What is your EM crankosity?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 26 Sep 2009 16:30 "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:7i7acpF30po8pU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message > news:1Etvm.201494$tD4.128637(a)newsfe07.ams2... >> >> >> When assisting Benj to lay turf, always remember "green side up". >> > When dealing with Androcles, remember that he prefers Astroturf. It has no > roots, can be placed either way up, and he has no idea when he has used it > incorrectly. > > All the best, > > Bill When dealing with Miller, remember he likes to violate the first law of thermodynamics, can start electromagnetic radiation from nothing, doesn't understand differential equations and has never heard of Euler's equation. He read in a book somewhere that the electric and magnetic fields are in phase and likes to perpetuate that silly rumour, bleating like all the other sheep. One says "baa" and they all say "baa". Humbug.
From: Uncle Ben on 26 Sep 2009 16:37 On Sep 24, 10:11 am, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: .... > Androcles is a sharp thinker even if he > has this one blind spot. ROTFLMAO! Androcles: 1. There is a smallest real numer greater than zero 2. Einstein thought he derived the Lorentz contraction, but what he really did was to derive an expansion. See discussion at http://greenba.com, under Relativity Uncle Ben
From: Jonah Thomas on 26 Sep 2009 17:11 Uncle Ben <ben(a)greenba.com> wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > ... > > Androcles is a sharp thinker even if he > > has this one blind spot. > > ROTFLMAO! > > Androcles: > 1. There is a smallest real numer greater than zero > 2. Einstein thought he derived the Lorentz contraction, but what he > really did was to derive an expansion. > > See discussion at http://greenba.com, under Relativity Androcles is a sharp thinker even if he has had a number of blind spots. ----- Norrington: No additional shot nor powder, a compass that doesn't point north, [looks at Jack's sword] Norrington: And I half expected it to be made of wood. You are without doubt the worst pirate I've ever heard of. Jack Sparrow: But you have heard of me. from Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl ----- Someone as important as you bothers to create webpages to record his mistakes. Why?
From: Don Kelly on 26 Sep 2009 19:32 -- "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:7i6rh1F2vucu2U1(a)mid.individual.net... > > "Don Kelly" <dhky(a)shawcross.ca> wrote in message > news:Jwfvm.75330$nQ6.73128(a)newsfe07.iad... >> >> You have made your point. Thanks again for your response. Do you need an >> assistant to clean the toilets? >> >> >> -- >> Don Kelly >> dhky(a)shawcross.ca >> remove the x to reply > > Don.. Don't you dare! Now that Benj has been promoted to Janitor, I've > applied for his old job. > > But I might need an assistant! > > Bill have toothbrush- will scrub :) -- Don Kelly dhky(a)shawcross.ca remove the x to reply
From: Jim Black on 27 Sep 2009 17:32
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:19:47 -0700 (PDT), Benj wrote: > Where the problem comes in, is I said that it is a CHANGING MAGNETIC > FIELD that creates this induced E field. This is flat out wrong. > Faraday's law may be a true relationship, but it's NOT a causal > relationship. The actual true mechanism is that a changing current > (charges) creates BOTH a magnetic field AND the induced electric field > that can produce the induced current in wires etc. Both the magnetic > field AND the electric fields travel away from the changing source > current at the speed of light and hence are simultaneous and therefore > cannot "cause" one another. I agree that the changing magnetic field does not cause the "induced" electric field. But you can interpret Faraday's Law as a causal relationship, but it has to be the other way around. That is, an E with nonzero curl causes a changing B field. And a B field with a curl that does not equal mu0 J causes a changing E field. In an LC circuit, starting out with the capacitor charged and no current in the inductor, the chain of cause and effect under this interpretation would be roughly as follows: There is an electric field across the capacitor, consistent with the charges on the capacitor plates. There is an electric field between the wires linking the two components, consistent with the charges on the wires. But there is no electric field along the wire in the inductor. Thus the curl of E is nonzero, causing a changing magnetic field in the inductor. The magnetic field controls the current in the wire, as follows: If, at any time, the J in the wire doesn't match the curl of B/mu, this causes a change in the E field. On the scale of this problem, epsilon0 and mu0 are small quanities. So if it's not close already, the component of E along the wire will rapidly approach the same component of r curl (B/mu), where r is the resistivity of the wire. In general, it's often convienent to work physics problems in a direction which cannot be the direction of causality. The most elementary example I can think of is the force on a passenger in an accelerating car. We know the acceleration of the passenger, and can use this to work out the force by F=ma. But it would be wrong to say that the acceleration causes the force. The force is caused by the small springlike compression of the car seat behind the passenger. By learning more about the system, a different version of the causal relationships is revealed, the old being exposed as an illusion. -- Jim E. Black (domain in headers) How to filter out stupid arguments in 40tude Dialog: !markread,ignore From "Name" +"<email address>" [X] Watch/Ignore works on subthreads |