New Year question from Leo
Sergey Karavashkin
Recently I received the following message and sent the following
respond on my divergence theorem in dynamic fields,
http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/archive/archive.html#div
It might be of your great interest. Please read it with formulas and
figure at
http://selftrans.narod.ru/archive/div/leo1/leo1.html
What is your opinion?
Thank you,
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Well, colleagues. More than 200 of you have read this material, and no
one replied? Fine statistics!
Happy New Year!
Sergey.
Edward Green
Does that mean a like number were subjected to the pop-up ad?
Sergey Karavashkin
Dear Edward, I hardly can understand what you mean, but the statistics
is such as I wrote. Is it pop-up or not, I hardly can understand. Not
this is the main. The main is that on this web page I basically
changed the principal equation of radio physics. And this new equation
fully corresponds to the theorem proven by mine. This theorem is
incompatible with the current system of Maxwell equations. Should I be
wrong in my proof, how much noise would I hear!... They all kept
silence. It means, I'm right, and they all have understood it.
Respectful Leo in that number. After this they can much discuss
electrodynamic issues on their threads, relying on Maxwell equations.
Flag to their hands. ;-) After this they can speak much of Einstein's
electrodynamics, of photon theory, QED, QFT etc. True, even without
it, these theories didn't work, colleagues only wished them working.
These theories have to be built basically otherwise. And the more they
will keep silence, the less is their chance to participate in this
work.
Kind regards,
Sergey.
Franz Heymann
"Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:a42650fc.04010...@posting.google.com...
[snip
. This theorem is
> incompatible with the current system of Maxwell equations.
Then you are a crackpot.
Franz
Harry
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:btbcc0$qri$5...@titan.btinternet.com...
Your logic labels Einstein a crackpot...
Harald
Greg Neill
news:3ff969fe$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
Einstein's equations are wholly compatible with Maxwell's.
Cecil Moore
> Einstein's equations are wholly compatible with Maxwell's.
Are Maxwell's equations compatible with virtual photons?
--
cheers, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Greg Neill
news:3ff9a...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> Greg Neill wrote:
> > Einstein's equations are wholly compatible with Maxwell's.
>
> Are Maxwell's equations compatible with virtual photons?
Maxwell's equations comprise a classical theory.
Virtual photons are part of a quantum theory.
Maxwell's equations do not specify the composition or
mechanism of the underlying electromagnetic field, but
describe the field's properties and behavior in the
classical limit.
Harry
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVE.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:ZjfKb.74347$by2.8...@wagner.videotron.net...
Except for low velocities, Einstein's theorems are incompatible with
Newton's equations.
Similarly, Ampere's equations are partially incompatible with those of
Maxwell.
Greg Neill
Harry
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:JfyKb.769$BA6.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
The above logic labels such scientists as crackpots.
If I disagree with some of Sergey's theories - in fact I do - it is because
of theoretical flaws and/or obvious incompatibility with existing
experimental results. Not because he has his own theory, for that would be
unscientific of me.
Harald
Greg Neill
Okay. I just couldn't see that this was your point when you
implied that Einstein's equations and Maxwell's were
incompatible, largely because they are not.
p.kinsl...@ic.ac.uk
>> Are Maxwell's equations compatible with virtual photons?
> Maxwell's equations comprise a classical theory.
> Virtual photons are part of a quantum theory.
> Maxwell's equations do not specify the composition or
> mechanism of the underlying electromagnetic field, but
> describe the field's properties and behavior in the
> classical limit.
Most quantum opticans use photons constructed by quantising
the vector potential inside a field mode. Each field mode
is one of a set of orthonormal solutions to (classical)
Maxwell's equations. So, I would say yes -- the virtual
photons ``live inside'' solutions of Maxwell's equations.
--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Blackett Laboratory (QOLS) (ph) +44-20-759-47520 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London, Dr.Paul...@physics.org
SW7 2BW, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/
Franz Heymann
The argument is about whether Maxwells equations and Special Relativity are
compatible with one another.
They are. In fact it was a peculiarity of Maxwell's equations which led to
the development of SR. SR dxplained that peculiarity.
Franz
Russ Lyttle
Not quiet. Einstein *assumes* that Newton was correct and adds a forth
assumption : the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames of
reference. All of the Tensor math Einstein did was to make Newtons Laws
hold in all inertial frames of reference.
--
Russ Lyttle
Bilge
>> Einstein's equations are wholly compatible with Maxwell's.
>
>Are Maxwell's equations compatible with virtual photons?
Bilge
Ampere's law is a limiting case of maxwell's equations (i.e., quasi-
static fields). A theory which is a limiting case of another theory
indicates compatibility and specifies why one is the limit of the
other. Two theories which are incompatible make different predictions
about the same phenomena in a way that the difference cannot be
resolved in terms of a domain of applicability.
Harry
"Russ Lyttle" <lyt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:A_IKb.40467$Pg1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Sorry, you are obviously right!
I meant the intended application of those equations.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that it was an important theorem of
Newton's theory that speed does not influence time keeping, allowing easy
"absolute time" measurements. According to his theory, moving clocks are
measured to tick at the same rate as stationary clocks.
Harald
Harry
>
> "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:3ffa73fa$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> >
> > "Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVE.netcom.ca> wrote in message
> > news:ZjfKb.74347$by2.8...@wagner.videotron.net...
> > > "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> > > news:3ff969fe$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> > > >
> > > > "Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:btbcc0$qri$5...@titan.btinternet.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message
> > > > > news:a42650fc.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip
> > > > >
> > > > > . This theorem is
> > > > > > incompatible with the current system of Maxwell equations.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then you are a crackpot.
> > > >
> > > > Your logic labels Einstein a crackpot...
> > >
> > > Einstein's equations are wholly compatible with Maxwell's.
> >
> > Except for low velocities, Einstein's theorems are incompatible with
> > Newton's equations.
> > Similarly, Ampere's equations are partially incompatible with those of
> > Maxwell.
>
> The argument is about whether Maxwells equations and Special Relativity
are
> compatible with one another.
I did not see that argument. Possibly a post is missing in my newsreader...
Regards,
Harald
Harry
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbvmv8g....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> Harry:
SNIP
> >Except for low velocities, Einstein's theorems are incompatible with
> >Newton's equations.
> >Similarly, Ampere's equations are partially incompatible with those of
> >Maxwell.
>
> That's non-sense. Newtonian physics is a limiting case of relativity.
> Ampere's law is a limiting case of maxwell's equations (i.e., quasi-
> static fields). A theory which is a limiting case of another theory
> indicates compatibility and specifies why one is the limit of the
> other. Two theories which are incompatible make different predictions
> about the same phenomena in a way that the difference cannot be
> resolved in terms of a domain of applicability.
Now this is a point that has been a bit foggy to me for a long time, and
advice is welcome.
Ampere's electrical force law uses the third law of Newton.
According to a number of people, the third law of Newton is violated with
Maxwell's and relativity theory. But despite reading about it, and despite
the apparent simplicity of the issue, I'm still not sure if they are right
or not; it seems you disagree. Perhaps the issue is more subtle than that?
Harald
Franz Heymann
>
> "Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnbvmv8g....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> > Harry:
>
> SNIP
>
> > >Except for low velocities, Einstein's theorems are incompatible with
> > >Newton's equations.
> > >Similarly, Ampere's equations are partially incompatible with those of
> > >Maxwell.
> >
> > That's non-sense. Newtonian physics is a limiting case of relativity.
> > Ampere's law is a limiting case of maxwell's equations (i.e., quasi-
> > static fields). A theory which is a limiting case of another theory
> > indicates compatibility and specifies why one is the limit of the
> > other. Two theories which are incompatible make different predictions
> > about the same phenomena in a way that the difference cannot be
> > resolved in terms of a domain of applicability.
>
> Now this is a point that has been a bit foggy to me for a long time, and
> advice is welcome.
>
> Ampere's electrical force law uses the third law of Newton.
> According to a number of people, the third law of Newton is violated with
> Maxwell's and relativity theory.
That is incorrect. Newton's third law is never violated. Those people who
say so are simply unaware of the frour-momentum transferred to the field.
> But despite reading about it, and despite
> the apparent simplicity of the issue, I'm still not sure if they are right
> or not; it seems you disagree. Perhaps the issue is more subtle than that?
>
Franz
Bilge
No, I don't think it's all that subtle. You're making a semantics
issue out of this similar to the one concerning "null result".
It just is not that intricate. Anywhere you can use newtonian
mechanics, you can use relativity. Relativity reduces to newtonian
mechanics. For example:
t' = lim t/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) = t
c -> oo
Newton's third law fails only when an object is moving at a velocity
which is much larger than the propagation of a signal through the object
and large enough for the simultaneity of different points on the object to
matter. Then, newton's third law doesn't really fail so much as it needs
to be analyzed more carefully to account for the difference in
simultaneity.
I'm not really sure what you mean by ampere's law needing newton's third
law. Anpere's law doesn't contain any forces. You need the lorentz force
law for that. Neither ampere's law nor any of the other maxwell equations
even describe charges, moving or stationary. Maxwell's equations describe
fields associated with charge densities and current densities. Maxwell's
equations are not even capable of describing the current in a wire as
moving charges. Ampere may have deduced the form of his equation
by measuring forces on current carrying wires, but I'm not really
sure what you are getting at.
Getting back to your the point of all this, however, I'm not sure
why you find the term "compatible" to mean equivalent. In my opinion,
it's possible for two theories to be mathematically equivalent but
still be incompatible physically because the premises of one theory
(or interpretation) contradicts the physics of the other. Two examples
that come to mind are LET/special relativity and quantum mechanics/
bohmian mechanics. In both cases, the two theories assert the same
mathematics (more or less), but require a very different reality.
By contrast, newtonian mechanics is compatible with with all of
those theories because newtonian mechanics represents a well-defined
limiting case of esch of those theories.
Harry
I'm not making one, but stumbled on one! Your help is appreciated.
Note that the M-M "null result" you refer to was a little different, as in
that particular case the FAQ's citation of the term twists its original
meaning, suggesting that it was determined that the result was compatible
with zero within the precision of the experiment - no such determination had
been done or was even intended.
> It just is not that intricate. Anywhere you can use newtonian
> mechanics, you can use relativity. Relativity reduces to newtonian
> mechanics. For example:
>
>
> t' = lim t/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) = t
> c -> oo
>
> Newton's third law fails only when an object is moving at a velocity
> which is much larger than the propagation of a signal through the object
> and large enough for the simultaneity of different points on the object to
> matter. Then, newton's third law doesn't really fail so much as it needs
> to be analyzed more carefully to account for the difference in
> simultaneity.
I must read the allegations again! It is not just about high velocity, but
force balance with the Lorentz force, for example when a charged object
moves slowly perpendicular to a wire with a DC current. Perhaps I missed out
on a textbook that carefully analyses this simple looking case.
> I'm not really sure what you mean by ampere's law needing newton's third
> law. Anpere's law doesn't contain any forces. You need the lorentz force
> law for that. Neither ampere's law nor any of the other maxwell equations
> even describe charges, moving or stationary.
Sorry, perhaps Ampere had several laws?!
I meant the Ampere force law, which is very roughly:
F = -i_m * i_n *(dm . dn / r^2) * (2 cos phi - 3 cos a cos b)
See for example
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel1/27/6502/00256790.pdf?isNumber=6502&arnumber=
256790&prod=JNL&arSt=701&ared=713&arAuthor=Graneau%2C+N.
> Maxwell's equations describe
> fields associated with charge densities and current densities. Maxwell's
> equations are not even capable of describing the current in a wire as
> moving charges.
In fact I meant the Lorentz force, sorry.
> Ampere may have deduced the form of his equation
> by measuring forces on current carrying wires, but I'm not really
> sure what you are getting at.
>
> Getting back to your the point of all this, however, I'm not sure
> why you find the term "compatible" to mean equivalent. In my opinion,
> it's possible for two theories to be mathematically equivalent but
> still be incompatible physically because the premises of one theory
> (or interpretation) contradicts the physics of the other. Two examples
> that come to mind are LET/special relativity and quantum mechanics/
> bohmian mechanics. In both cases, the two theories assert the same
> mathematics (more or less), but require a very different reality.
Yes.
> By contrast, newtonian mechanics is compatible with with all of
> those theories because newtonian mechanics represents a well-defined
> limiting case of esch of those theories.
I have no clear opinion yet!
Harald
Bilge
>>
>> Newton's third law fails only when an object is moving at a velocity
>> which is much larger than the propagation of a signal through the object
>> and large enough for the simultaneity of different points on the object to
>> matter. Then, newton's third law doesn't really fail so much as it needs
>> to be analyzed more carefully to account for the difference in
>> simultaneity.
>
>I must read the allegations again! It is not just about high velocity, but
>force balance with the Lorentz force, for example when a charged object
>moves slowly perpendicular to a wire with a DC current. Perhaps I missed out
>on a textbook that carefully analyses this simple looking case.
The motion of a charge next to a wire can be found in a fairly
straight-forward way just by finding the B-field from the wire and
and using the lorentz force law. (Working in the frame in which the
field from the wire is purely magnetic).
>
>> I'm not really sure what you mean by ampere's law needing newton's third
>> law. Anpere's law doesn't contain any forces. You need the lorentz force
>> law for that. Neither ampere's law nor any of the other maxwell equations
>> even describe charges, moving or stationary.
>
>Sorry, perhaps Ampere had several laws?!
>I meant the Ampere force law, which is very roughly:
>
>F = -i_m * i_n *(dm . dn / r^2) * (2 cos phi - 3 cos a cos b)
I didn't realize ampere had a "force law" other than what could
be derived from the usual equations. In any case, that expression
is written in a particular frame (which is okay). But, notice that
because it's derived under the assumption of infinitely long wires,
it's rather unphysical (at least from a relativistic standpoint),
since the current can't ever begin flowing or stop flowing, but
had to have existed and continue to exist for all time.
>See for example
>http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel1/27/6502/00256790.pdf?isNumber=6502&arnumber=
>256790&prod=JNL&arSt=701&ared=713&arAuthor=Graneau%2C+N.
That doesn't work for me. I get a login page which tells me I have to
register for a web account. As matter of general principle, I do not
access web sites that require providing personal information of any
kind.
Sergey Karavashkin
Edward, this is additional information for you. Our counter in
December showed the following:
31.12.2003 6
30.12.2003 5
29.12.2003 35
28.12.2003 9
27.12.2003 6
26.12.2003 3
25.12.2003 9
24.12.2003 129
23.12.2003 12 uploaded New Year question by Leo
22.12.2003 14
21.12.2003 2
20.12.2003 2
19.12.2003 37 uploaded our respond to Harald van Lintel (3)
18.12.2003 44
17.12.2003 35
16.12.2003 40
15.12.2003 19
14.12.2003 11 uploaded our respond to Harald van Lintel (2)
13.12.2003 9
12.12.2003 52
11.12.2003 63 uploaded Russian version of paper on Red shift
10.12.2003 32
09.12.2003 10 uploaded our respond to Harald van Lintel on this
paper (1)
08.12.2003 26
07.12.2003 27
06.12.2003 68
05.12.2003 1 uploaded our respond to Bob Brown's questions on this
paper
04.12.2003 11
03.12.2003 20
02.12.2003 8 uploaded the paper on Induction
01.12.2003 11
23.11.2003 uploaded the first part of chapter 2 on stars
evolution
Totally 756 visitors in December, including 202 after we published
this "New Year question from Leo", and
08.01.2004 2
07.01.2004 1
06.01.2004 23
05.01.2004 70
04.01.2004 40
01.01.2004 2
Totally: 138
in January. True, the counter which Angelfire provides is really ill
and we use another counter, not seen there. Now judge yourself, did I
say truth or not.
Kind regards,
Sergey.
Sergey Karavashkin
Franz, remember, you already removed your posts from threads. Would
you like to do so again? Right, our theorems are incompatible with
Maxwell system. But they work, you see it. First answer my old
questions about photons, then conclude. In the nearest future you will
take pleasure seeing how new system of EM field equations raises on
its own feet, like you it or not. Calculate the near field correctly,
taking into account the variation of propagation velocity in this
region. ;-) Can you?
Sergey
Harry
> Harry:
>
> >>
> >> Newton's third law fails only when an object is moving at a velocity
> >> which is much larger than the propagation of a signal through the
object
> >> and large enough for the simultaneity of different points on the
object to
> >> matter. Then, newton's third law doesn't really fail so much as it
needs
> >> to be analyzed more carefully to account for the difference in
> >> simultaneity.
> >
> >I must read the allegations again! It is not just about high velocity,
but
> >force balance with the Lorentz force, for example when a charged object
> >moves slowly perpendicular to a wire with a DC current. Perhaps I missed
out
> >on a textbook that carefully analyses this simple looking case.
>
> The motion of a charge next to a wire can be found in a fairly
> straight-forward way just by finding the B-field from the wire and
> and using the lorentz force law. (Working in the frame in which the
> field from the wire is purely magnetic).
True. So now we have:
Ś
Ś very long wire
Ś
Ś <- - o+ charged object , v<<c
Ś
Ś
^
I
Thus: I can see that the object is pushed downward, and, if I'm not
mistaken, that the wire is pushed counter clock wise.
In order for the forces to balance I miss an upward longitudinal force on
the wire.
> >> I'm not really sure what you mean by ampere's law needing newton's
third
> >> law. Anpere's law doesn't contain any forces. You need the lorentz
force
> >> law for that. Neither ampere's law nor any of the other maxwell
equations
> >> even describe charges, moving or stationary.
> >
> >Sorry, perhaps Ampere had several laws?!
> >I meant the Ampere force law, which is very roughly:
> >
> >F = -i_m * i_n *(dm . dn / r^2) * (2 cos phi - 3 cos a cos b)
>
> I didn't realize ampere had a "force law" other than what could
> be derived from the usual equations. In any case, that expression
> is written in a particular frame (which is okay). But, notice that
> because it's derived under the assumption of infinitely long wires,
> it's rather unphysical (at least from a relativistic standpoint),
> since the current can't ever begin flowing or stop flowing, but
> had to have existed and continue to exist for all time.
In fact, no such assumption was made, it describes the force between two
individual charge elements.
> >See for example
>
>http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel1/27/6502/00256790.pdf?isNumber=6502&arnumber
=
> >256790&prod=JNL&arSt=701&ared=713&arAuthor=Graneau%2C+N.
>
> That doesn't work for me. I get a login page which tells me I have to
> register for a web account. As matter of general principle, I do not
> access web sites that require providing personal information of any
> kind.
Perhaps it's a paying website, sorry. My university has subscription on a
number of them...
It's IEEE trans. on Plasma Science, vol.21, no.6, dec.1993, pp. 701-713.
N. Graneau, "An electrodynamic vacuum arc ion acceleration mechanism based
on Ampere's force law".
Harald
Sergey Karavashkin
Sorry, Greg, photon conception and classical EM field theory work with
the same phenomena - EM waves propagation in space. They are truly
incompatible, so it is not worthy to squeeze photons where the wave
physics works fine. Indeed, Maxwell's theory does not specify the
mechanism of considered EM field, but only meanwhile. Whilst you
dogmatize Maxwellian equations, new study develops full speed; you
don't want to notice it - this is only your difficulty. By the way,
when Maxwell developed his theory, colleagues also tried "to do not
understand" him. ;-) But this what has been built on the rigorous
system of proof will carve its way, like it or not such dogmatists
like Franz. Well, he swears; what then? Then is emptiness, he has not
what to say further. You seemingly haven't, too. Do I understand you
correct? You have nothing to say except repeating "this cannot be
correct, as it doesn't satisfy Maxwell's system". In that number, you
didn't understand: my derivation in respond to Leo is based on
standard equations of field theory - and the result concludes not the
thing that followed from Maxwell's equations. This is more complicated
than "photon left, photon right"... ;-)
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
> Greg Neill <gnei...@ove.netcom.ca> wrote:
> >> Are Maxwell's equations compatible with virtual photons?
>
> > Maxwell's equations comprise a classical theory.
> > Virtual photons are part of a quantum theory.
>
> > Maxwell's equations do not specify the composition or
> > mechanism of the underlying electromagnetic field, but
> > describe the field's properties and behavior in the
> > classical limit.
>
>
> Most quantum opticans use photons constructed by quantising
> the vector potential inside a field mode. Each field mode
> is one of a set of orthonormal solutions to (classical)
> Maxwell's equations. So, I would say yes -- the virtual
> photons ``live inside'' solutions of Maxwell's equations.
Dear Paul,
Surely, Blackett Laboratory is a solid argument in discussions ;-),
but in this case I have to disagree with your claim. To "live" in
Maxwell's theory, photon conception has to be non-contradictive within
itself. Many times I showed and proved this, in that number to Franz
and Bilge, they multiply flew from threads or began muddling things,
as Bilge likes much. Photon cannot correspond to any mode of classical
wave by a simple reason - it is not monochromatic. While mode is
monochromatic by its definition. Furthermore, photon conception, or
rather Bose - Einstein statistics, is unable to describe the
interference of light, because it is based on additive summation of
photon energies. While interference is known to be corresponding to
geometrical addition of vectors of E-field strengths. Etc, etc, etc...
A very long talk, no one supporter of QM, QED and QFT stands up for
this. And basically, it has not a direct concern to Leo's question and
my respond. Here things are simpler. Indeed, the conservation
divergence theorem that I have proven is incompatible with Maxwell's
equation, but I would like to draw your attention that in my respond
to Leo I changed the expression for E-field strength on the basis of
STANDARD formulas, only by-passing curl filters. And the result has
fully satisfied my theorem, not the prediction of conservation laws in
Maxwell's system. I would like also to draw your attention that my
conservation law is 4D without any additional premises or unchecked
admissions, as Einstein did. It is understandable that with this
theorem (and a series of such theorems which we sequentially present)
Einstein's transformation becomes senseless, while Maxwell's system
will smoothly transform to its right appearance. This is just what
supporters of relativism so much fear - they understand well what will
happen with all their fantasies sucked from a pen. And this will be
just so as they understand. They would first correctly approach the
issues, doing not flying away from problems, doing not making dogmata
of knowledge, doing not substituting scientific discussions with
swearing jargon, and only after this we can expect to see their
premises corresponding to research results. So it is, dear Paul.
Sergey.
Sergey Karavashkin
Why so, dear colleague? Newton's and Einstein's conceptions are
philosophically incompatible, and Einstein has made nothing in tensor
mathematics. By his own words, the equation that he derived together
with Grossmann is some ungrounded paraphrase of Poisson's and Newton's
equations, as, tinkering this stucco, they never came to something
better.
By the way, Einstein claimed Newton incorrect and even lectured it.
True, this all has no concern to the subject of this thread, but this
is so. If you want to make sure additionally, I can repeat you some
questions from which at due time Franz and his colleagues flew from
threads. ;-)
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Ugh! You still demonstrate full ignorance of initials of physics -
just the things you attempt discussing with such arrogance. You are
even unable to grasp, correct solution in physics has to be readable
both from right to left and from left to right. Read from left to
right the mathematical expression
curl B=(4*pi/c)*j ,
then try to create a direct-current transformer. ;-) Though you anyway
will not understand... And to explain you is only to waste time.
Sergey
Russ Lyttle
Einstein assumed Newtons three laws were correct and added a fourth :
"The speed of light is constant in all frames of reference.
What he didn't like was Quantum Theory. Thus his famous comment "God doesn't
play dice with the Universe."
Tensor math is the only way to handle the rubbersheet geometry. Tensor math
was invented to describe stress in metal structures. But in the
pre-computer days it was too complex to handle. I have some books with some
of Einstein's work of tensor. If I can still find them, I'll post
references. Meanwhile,
<http://vishnu.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap6/node14.html> has a good account
of "The Einstein Tensor" for gravity.
<http://scholar.uwinnipeg.ca/courses/38/4500.6-001/Cosmology/Field-Equations.htm>
gives more equations and some history plus images of the original works. It
doesn't render well on my browser though.
>By his own words, the equation that he derived together
> with Grossmann is some ungrounded paraphrase of Poisson's and Newton's
> equations, as, tinkering this stucco, they never came to something
> better.
>
> By the way, Einstein claimed Newton incorrect and even lectured it.
"Incomplete", not incorrect. All of Einstein's work reduces to Newton for
relative velocities << C.
>
> True, this all has no concern to the subject of this thread, but this
> is so. If you want to make sure additionally, I can repeat you some
> questions from which at due time Franz and his colleagues flew from
> threads. ;-)
>
> Sergey
My head almost exploded when I took Tensor math. After the class, I thought
I could undersatand Einstein. But when I tried to read the papers again, I
had a migrane for two weeks.
--
Russ Lyttle
lyttlec(@)earthlink.net
Bilge
>"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrnbvraov....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> The motion of a charge next to a wire can be found in a fairly
>> straight-forward way just by finding the B-field from the wire and
>> and using the lorentz force law. (Working in the frame in which the
>> field from the wire is purely magnetic).
>
>True. So now we have:
>
>Ś
>Ś very long wire
>Ś
>Ś <- - o+ charged object , v<<c
>Ś
>Ś
>^
>Thus: I can see that the object is pushed downward, and, if I'm not
>mistaken, that the wire is pushed counter clock wise.
The field of a long wire is just given in MKSA by
B = \mu_0 I_enc/(2pi r)
(in the \phi direction using cylindrical coordinates)
The force comes from the lorentz force law, F = qv x B, so if the
motion of the charge is along the radial direction, the direction
of the force is along z. Balancing the forces requires the force
on the wire to be along z.
>In order for the forces to balance I miss an upward longitudinal force on
>the wire.
That would be an induced current from the motion of the charge,
curl B = j + dE/dt.
It should also be clear that currents in wires cannot be treated
as moving charges using maxwell's equations without additional
assumptions about the wire which requires quantum mechanics to
explain. The charges would repel each other if they were not
bound to the wire by a mechanism beyond the ability of maxwell's
equations to explain.
[...]
>> >Sorry, perhaps Ampere had several laws?!
>> >I meant the Ampere force law, which is very roughly:
>> >
>> >F = -i_m * i_n *(dm . dn / r^2) * (2 cos phi - 3 cos a cos b)
>>
>> I didn't realize ampere had a "force law" other than what could
>> be derived from the usual equations. In any case, that expression
>> is written in a particular frame (which is okay). But, notice that
>> because it's derived under the assumption of infinitely long wires,
>> it's rather unphysical (at least from a relativistic standpoint),
>> since the current can't ever begin flowing or stop flowing, but
>> had to have existed and continue to exist for all time.
>
>In fact, no such assumption was made, it describes the force between two
>individual charge elements.
Yes, such an assumption _is_ made because the integral of ampere's
law, curl B = j, is a line integral over a closed path. Writing that
as current elements, is a convenient fiction which requires evaluating
the line integral over the entire _closed_ path. For a straight wire
(or any other wire which is not explicitly closed) the path is closed
at infinity.
The biot-savart law is just a vector identity that allows you to
write an integral for B under the assumption that dl is a closed
path. I'm also not sure I understand the geometry of the wires for
which that force equation is derived. The angles \phi, a and b refer
to some assumption about the relative orientation of the configration.
[...]
>Perhaps it's a paying website, sorry. My university has subscription on a
>number of them...
>It's IEEE trans. on Plasma Science, vol.21, no.6, dec.1993, pp. 701-713.
>N. Graneau, "An electrodynamic vacuum arc ion acceleration mechanism based
>on Ampere's force law".
Plasmas are very messy and approximations abound. I would assume that
the article makes several either implicitly or explicitly.
Bilge
>dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge):
Sorry sergey, you aren't even on the same page and probably not
on the same planet.
>You are
>even unable to grasp, correct solution in physics has to be readable
>both from right to left and from left to right. Read from left to
>right the mathematical expression
>
>curl B=(4*pi/c)*j ,
>
>then try to create a direct-current transformer. ;-)
What's your point? If your point is that you can write down
ampere's law, ok. I believe you can write down ampere's law.
>Though you anyway will not understand...
Understand what, sergey? That you can write down ampere's law?
I can understand how you could do that, since most anyone can
regurgitate text from a book, but what exactly does that have
to do with anything here?
>And to explain you is only to waste time.
Yes, so don't bother. If there is one thing I don't need it's
your personal interpretation of some equations that have been well
understood for many decades and differs from your interpretation.
Explain it to your protege, aleksandr.
Harry
That doesn't really do, or does it?! I find no change of flux inside any
wire loop, if we extend the picture to a large wire loop, and even if there
was, a current does not directly equal a force.
I still see nothing else but the magnetic field coming from the moving
charge, resulting in curl B ~ dE/dt. And I already concluded that the
resulting Lorentz forces on the nearby wire elements provide a counter clock
turning moment (which is also needed for complete force balance), but the
upward force is lacking...
> It should also be clear that currents in wires cannot be treated
> as moving charges using maxwell's equations without additional
> assumptions about the wire which requires quantum mechanics to
> explain. The charges would repel each other if they were not
> bound to the wire by a mechanism beyond the ability of maxwell's
> equations to explain.
Ye. Still, explanation of how a wire functions is irrelevant for this
problem.
> [...]
> >> >Sorry, perhaps Ampere had several laws?!
> >> >I meant the Ampere force law, which is very roughly:
> >> >
> >> >F = -i_m * i_n *(dm . dn / r^2) * (2 cos phi - 3 cos a cos b)
> >>
> >> I didn't realize ampere had a "force law" other than what could
> >> be derived from the usual equations. In any case, that expression
> >> is written in a particular frame (which is okay). But, notice that
> >> because it's derived under the assumption of infinitely long wires,
> >> it's rather unphysical (at least from a relativistic standpoint),
> >> since the current can't ever begin flowing or stop flowing, but
> >> had to have existed and continue to exist for all time.
> >
> >In fact, no such assumption was made, it describes the force between two
> >individual charge elements.
>
> Yes, such an assumption _is_ made because the integral of ampere's
> law, curl B = j, is a line integral over a closed path. Writing that
> as current elements, is a convenient fiction which requires evaluating
> the line integral over the entire _closed_ path. For a straight wire
> (or any other wire which is not explicitly closed) the path is closed
> at infinity.
Yes - or not really at infinity, and integrating all the relevant parts. In
this case, one does not have to extend very far to reach sufficient
accuracy.
> The biot-savart law is just a vector identity that allows you to
> write an integral for B under the assumption that dl is a closed
> path. I'm also not sure I understand the geometry of the wires for
> which that force equation is derived. The angles \phi, a and b refer
> to some assumption about the relative orientation of the configration.
Sorry, when I wrote it I did not put an effort in it, just wanted to
identify the law. It's a bit complex to describe, and I haven't played with
it myself. Phi is the angle between the current flow directions of each
element, and alpha and beta are the angle of each current flow direction
with the line between the current elements.
> [...]
>
> >Perhaps it's a paying website, sorry. My university has subscription on
a
> >number of them...
> >It's IEEE trans. on Plasma Science, vol.21, no.6, dec.1993, pp. 701-713.
> >N. Graneau, "An electrodynamic vacuum arc ion acceleration mechanism
based
> >on Ampere's force law".
>
> Plasmas are very messy and approximations abound. I would assume that
> the article makes several either implicitly or explicitly.
Yes, obviously. Main point is that this paper also claims that the laws do
make different predictions, with the Ampere force law more in agreement with
observations than the Lorentz force law, and that the Ampere force law has
"balanced action and reaction".
Harald
Sergey Karavashkin
> Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
>
> > Russ Lyttle <lyt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:<A_IKb.40467$Pg1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> >> Harry wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVE.netcom.ca> wrote in message
> >> > news:ZjfKb.74347$by2.8...@wagner.videotron.net...
> >> >> "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> >> >> news:3ff969fe$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:btbcc0$qri$5...@titan.btinternet.com...
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > "Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message
> >> >> > > news:a42650fc.04010...@posting.google.com...
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > [snip
> >> >> > >
these idle-walking symbols of relativistic utopia. But I have to
distress you recalling that mathematical symbols are not the physics
yet. Think yourself: when studying tensor calculus, you naturally
studied also algebras and know, the formalisms of algebras (fields,
rings, groups, semigroups etc.) differ mainly in admissible operators
for operation on some sets. If you add or omit an operator, change or
limit its function, you will yield a new algebra. The main aim is to
provide the closed cycle of transformation. With it both previous and
new algebra are fully correct in frames of given transformations.
Which is false? In frames of mathematics both are equally correct!
This is the property of mathematics: what you gave in the statement
that you yielded. But what namely have we to give in the statement,
relativists try to hide, as just in phenomenology of physical
processes are their principal problems.
You are saying,
>All of Einstein's work reduces to Newton for relative velocities <<
C.
Not so. First Einstein removed the Newton's absolute space, made this
space empty, and only then, on these grounds, he introduced constant
velocity of light in all frames. With these "innovations" Newton's
mechanics fully stops its validity, as all three its laws are
violated. And new Einstein's "mechanics" didn't substitute Newton's
mechanics. To understand, try to calculate with this "mechanics" the
motion of body in non-inertial frame. ;-) You will yield a full absurd
that contradicts even the postulates of that theory. This is why all
relativists bashfully confine themselves to the most trivial problems
and 1D motion. Though, in particular, Pauli made an attempt to
calculate accelerated motion in his monograph "Relativity", but this
attempt vanished in the first transformations, undertaking no step to
non-inertial frames. And you are repeating after them that Newton is a
limiting case of Einstein. No, these are relativists who want to
persuade us all in that. But for it, SR not only has to be reduced to
Newton's system IN SOME PARTICULAR CASES, it has also to have so
complete scope for transformations as Newton's conception has.
Relativists will have it available after they see their own ears
without mirror. They fully understand their feebleness, this is the
source of so much malice and swearing at classical physics which
relativists transfer to their opuses.
This is why, if you really want to grasp the issue, I would advice
you, put tensors aside and try to understand the meaning of classical
laws. This is where is the development.
True, the subject of this thread is some other and I would be grateful
if you express your opinion as to Leo's question and my respond. This
is of not small importance, as in my respond I essentially change the
basic formula of radio physics and factually show that standard
analysis of near field of EM radiation was still based on the formula
that was derived incorrectly. And to the point, you are saying, this
is Einstein's merit that he established the postulate of constant
velocity of light in all frames of reference. Experience shows the EM
waves velocity inconstant in the near field, so this famous postulate
is violated even out of any transition between the reference frames.
We supporters of classical wave physics know the cause and have the
mathematical model, we need not for this relativistic postulates. We
have the regularities of classical physics that are based on its
phenomenology and work as it is done, not as definite persons desire.
This is why Franz and Bilge are so angry! ;-) Notice, they wrote
volumes here but said still nothing.
I wish you every success in understanding the essence of physical
processes.
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Just correct, we are on different planets. On your planet people seven
times a day exclaim "Einstein Akbar!!!" and don't care, what a
nonsense they say. On my planet people trust in Experiment, not in
authority on pedestal. These are actually two incompatible positions
>
> >You are
> >even unable to grasp, correct solution in physics has to be readable
> >both from right to left and from left to right. Read from left to
> >right the mathematical expression
> >
> >curl B=(4*pi/c)*j ,
> >
> >then try to create a direct-current transformer. ;-)
>
> What's your point? If your point is that you can write down
> ampere's law, ok. I believe you can write down ampere's law.
"I believe - I don't believe"... What concern has it? As always, you
adhere to your fashion and thoroughly delete the source of my respond.
Your claim was unambiguous:
>Ampere's law is a limiting case of maxwell's equations (i.e., quasi-
>static fields)
In accordance with your relativistic manner to substitute the real by
desirable, you tried to tailor the possibility of several equivalent
interpretations of the same phenomenon of nature. Again, re-read the
standard formula for curl of magnetic field induction that I pointed,
from left to right, and on this basis create the transformer of direct
current. There is no my opinion which you as if need not. There is
only your squabble and tendency. ;-)
>
> >Though you anyway will not understand...
>
> Understand what, sergey? That you can write down ampere's law?
> I can understand how you could do that, since most anyone can
> regurgitate text from a book, but what exactly does that have
> to do with anything here?
See, you first, as you used to, snipped the meaning, then are
indignant. What concern has my ability to write down the Ampere's law?
You have already made trite of this formula on this and other threads.
What I said you of it? You want to reduce everything to the
utilitarian - well, speak of yourself and on behalf of yourself. %-)
Sergey Karavashkin
Dear Harald,
Long time I tried to catch from your discussion with Bilge, what
concern has the Ampere's law to my respond to Leo! And only now I
began understanding. This relates not to my respond to Leo but to our
experiments on induction with which you disagreed and remained the
standpoint of loop phenomenology of induction. And now you are
attempting to find the way, how to explain this through the Ampere's
law, i.e., through the interaction of two conductors with the current.
But first, you will not be able to manage it. You know, when I say so.
;-)
Second, to find efficiently the branching in existing formulas, one
has to be not mistaken in his reasoning. In particular, you wrote
about the paper attractive for you:
[Harald]
Main point is that this paper also claims that the laws do
make different predictions, with the Ampere force law more in
agreement with
observations than the Lorentz force law, and that the Ampere force law
has
"balanced action and reaction".
[Sergey]
Don't you think that you can derive the Lorentz force equation on the
basis of Ampere's law? ;-) Further, what it means in the Lorentz law
not "balanced action and reaction"? Balance of action and
counter-action is determined by the model. In the Lorentz law the idea
of magnetic field is used, but if you in your model consider not only
affection of this field on the moving charge but also reaction of the
charge to the source of magnetic field, this all will become balanced.
Thus, have a pleasant "disagreement". ;-)
Sergey
Russ Lyttle
I suggest you take some time to read and understand the original
publications. I have and I'm not about to challange Einstein, or Newton on
their ability to do math correctly. For example you can't get to E=mc^2
without E=(mv^2)/2 which is from Newtons laws.
This is not to say I agree that Newton and Einstein got things correct. Just
that I'm going to be very careful about how I challange them.
--
Russ Lyttle
lyttlec(@)earthlink.net
Harry
Sergey,
In fact we were on a side subject, after I tried to make clear that being
open-minded is not the same as being a crackpot..
Ampere's law is more complete than Lorentz', and seems to be not fully
compatible with Maxwell's.
Just when I expected Bilge to actually show me that all forces are balanced
due to something that I overlooked, he became silent.
What is according to you the reaction of a current carrying wire to a moving
charge?
Harald
Sergey Karavashkin
> "Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message
> news:a42650fc.04011...@posting.google.com...
> > "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:<4003ff4f$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch>...
> > > "Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> > > news:slrnc06a45...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> > > > Harry:
> > > > >
> > > > >"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> > > > >news:slrnbvraov....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>
> Sergey,
> In fact we were on a side subject, after I tried to make clear that being
> open-minded is not the same as being a crackpot..
> Ampere's law is more complete than Lorentz', and seems to be not fully
> compatible with Maxwell's.
> Just when I expected Bilge to actually show me that all forces are balanced
> due to something that I overlooked, he became silent.
> What is according to you the reaction of a current carrying wire to a moving
> charge?
>
> Harald
Dear Harald, you really found in Bilge a person from whom you can
expect a reasonable answer! Bilge knows only refrain to a prayer
"Einstein Akbar!" ;-)
I understand your wish to catch the dragoon's tail, but the tail is in
other side. You and me, we many times discussed this issue, and you
had not one case to make sure, you cannot make an independent step on
this way. Not because your knowledge is insufficient. Simply to make
this step is not so simple. One thing I understood, I have not to
delete our paper from site. And this is already good. ;-)
And as to Ampere's law, I already wrote you in my previous letter.
Kind regards,
Sergey.
Sergey Karavashkin
> Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
>
> > Russ Lyttle <lyt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:<XeoMb.6036$zj7....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> >> Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> >>
> >> > Russ Lyttle <lyt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:<A_IKb.40467$Pg1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> >> >> Harry wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVE.netcom.ca> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:ZjfKb.74347$by2.8...@wagner.videotron.net...
> >> >> >> "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:3ff969fe$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> > message news:btbcc0$qri$5...@titan.btinternet.com...
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > "Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message
> >> >> >> > > news:a42650fc.04010...@posting.google.com...
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > >
>> I suggest you take some time to read and understand the original
> publications. I have and I'm not about to challange Einstein, or Newton on
> their ability to do math correctly. For example you can't get to E=mc^2
> without E=(mv^2)/2 which is from Newtons laws.
> This is not to say I agree that Newton and Einstein got things correct. Just
> that I'm going to be very careful about how I challange them.
I only don't understand, what concern has it to the New Year question
from Leo? I would be very grateful if you explain. Perhaps I didn't
catch some relation? ;-)
Interesting,
Sergey
Harry
> > > > > >"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> > > > > >news:slrnbvraov....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> >
> [snip]
>
> > Sergey,
> > In fact we were on a side subject, after I tried to make clear that
being
> > open-minded is not the same as being a crackpot..
> > Ampere's law is more complete than Lorentz', and seems to be not fully
> > compatible with Maxwell's.
> > Just when I expected Bilge to actually show me that all forces are
balanced
> > due to something that I overlooked, he became silent.
> > What is according to you the reaction of a current carrying wire to a
moving
> > charge?
> >
> > Harald
>
>
> Dear Harald, you really found in Bilge a person from whom you can
> expect a reasonable answer! Bilge knows only refrain to a prayer
> "Einstein Akbar!" ;-)
In fact Bilge often makes a real effort to explain things - according to his
point of view of course - and in many cases I found that very helpful.
> I understand your wish to catch the dragoon's tail, but the tail is in
> other side. You and me, we many times discussed this issue, and you
> had not one case to make sure, you cannot make an independent step on
> this way. Not because your knowledge is insufficient. Simply to make
> this step is not so simple. One thing I understood, I have not to
> delete our paper from site. And this is already good. ;-)
This paper I have not read, sorry. The other one, you have not reacted any
time about the scaling problem as you gave me the impression that magnetic
induction current is proportional to wire length instead of enclosed surface
(~ L^2), while both engineering success and dimensional analysis show that
it must be a L^2 law.
> And as to Ampere's law, I already wrote you in my previous letter.
Yes, the question is if popular EM theory is complete.
Harald
Franz Heymann
[snip]
> This paper I have not read, sorry. The other one, you have not reacted any
> time about the scaling problem as you gave me the impression that magnetic
> induction current is proportional to wire length instead of enclosed
surface
> (~ L^2), while both engineering success and dimensional analysis show that
> it must be a L^2 law.
In CGS EMU, self inductance has the units of L
[snip]
Franz
Harry
This was about a remark to Sergey from last year's discussion "dynamic
magnetic field is open" about the induction current which according to
Faraday is proportional to magnetic flux change from u ~d(B.A)/dt.
The idea that it is proportional to wire length can not be right, which is
what I understood from Sergey's comments that the action of B on the wire
(with length L) is what matters instead of the enclosed flux (with area
~L^2).
Harald
Sergey Karavashkin
Dear Harald,
If you look at the diagram from our paper where we showed the
variation of emf of inductance across the section from each side of
primary winding, you will see that when we put the loop into the core,
the emf will be proportional to the distance between the parallel
wires of primary winding, i.e. delta l_1. With it the emf of induction
will also depend on the length of these parallel wires, delta l_2. So
the total emf at two opposite sides of secondary loop will be
proportional to
e*delta l_1*delta l_2=e*S.
For the second pair of parallel wires, we will have the same product,
so for the secondary loop the emf of inductance will be proportional
to the cross-section area of this loop. However this coincidence never
means that the phenomenology of process is such.
We can show it, considering the known phenomenology of interaction of
current in a wire with a magnetic field. If you take a loop with a
movable side, put this loop into a magnetic field and move this side,
then, according to the Lorentz equation, the emf will arise in the
loop. We can easily re-calculate this emf into the variation of this
loop's cross-section and even to reduce this calculation to the
Faraday equation of EM induction. But this does not mean that the
phenomenology of process is such. And you perfectly know, the Lorentz
equation has been derived for interaction of moving charge with
magnetic field, not for a loop. This is the answer, which you could
simply read in our paper, attentively analysing our diagrams.
>
> > And as to Ampere's law, I already wrote you in my previous letter.
>
> Yes, the question is if popular EM theory is complete.
>
Of course, it is incomplete. You colleagues have omitted all our
conservation laws proven for dynamic fields. You refused to analyse
attentively my respond to the New year question from Leo. You refused
to analyse attentively our paper in which we compared the
characteristics of EM and acoustic transverse near fields. You refused
to accept my arguments against the photon theory from the view of
electromagnetism. Now you can read (again doing not analysing) our
paper on transformation of gradient of potential function in dynamic
fields. Well, why do you asking me? ;-)
> Harald
Sergey
Harry
Dear Sergey, thanks for finally givng me a first reply on this point!
Indeed, I had not understood that you assume an emf that increases with the
distance between the wire elements...
Honestly, I do not grasp how it can be possible!
> We can show it, considering the known phenomenology of interaction of
> current in a wire with a magnetic field. If you take a loop with a
> movable side, put this loop into a magnetic field and move this side,
> then, according to the Lorentz equation, the emf will arise in the
> loop. We can easily re-calculate this emf into the variation of this
> loop's cross-section and even to reduce this calculation to the
> Faraday equation of EM induction. But this does not mean that the
> phenomenology of process is such. And you perfectly know, the Lorentz
> equation has been derived for interaction of moving charge with
> magnetic field, not for a loop. This is the answer, which you could
> simply read in our paper, attentively analysing our diagrams.
>
>
> >
> > > And as to Ampere's law, I already wrote you in my previous letter.
> >
> > Yes, the question is if popular EM theory is complete.
> >
>
> Of course, it is incomplete. You colleagues have omitted all our
> conservation laws proven for dynamic fields. You refused to analyse
> attentively my respond to the New year question from Leo. You refused
> to analyse attentively our paper in which we compared the
> characteristics of EM and acoustic transverse near fields. You refused
> to accept my arguments against the photon theory from the view of
> electromagnetism. Now you can read (again doing not analysing) our
> paper on transformation of gradient of potential function in dynamic
> fields. Well, why do you asking me? ;-)
I was defending your stand of incompleteness to others. With success it
seems, as nobody provided the field that is required in standard theory for
the longitudinal reaction force in the example that I gave.
Harald
Sergey Karavashkin
Dear Harald,
I'm glad that you something understood. However, by our previous
discussions, this all dies at some premature stages of your
understanding and transforms into your associations in the most
unexpected way. When I wrote you that emf grows, I referred you to the
diagram in which we showed that the value of emf induced in a single
wire almost linearly depends on distance from the side of primary
wire. See again the diagram 21, left:
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v3_1/b/b85/b85.html
Red line means the resulting emf induced dependently on the location
of single wire in the cross-section of gap. You see, in this figure,
right, the emf is conventionally positive, and left - conventionally
negative (the phase between them is 180 degrees).
If you take two wires at different distances from that first, in them
will naturally induce the emfs different both in value and phase. If
both wires were located in one half of gap, the emfs will be in phase.
If you connect these two wires into a loop, the current will enter
this loop through one wire and leave through another. So the emfs in
the loop will be oppositely in series. If both wires were located in
one half of gap, the emfs will subtract. If in different halves, they
will add, because the emfs are opposite-in-phase. As you can see,
therethrough at the loop terminals there will be the difference of two
emfs, and the value of this difference will be the more the longer
distance between the secondary wires, as with the distance from each
of sides of the primary loop, the value of induced emf falls.
Well, this is far from being all, and even not all of principal. You
can take a curious glance at the animation for our future paper which
shows how the scalar potential of dynamic dipole changes:
http://selftrans.narod.ru/agfig6.gif
Hopefully, you will like it. ;-)
Regards,
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
incorrect address. Proper address is
http://selftrans.narod.ru/agfig4.gif
Thank you,
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Dear Harald, I'm just saying, as I begin discussing with you, you
disappear. And then you wonder. Of course, I reply too slowly, but I
reply.
Sergey