Some troubling assumptions of SR

On Feb 28, 6:10 pm, Lester Zick wrote:
On 28 Feb 2007 18:31:39 GMT, (Daniel Grubb)
wrote:



Of course I expected you to raise this objection. However there is an
E monopole but no B monopole so the existence and properties of the B
field is completely governed by fluctuations in the E field. Changes
in the E vector are what generate EM radiation and what govern the
frequency of it.

Um, no. Changing electric fields give rise to magnetic fields and changing
magnetic fields give rise to electric fields. This feedback loop
is what allows oscillatory behavior.

So perhaps you would care to point out these changing magnetic fields
without changing electric monopoles?

Pick up a permanent magnet at your local toystore.

Bring it closer and farther away from anything. Voila! Changing
magnetic fields, nary a monopole in sight. Magnetic field
varies with distance from a magnet.

The changing magnetic field will induce a time-varying
electric field. If the object you are wiggling the magnet
near is conductive, this will induce currents.

- Randy

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.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message oups.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.

- Randy

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

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

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message ups.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)

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

It's you that gets no score, ****head, you goofed. You'll always
goof if you listen to the moronic Dork Van de psycho, he's
never studied mathematics in his pathetic life, let alone gained
even an associate's degree.
You get zero for "scalar quantities Ex, Ey, Ez, Bx, By, Bz"
and a negative score for compounding your ****-up by trying
to cover your stupid arse and quoting the well-known dork, Dork Van de merde. ****head :-)

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 ."

The e's are vectors. 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.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message oups.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.

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.

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.

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..."

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

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

One vector equation = three scalar equations.

- Randy

On Mar 1, 2:27 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.

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.

You know, it's been such a long time since the Three Stooges became
old and unfunny. 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.

PD

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