Recent content by ANvH

Thanks for this refreshing remark. For traveling waves: An electromagnetic wave can be planar and circular polarized. A planar wave (polarized) can be decomposed into two dichroic circular waves. A circular wave (left or right) can be decomposed into two planar waves orthogonal to each...

See my previous reply: If using the plane wave then the math tells you that the ##E## and ##B## fields are in phase. This is what DaleSpam (https://www.physicsforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=2892896 ) on page 2 of that thread also showed. In my original post I am contesting...

Sorry, but I contest the planar wave as a solution. When using the planar wave then mathematically you should conclude that the E and B fields are in phase. When my homework is correct with respect to what the curl of a vector field means then I am at odds with the planar wave. Reviewing the pdf...

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2881300#post2881300 According to the quoted thread above and according to textbooks and Wikipedia the phase between the E and B fields of an electromagnetic wave propagating in free space is zero. This assertion is based on the Maxwell equations...

In essence I already agreed with this when I responded to your previous post.

No, certainly not, this is different, but it is solved now.

Ok, aberration causes objects to appear to be angled or tilted towards the direction of motion of the observer. I mentioned this in the first post and referred to the triangles you should see as the mirror image of the triangle shown. The point I make is a reverse aberration, i.e., causes the...

Exactly, SR tells you this. However, you do know that after the first Michelson experiment in 1881, Lorentz's remark was that the transverse path should undergo aberration to account for the null result. The M&M paper of 1887 describes this modification in experiment and approach, however, again...

When at rest relative to the pole, a light signal at the end of the pole is delayed and therefore there is an aberration if the pole and I are moving with respect to some absolute rest frame. This means that in such a scenario I would know that I am moving with the pole, thanks to the finite...

Thanks for the heads up, but don't you agree that the Lorentz transformation fails to predict this? After all, when moving with the pole, i.e., observing a pole at rest does not require a correction of the time of flight of light, because we can measure the pole's length at will. If we were to...

Consider a pole of 1 light second long in the ##y## direction (the vertical line(s) in the enclosed figure). It is moving in the ##-x## direction. According SR, the pole's length is not contracted because its length is not parallel to the propagation direction. However, given the time of flight...

Thanks, and this is exactly how I understand it.

Pretty nitpicking ;-). Ok, I should have said "proper" You know, if you guys have invented the word "Proper Distance", and I overlooked "of events", then you should bet on it that the word "distance" in relativity is very ambiguous. So don't blame me for raising a contradiction, until is was...

yes, yes, and Bill_K acknowledged the difference in length and distance, which was a big relief ;-), his response did hit a trigger. I do appreciate the diagrams you often provide, yet a diagram with change of metrics, stretching the units of ##t## and ##x## can be very helpful too.

yes, again a typo. I guess you are right because it looks like the ##Δ\sigma## in the derivation is the ##Δ\tau##, proper time. Your diagrams always depict the coordinate distance, and not the coordinate length as the space axis. Proper distance is the distance between events, and given...