dEx/dy = -dBz/dt

This is what it looks like:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../AC/Photon.gif

I left out the magnetic field in this, it's just an expanding circle:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...AC/doppler.gif


One vector equation = three scalar equations.

Don't be silly... oh wait, you can't help it.

Let's put it this way.
A mathematical point in space has position:- x,y, and z,
relative to some arbitrary origin (0,0,0). That much you know.
It also has the properties of vx,vy, vz and accel_x,
accel_y and accel_z, and besides that pitch, roll and yaw,
pitch rate, roll rate and yaw rate.
We flight simulation engineers model the aircraft as a point,
and we use those properties. We do that for ALL aircraft.
We can extrapolate to the next position by adding dx to x, dy to y
and dz to z. This is most useful when we have to update the
visual display every 30 ms to prevent flicker but only get an update
(a new point) from the flight computer (which has a lot of
work to do, engines, wind shear, sound system etc.) every 50 ms.

We also extrapolate to the next roll position, roll + (roll rate) * dt.
We also update vx, vy,vz from acc_x, acc_y, acc_z but generally
omit updating roll rate and pitch rate from any acceleration since
that is rather gentle and is a direct value from the joystick position
input by the pilot. We could, but it simply isn't noticable.
Yaw rate is computed by the flight computer.
Now, if you want to call pitch rate or roll rate or yaw rate "curl"
or "div", you can, I won't object, but don't tell me it's a scalar, puh-leeze.
All the parameters are vectors. ALL. The reason is they meet the
requirements listed at:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpace.html
You simply cannot manipulate scalars by themselves, they
are the magnitude of vectors. Jeez, you are dumb.
Existence of additive inverse: For any X, there exists a -X such that
X + (-X) = 0

Just remember that scalars are always positive and answer
this question, Poe. The scalar is 1. How far is it from X to X?

On Mar 1, 5:03 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in oglegroups.com...


So Ex, Ey and Ez are the component vectors (not scalars) of E.

Not usually.

Yes usually. In fact, always usually, retard.

Hmmmhehe.


For instance, the operation div E is expanded in terms
of Ex, Ey, Ez as (dEx/dx + dEy/dy + dEz/dz). That is a
sum of three real-valued derivatives of real-valued
functions. The sum is a real number, not a vector.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence

"The divergence of a continuously differentiable vector
field F = F1 i + F2 j + F3 k is defined to be the
scalar-valued function..."

Do you have any clue what divergence is?
http://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/images/divergence.gif
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/...ins/hominid_jo...

We are not discussing divergence, we are discussing vectors,
so quit diverging off the subject.

Hehehehe.


Notice that the equation for div F is written in terms
of the real numbers F1, F2, and F3.

No, I will not notice it. **** off.
Ex, Ey and Ez are the component vectors (not scalars) of E. Always.

Hahahahehe.



Just remember that scalars are always positive and answer
this question, Poe. The scalar is 1. How far is it from X to X?

HOHAHAHAHahahaha.

That settles it. WAY funnier than the Three Stooges.

PD

"Randy Poe" wrote in message ups.com...
On Mar 1, 4:20 pm, "Randy Poe" wrote:
On Mar 1, 3:27 pm, "Androcles"
Here's one of the vector equations:

curl E = -dB/dt

and here it is in component form:

dEz/dy - dEy/dz = -dBx/dt

dEx/dz - dEz/dx = -dBy/dt

dEy/dx - dEx/dy = -dBz/dt

One vector equation = three scalar equations.


On another topic, I'm aware that you (Androcles) think
that
curl E = -dB/dt
means
Ex = -dBx/dt

Ey = -dBy/dt

Ez = -dBz/dt

However, the above is the correct expansion.
http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/reid/b...ook/node7.html

yawn
"Thus, by definition, the curl of (A_symbol) is a vector..."

You are not aware of anything, Blind Poe. You don't even know
the difference between a vector and a scalar, you stare at
equations without knowing what they mean.
What is the pitch and roll of these two vehicles?
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...ows/SH20G3.jpg
or this one:
http://images.shopping.msn.com/img/3.../0/8940900.jpg

I live in the real world, Poe, and I know how to model it.

"Randy Poe" wrote in message oups.com...
On Mar 1, 4:36 pm, "PD" wrote:
You know, it's been such a long time since the Three Stooges became
old and unfunny.

I was walking through an antique store a few weeks ago and
a Three Stooges short was playing on an old TV set.

They're still funny, actually.

It's really a treat to see that there is still
someone around that can illustrate the fine comedic value of a well
executed pratfall.

This is of course my main motivation when I choose to interact
with Androcles. I don't expect him to read past the first couple
of words. He's demonstrated hundreds of times that he never
does.

- Randy
HAHAHAHA!

You sure are funny, Snipper Poe.

Snipped by Poe:

You've goofed. Ex, Ey, Ez, Bx, By, Bz are vectors, E is a sum of vectors
and so is B. Time is a scalar, it isn't reversible.
The "famous four" as you call them would be pretty if they didn't include
the properties of aether, that's another divide-by-zero.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm

Likewise velocity is a vector, speed is it's scalar. One can add velocities
but not speeds except for the special case where the speeds belong to
the same unit vector. One cannot go 50 mph North and 50 mph East
and be travelling at 100 mph, but one can walk down the aisle of a plane
and be travelling at 504 mph wrt the ground while the plane is travelling
at 500 mph.
Since the base vector always has a value of unity it becomes
pointless to write scalar*1 and some morons (especially Dorks)
confuse vectors with scalars; many such morons do not
understand that (x,y,z) is a vector, (x,0,0) is a vector and
(x) is a vector, but (x,y,z,t) is not a vector, there is no -t to make
(x,y,z,t) +(-x,-y,-z,-t) = (0,0,0,0) and never will be until you can
go back in time. Neither is (x,y,z,ct), the base component
vectors have to be mutually independent.
ct is just x/t * t = x anyway, and (x,y,z,x) doesn't make any
sense.
Minkowski was an ignorant moron just as you are and Einstein was.

Insolent hypocritical ****HEAD.

On Mar 1, 5:22 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in oglegroups.com...
On Mar 1, 4:20 pm, "Randy Poe" wrote:
On Mar 1, 3:27 pm, "Androcles"
Here's one of the vector equations:

curl E = -dB/dt

and here it is in component form:

dEz/dy - dEy/dz = -dBx/dt

dEx/dz - dEz/dx = -dBy/dt

dEy/dx - dEx/dy = -dBz/dt

One vector equation = three scalar equations.

On another topic, I'm aware that you (Androcles) think
that
curl E = -dB/dt
means
Ex = -dBx/dt

Ey = -dBy/dt

Ez = -dBz/dt

However, the above is the correct expansion.
http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/reid/b...ook/node7.html

yawn
"Thus, by definition, the curl of (A_symbol) is a vector..."

You are not aware of anything, Blind Poe. You don't even know
the difference between a vector and a scalar, you stare at
equations without knowing what they mean.
What is the pitch and roll of these two vehicles?
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...ows/SH20G3.jpg
or this one:
http://images.shopping.msn.com/img/3.../0/8940900.jpg

I live in the real world, Poe, and I know how to model it.

Sure. Just not with curls.
http://www.siliconashes.net/~imbrium...ages/Curls.jpg
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/topstory/sport...d060219_cp.jpg
http://www.thetotaltoner.com/shapefi...bell-curls.gif
http://www.loosecakes.co.nz/Choc%20S...0&%20Curls.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...l_DSC03974.jpg

PD

In article
.com
,
"PD" wrote:

[...]

HOHAHAHAHahahaha.

That settles it. WAY funnier than the Three Stooges.

When does Moe kick A. in the shin,
then poke him in the eye as his head comes down?

--
Michael Press

On Mar 1, 9:06 pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article
.com
,

"PD" wrote:

[...]

HOHAHAHAHahahaha.

That settles it. WAY funnier than the Three Stooges.

When does Moe kick A. in the shin,
then poke him in the eye as his head comes down?

Have you seen Androcles and Henri Wilson going at each
other?

- Randy