What is your EM crankosity?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Benj on 23 Sep 2009 01:09 On Sep 22, 8:39 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: [Nothing relevant] Just one comment, which is not intended to be criticism of anyone answering the questions, but I notice that Susan and Blackhead had a reluctance to reduce their answers to a simple {true/false} decision. They both saw subtleties in the details of each question and wanted to bring those out. My original intent was that if any part of the statement was false then I considered the entire statement false. As in the same manner that a theory fails if there is ANY example where it fails, no matter how many cases there are where it works. I just found this attention to details interesting.
From: John Kennaugh on 23 Sep 2009 05:30 Benj wrote: >Are you a Maxwell loon? no. >How well do you understand Maxwell's equations? I don't but I know a man who does. Ivor Catt has made a major contribution in making computers work faster by studying how EM energy actually moves. He found that standard EM theory wasn't very useful. In his critical study of Maxwell's equations he points out that the accepted idea that the change of H field *causes* the change in E field and vice versa is pure fabrication. Nothing in the equations can justify that assumption. In fact Catt concludes that the only information contained in the equations is the speed c and that at every point E and H are in fixed proportion Zo = 377 ohms. Catt claims that this simple fact is not mentioned in any physics text. http://www.ivorcatt.com/2804.htm Since physics has disowned the aether concept it was in danger of destroying its own foundations. To compensate it has tried to elevate the status of Maxwell's equations far beyond what is warranted and to imply that these are a worthy foundation on which to build a century of physics. Maxwell's equations are simply a re-arrangement of relationships worked out by Faraday in respect of charge and only verified at low speed. Maxwell discovered that the relationships could be arranged in a form which mirrored the mathematical description of a fluid. Now waves can propagate in a fluid and when Maxwell calculated, from Faraday's constants at what speed "EM waves" might be expected to travel he found that it was at the speed of light and concluded that light waves were EM waves. Note that although the equations are described as "wave equations" Catt concludes that they do not have a solution which gives undulations. What they describe is that the circumstances exist where waves might exist. In other words they describe not waves but a 'medium' in which waves might propagate. A century of physics is actually based on the belief that Maxwell had put the aether on a sound mathematical footing. Having disowned the aether that century of physics is supported by the myth that Maxwell's equations have some mystical significance transcending both their humble origins (Faraday) and their previously assumed physical interpretation (the aether). >Ten easy questions to measure your kookosity: > >1. An electromagnetic plane wave in free vacuum consists of a >sinusoidal electric >field and a sinusoidal magnetic field at right angles to it. These >fields are delayed >90 degrees from one another such that energy oscillates between them >in a >manner similar to an LRC circuit where the energy oscillates back and >forth >between capacitor storage and inductor storage. (true, false?) > >2. A magnetic field changing strength in time causes an electric field >in space that is >capable of producing currents in conductors. The process is called >"induction" >and is described by Faraday's Law. (true, false?) > >3. If a conducting circuit that encloses an area under a uniform >magnetic field that >totally covers the loop is changed in shape to enclose a different >amount of >magnetic flux, an emf will always be induced in the circuit due to the >changed >amount of flux. (true, false?) > >4. When instruments measuring E and B (electric and magnetic fields) >that are >stationary with respect to those fields are placed on a moving >reference frame >moving with constant velocity with respect to the fields, by >relativity, the meters >always show the same values regardless of the magnitude of the >(constant) >velocity of the frame so long as the velocity of the moving frame is >much slower >than the speed of light. (true, false?) > >5. For a point charge moving with a non-relativistic constant velocity >(not >accelerating) past an observer, the electric field from that charge >will be observed >to be the same spherical distribution found in electrostatics for a >non-moving >charge. (true, false) > >6. According to Maxwell's Equations a time-changing electric field as >in a charging >or discharging capacitor creates a displacement current through that >capacitor and >that displacement current creates a magnetic field just as if the >capacitor were not >there and a wire carrying the current was producing the field. (true, >false?) > >7. It can be shown that if a line charge segment is moving past you as >an observer at >some constant velocity, that not only does the apparent length of the >segment >change to the viewer, but by Lorentz contraction at relativistic >speeds the actual >length of the line charge segment changes as well. (true, false?) > >8. It is well known through experiment and observations that >electromagnetic waves >as predicted by Maxwell's Equations form a spectrum depending on >frequency >that runs without other changes from low frequency radio waves, up >through >microwaves, on up to sub-millimeter waves, thence to Infrared light, >then visible >light, ultraviolet light and on up into X-rays and cosmic rays. >(true. false) > >9. All electromagnetic clocks slow by the same amount as their frame >velocity >reaches significant relativistic speeds leading to the conclusion that >by relativity, a >"dilatation" of time takes place that affects all electromagnetic >events and even >including biological ones. (true , false?) > >10. Electromagnetic waves as described by Maxwell's Equations, >propagate through >the vacuum of empty space by relationships observed from those >equations that a >changing electric field creates a magnetic field and a changing >magnetic field >creates an electric field. These waves are unique in that they do not >require a >medium to propagate in. (true, false?) > >======================= > >Hey, Uncle Al, this test's for you! Show us your stuff now so we >won't have to call you "idiot"! -- John Kennaugh
From: blackhead on 23 Sep 2009 08:08 On 23 Sep, 01:43, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > blackhead wrote: > > > They don't need a medium to propagate through, although they do need > > charge to initiate propagation. Neither field causes the other, they > > propagate independently from the source at right angles to one > > another. > > ?? Perhaps you're querying the bit "they propagate independently from the source at right angles to one another." which upon reflection isn't true. That E depends upon charge and its velocity and acceleration whereas B depends upon only the velocity and acceleration of charge, rather than causing one another would be correct, I think.
From: Benj on 23 Sep 2009 08:08 On Sep 23, 5:30 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > Benj wrote: > >Are you a Maxwell loon? > no. > >How well do you understand Maxwell's equations? > I don't but I know a man who does. Ivor Catt has made a major > contribution in making computers work faster by studying how EM energy > actually moves. He found that standard EM theory wasn't very useful. In > his critical study of Maxwell's equations he points out that the > accepted idea that the change of H field *causes* the change in E field > and vice versa is pure fabrication. Nothing in the equations can justify > that assumption. In fact Catt concludes that the only information > contained in the equations is the speed c and that at every point E and > H are in fixed proportion Zo = 377 ohms. Catt claims that this simple > fact is not mentioned in any physics text. > > http://www.ivorcatt.com/2804.htm It's a very interesting link. I was not aware of Ivor Catt, but his conclusions are the same as those persons who eventually I will be referencing here. As you observed, his work already gives the answers to several of my questions. For anyone checking out the link I urge you to follow the sub-links in that URL to other papers such as the Maxwell Revisited one. Unfortunately the figures and drawings in the original German paper was on Compuserve which is now dead. Hopefully a working link will be put back. Check it out.
From: blackhead on 23 Sep 2009 08:30
On 23 Sep, 13:08, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > On Sep 23, 5:30 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > wrote: > > > > > > > Benj wrote: > > >Are you a Maxwell loon? > > no. > > >How well do you understand Maxwell's equations? > > I don't but I know a man who does. Ivor Catt has made a major > > contribution in making computers work faster by studying how EM energy > > actually moves. He found that standard EM theory wasn't very useful. In > > his critical study of Maxwell's equations he points out that the > > accepted idea that the change of H field *causes* the change in E field > > and vice versa is pure fabrication. Nothing in the equations can justify > > that assumption. In fact Catt concludes that the only information > > contained in the equations is the speed c and that at every point E and > > H are in fixed proportion Zo = 377 ohms. Catt claims that this simple > > fact is not mentioned in any physics text. > > >http://www.ivorcatt.com/2804.htm > > It's a very interesting link. I was not aware of Ivor Catt, but his > conclusions are the same as those persons who eventually I will be > referencing here. As you observed, his work already gives the answers > to several of my questions. For anyone checking out the link I urge > you to follow the sub-links in that URL to other papers such as the > Maxwell Revisited one. Unfortunately the figures and drawings in the > original German paper was on Compuserve which is now dead. Hopefully a > working link will be put back. Check it out.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Ivor Catt with his so called "Catt Anomaly" doesn't understand how charge can rearrange itself in a conductor to create fields: http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/catanoi.htm |