What is your EM crankosity?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Benj on 23 Sep 2009 12:59 On Sep 23, 9:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > =============================================== > Aside from an interest in history/psychology, why would anyone > want to search/research for Maxwell's aether? It is a blind alley, > I urge you not to go that way. By all means meet Gauss, Ampere > and Faraday along the road, but don't turn left into Maxwell's > cul-de-sac looking for original Scottish papers that have been > translated into German. > Why would Maxwell write an original paper in German? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell > > I won't say "idiot", no point in stating the obvious. Whoa there Andro. Nobody here mentioned "aether" or the history of what Maxwell believed except you! Are you trying to tell us that classical E&M based upon Maxwell's equations are not studied by everyone today? You know better than that, Andro.
From: Szczepan Białek on 23 Sep 2009 13:05 "John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote news:Uw7TWEEEreuKFwir(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk... > 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. The fluid is a good analogy. But there are many possibilities. Maxwell choose the whirls (vortices). But in the fluid the two ships attract when travel in the same direction. We do not need magnetism whirls. For Ampere magnetism was an illusion. Can anybody say for what reason the cuurent produce the magnetic whirl. Current produce strains and streses. >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. But in fluid are also pressure waves. We do not need the transversal waves. No such in reality. > > 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. He describes the solid ether with the transverse waves. Do not usefull at all. > 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). Todays "Maxwell's equations " were written by Heaviside. > >>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"! S*
From: Benj on 23 Sep 2009 13:18 On Sep 23, 9:41 am, "zzbun...(a)netscape.net" <zzbun...(a)netscape.net> wrote: > On Sep 22, 12:50 am, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > > Whatsamatta baby? Actually having to decide is something is true or > > not is too much for your non-scientific brain? > > Imbecile decision theory for was invented for imbecile > mathemetians. > Since they're the only idiots who think aleph-42 exists anyway. {Buncha lame excuses and hand waving to cover up hiding} Binary too much for you to handle? That's why people who really think use binary to build computers, optical data storage, online databases, blue ray, robots, intelligent usenet discussions...
From: blackhead on 23 Sep 2009 14:26 On 23 Sep, 16:09, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > blackhead wrote: > > On 23 Sep, 15:09, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >> blackhead wrote: > > >>> 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. > >> Just as I though--You have no idea what you are talking about. > > > Can you correct me then? > > I tried to email you a relevant section from Griffiths, "Introduction > to Electrodynamics", 3rd edition, but the email bounced: > > The following addresses had delivery problems: > > <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> > Permanent Failure: 550_account_expired > Delivery last attempted at Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:04:44 -0000 My email isn't valid and thanks, you seem sincere about helping people. I suspect you tried to email me the section on the Lienard Wiechert radiation fields of a moving charge. In those equations, E is a function of the charge q, the retarded velocity v, retarded acceleration a and retarded radius vector from the field point to the charge, with B = 1/c r/R x E. So B is always perpendicular to E and r. So although a changing E and changing B don't cause one another, they aren't independent of one another.
From: Bill Miller on 23 Sep 2009 14:53
"Benj" <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote in message news:5e383309-0232-4441-9a7e-81e9c752d378(a)f10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com... > Are you a Maxwell loon? > How well do you understand Maxwell's equations? > Ten easy questions to measure your kookosity: > > <snip> Um... Well, as near as I can figure, it looks like ALL of the <snipped> questions are false. The only one that I might have a problem in justifying is the stupid thing with the clocks. I say that because I haven't yet perfected my almost-lightspeed laboratory so I can actually do an experiment rather than relying on math. Bill |