What is your EM crankosity?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Bill Miller on 23 Sep 2009 17:19 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message news:T_uum.184169$_Q3.136829(a)newsfe20.ams2... > > "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > news:7hvbgtF2vr29rU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> <snip> >> One interesting side note is that we are all taught that a >> capacitor/resistor network *always* charges and discharges in an >> exponential fashion. As such, there are two absolutely true statements >> (we are taught.) >> >> First, the voltage across a capacitor in an RC network can *never* exceed >> the supply voltage. >> >> Second, the voltage can *never* go to ZERO nor to 100% of the supply >> voltage. >> >> Both of the above can be shown to be false for specific capacitor >> configurations. And they are easy (and kinda fun) to model in SPICE. >> >> Bill > > Nobody ever taught me the voltage across a capacitor in an > RC network can *never* exceed the supply voltage. I expect you are > thinking DC in which case it would be true, but clearly if one applies > AC the voltage across a capacitor approaches the peak-to-peak voltage. > Well, if the supply voltage is AC OR DC, we are taught that the voltage across the capacitor cannot exceed the supply voltage. What you may be thinking about is an RC circuit in a rectifier arrangement. In that case, The voltage across the capacitor can approach the peak value of the incoming signal. That value is higher, of course, than the RMS value. Otherwise, my comment stands. Bill
From: Bill Miller on 23 Sep 2009 17:25 "Benj" <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote in message news:304e3b17-a155-40e2-9687-9db1202a029a(a)z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... On Sep 23, 2:53 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: > "Benj" <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote in message ======================= DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! Folks we have a WINNER! (and it wasn't the Jewish heritage of Uncle Al, the jargon glossary). (It also wasn't ANY of the ad hominems who spend their days calling everyone else stooopid who were scared to enter) ======================= ALL statements are demonstrably false! Score: = number of statements you said were false 10.You are a major kook and are the crankiest. You know nothing about science and should go read a freshman physics text book. Don�t forget your tinfoil �reading helmet� when doing that. You�ll be lucky to stay alive. 9. You are very much out of the mainstream and know nothing about science. You�re fired. And you�ll never work or publish in science again. 8. You have major problems in your profession. You just got a memo from the boss to come to his office to see if you can be �brought round� before it�s too late. 7. Your paper has been rejected for publication even though none of the topics covered here were mentioned in it. 6. You have serious gaps in your electromagnetic understanding. To keep your job you�d better tell everyone your specialty is acoustics. 5. You have a pretty good understanding of science but half your answers are wrong. But that�s OK since you probably teach high school. 4. Your traditional science is pretty good, but you made a handful of �mistakes�. You are probably an engineer. 3. Since you only made three �mistakes�, you probably are a college physics professor whose primary responsibility is teaching freshman physics. 2. Making just two deviations from traditional understanding likely means you are a college physics professor, but your primary responsibility is to teach, �physics appreciation� to education majors. 1. You are a post-doc employed on a government funded research project on which you are doing all the work and thinking and for which the full professor whose name and reputation are on the original proposal will take all the credit. 0. You are a highly paid government project administrator with a perfect understanding of traditional science. You have a Ph. D., you have hundreds of patents with your name on them and thousands of papers that list you as one of the authors. You are an ultimate authority ready to debunk any crank science when asked to do so by the major media. ****************** Um... I hate to ask, but... Well... That is... Are there any openings at the Burger King where you work? Bill
From: Benj on 23 Sep 2009 17:32 On Sep 23, 2:53 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: > 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. Lets start with #1, shall we? While it's true that the electric and magnetic fields are at right angles to each other, they are NOT 90 degrees out of phase. Since they rise and fall together, they cannot transfer energy back and forth and DO NOT "create each other". The LC analogy IS a valid idea for wave propagation, however, but it just doesn't apply to EM waves. The reason is that flow of energy back and forth (as between mass and spring in mechanical waves) relates to the medium the waves propagate in. Unfortunately such a medium is "undefined" or "unknown" for E&M. [Note that to say that the medium does not "exist" is completely illogical and makes no sense whatsoever. "Nothing at all" is not capable of properties such as the propagation of waves] Thus, one cannot say what it is that takes the energy at X and starts transferring it to X+ delta X so the waves propagate. It is not E and H that do this. See any E&M textbook to prove E and B are in phase. That was too easy. Let's now jump to #9 For Bill. Relativity implies that clocks slow as they approach the speed of light. So the question comes: "do electromagnetic clocks in moving reference frames slow because of retardation without even considering relativity?" The calculations have been done by Oleg Jefimenko in his book "Electromagnetic Retardation and the Theory of Relativity" in Chapter 10 "the rate of moving clocks". What he finds after calculating the slowing rate for a number of electromagnetic oscillators (clocks) is that some indeed do slow at the Einsteinian rate. Some do not. Some do but the amount of slowing depends upon orientation. He notes that his calculations show that electromagnetic clock slowing is not a relativistic effect at all, but is a dynamic effect where slowing in general may not be proportional to gamma. His conclusion therefore is that there is no such thing as "time dilation". And Jefimenko notes that while calculation of the electromagentic "clocks" give implications, we are not provided with ANY information as to how one would calculate the slowing of biological clocks as say found in the "Twin Paradox". But relativity concerns aside, the main point here (as proved by the calculations of the various oscillators) is that various electromagnetic "clocks" do NOT all slow by the same amount when viewed in a moving frame. OK?
From: eric gisse on 23 Sep 2009 19:20 Benj wrote: [...] > ALL statements are demonstrably false! The only thing you demonstrated is how you would fail any undergraduate E&M course, and how you'd be laughed out of the room if you stepped into a graduate E&M course. Somehow I'm skeptical that you've studied any aspect of Jackson or any of the more worthy undergrad texts like Griffiths. [...]
From: Mary on 23 Sep 2009 19:29
"Benj" <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote in message news:c3192a60-d46b-45b7-b952-4b32c9b98249(a)m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you failed to state your intent in OP You know very little about EM or physics. |