AP/Maxwell theory & Atom Totality textbook COMMENTARY TALK: Experiment-- my multimeter reads voltage proving no electric field exists

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, I am rather done with the textbook, but a immense amount of polishing needs be done now. And the way I plan to do this polishing is by having a commentary talk corner.

Today for discussion is that I have recently bought a precision multimeter which gives Voltage of a very delicate amount. And unlike the dial multimeters I was used to in the past, this digital multimeter is far superior.

So in the textbook I raise the issue that the Electric Field is phony baloney and what replaces that fakery is Voltage.

So, why is my multimeter reading upwards of .014 volts in ambient air. When I press the meter against magnets 0 reading but when I measure the air and move the leads about in Ambient Air, I get many various readings of voltage, I get .014, then .009 then .005 then .012 etc etc. The same happens when I go outside into Nature and the ambient air can even go as high as .05 volts.

So, what is happening here? The answer is that the Electric Field is phony baloney, but electricity is represented not by a field, but by Voltage. So, there never was a Electric Field, and it was always a Voltage.

I suspect Maxwell never realized or understood that fact of physics. That the Electric Field was a garbage loser concept, and that Voltage was there, true blue.

Only a illogical person would want to have Voltage exist and on top of voltage, want to have a dumb concept of a Electric Field along with voltage. A dumb illogical person would want both. Whereas a scientist who wants only the truth, the true blue, realizes that Voltage is the electric-field.

AP

[Serigo]

you are using Voltage meter, it measures Voltage.

Try an Electric Field meter to measure Electric Fields, instead.

on eBay for about 20 to 130 bucks.

Note: the units are V/m for Electric Field. V = Voltage m=meter

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 3:41:42 PM UTC-5, Serigo wrote:
(snipped)

>
>
> you are using Voltage meter, it measures Voltage.
>
> Try an Electric Field meter to measure Electric Fields, instead.
>
> on eBay for about 20 to 130 bucks.
>
> Note: the units are V/m for Electric Field. V = Voltage m=meter

There is no electric field setting, another evidence in proof that the Voltage is the electric field.

You have been hanging out too much with the physics failures of Moroney and Odd, and your posts are becoming as degenerate as theirs.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, so I have been playing around with my multimeter for a good portion of the day. Fun to play with.

Now Voltage is the (a) Electric Potential, the (b) Potential Difference and (c) Electromotive Force and all with the Units of W/A =  kg*m^2/A*s^3

Now the Electric field that I have been saying is a fiction has the alleged units of
Electric Field V/m = kg*m/A*s^3

So, that would imply as I move around in the house or outside, that the movement would be 1/m.

Which implies that if I stand still, the instrument should come to focus on 000 and have no volts. If I move around, and if Voltage replaces Electric Field, then I should pick up many different readings because of the motion as 1/m.

And that is what I get, in my house of readings from .001 all the way to .05 and many numbers in between of dc voltage.

So, here I reach a moment in time in which I realize that Voltage is the very same thing as that of Electric Field.

Let us try a different example of that of current A. So I have a current flowing in a wire on a circuit board and now I move the entire circuit board where the A is being moved. Now, do I call that current a new concept if I were to divide A by m so that we have A/m?

I think you can see where I am going. I am insisting that a concept of Voltage is very valid and has physical meaning. But a concept of Electric Field is more like a idealization or a fiction of thinking the movement of Voltage delivers anything other than just voltage.

AP

[Serigo]

On 10/22/2016 2:53 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, so I have been playing around with my multimeter for a good
> portion of the day. Fun to play with.
>
> Now Voltage is the (a) Electric Potential, the (b) Potential
> Difference and (c) Electromotive Force and all with the Units of W/A
> = kg*m^2/A*s^3
>
> Now the Electric field that I have been saying is a fiction has the
> alleged units of Electric Field V/m = kg*m/A*s^3

E field units are also in Volts per Meter, V/m

>
> So, that would imply as I move around in the house or outside, that
> the movement would be 1/m.

> Which implies that if I stand still, the instrument should come to
> focus on 000 and have no volts. If I move around, and if Voltage
> replaces Electric Field, then I should pick up many different
> readings because of the motion as 1/m.

movement not required, just seperation of probe ends by distance.

IF you had a very very sensitive voltmeter with very high impeadance,
(specialized Voltmeter) you just have to seperate the leads by 1 meter,
take a reading then 10 meters you should get 10 times the voltage, where
there is a Electric field.

note that your meter to measure Voltage takes a tiny amount of current
probably 10 nanoamps, and this us too much from a typical E field, and
basically shorts it out. However using the specialized very high
impeadance voltmeter, that may take only 1 picoamp could measure the E
field.

Remember that measuring instruments affect the things they measure.
Long copper leads can essentially create a short in the E Field where
the are at.

Measuring an E field is difficult, google "Field Mill"

[Poutnik]

Dne 22/10/2016 v 09:53 Archimedes Plutonium napsal(a):

>
> I think you can see where I am going. I am insisting that a concept
> of Voltage is very valid and has physical meaning. But a concept
> of Electric Field is more like a idealization or a fiction of
> thinking the movement of Voltage delivers
> anything other than just voltage.
>

So by very other words you are saying that

a concept of altitude is very valid and has physical meaning,
but a concept of slope is more like a idealization
or a fiction of thinking the movement of altitude
delivers anything other than just altitude.

Every scalar field of physical quantity X
( voltage, altitude, temperature, concentration )

has its related vector field grad X
( Intensity of electrostatic field, slope, temperature gradient,
concentration gradient )

that have dimension "unit of X" / m

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

No, my multimeters measure the Voltage in the ambient air. And thus, they measure the Electric Field which is a bogus concept, a fairy tale.

Now, take a few minutes and look at Ohm's law

V = current times resistance

Now, realize that current is A*seconds, charge times seconds

So we have

V = A*s times resistance

Now, s can be a distance rather than a second. Many of our units when we reach distance and time we can intermingle the time with distance. So that we say New York is 500 km or we say New York is 2 hours, both are one and both intermingle.

In Electricity/Magnetism we can easily and justifiably intermingle time with distance, almost in every situation.

So now, V= A*s*(resistance)

then, V/s = A*R

now, intermingling seconds with meters we finally have

V/m = A*R

Here we have done simply that of saying New York is 500 km or is 2 hours.

What I am doing is showing and proving that the Electric Field is a nonexistent concept, for the Voltage is true and real and measureable, but a phantasy illusion is the electric field.

Now a proof of this should be available in the law of electricity, the Coulomb force law, because if you have Electric Field and Voltage, both independent of each other, you have no Law of Electricity.

As I said before, too much of Old Physics was ivory tower idealizations. Physics abounds in idealizations, of suppose this and suppose that and suppose whatever. You have something physical that is borne of nothing but ideals. But those ideals and idealizations do not exist in Nature, just the over hormoned physicists wanting to idealize the world when the world cannot be idealized.

So when you have a Law of Electricity, with Coulomb's law, then in Old Physics, you have these multitude of peckerheads wanting to idealize every thing in sight. They want to idealize a fraction of the Coulomb force to every point in Space surrounding the Coulomb force charge. That is an idealization that every physics student has to be tested upon whether a A grade or B or C or D or Failing grade. To see if the student behaves like a good parrot and regurgitates that suppose a charge in Space and at this point in space we have this Electric Field due to charge and distance. So, can the poly parrot recite that Old Physics nattering nutter with a Electric Field and get his A grade?

Serigo like all the other physics graduates have never in their entire life asked, what experiment shows us that Voltage is not Electric Field, is independent and where an experiment shows us that Voltage and Electric Field are two different independent concepts. Never, because, well Electric Field is a hoax. And Serigo fell for that hoax.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 1:14:25 PM UTC-5, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> Dne 22/10/2016 v 09:53 Archimedes Plutonium napsal(a):
> >
> > I think you can see where I am going. I am insisting that a concept
> > of Voltage is very valid and has physical meaning. But a concept
> > of Electric Field is more like a idealization or a fiction of
> > thinking the movement of Voltage delivers
> > anything other than just voltage.
> >
> So by very other words you are saying that
>
> a concept of altitude is very valid and has physical meaning,
> but a concept of slope is more like a idealization
> or a fiction of thinking the movement of altitude
> delivers anything other than just altitude.
>

I just answered this problem for Serigo.

Looks like I have to teach another duped fool of Old Physics.

Look at the definition of current as A*second

Look at Ohm's law V= A*s*R

Look at Electric Field as units as V/m

Now, revisit Ohm's law and divide by s on both sides we have V/s = A*R

Now, focus on V/s, or Voltage/seconds

Now, in modern physics we recognize, not the boneheads of physics, but the genuine scientists, we recognize that time and distance are often interchangeable. As I told Serigo, that New York is 500 km or 2 hours.

So in Voltage, in EM physics, can we safely say that V/s is just the same as V/m, if you are not a peckerhead physicist?

And, as I told Serigo, the burden of proof that Electric Field is phony baloney and only Voltage exists, that burden of proof is not upon me, since my multimeter measures ambient voltage in the air, not an electric field but actual voltage. So, the burden is upon you, the physicist who got an A grade because you parroted back the information your teacher expected you to parrot back but you learned not the truth of science but rather learned a fakery of science.

The burden is upon you to show the world an Experiment in which you identify both Voltage and identify in that same experiment identify Electric Field, such that they are independent and exist independent of one another. But I will tell you beforehand, you are wasting your time because there is no Electric Field, because Voltage is the electric field.

Fools are dime a dozen, show us your experiment.

> Every scalar field of physical quantity X
> ( voltage, altitude, temperature, concentration )
>
> has its related vector field grad X
> ( Intensity of electrostatic field, slope, temperature gradient,
> concentration gradient )
>
> that have dimension "unit of X" / m
>

More idealization hogwash. When you were a student you must have really soaked and gobbled that phony baloney as if it was ice cream.

> --
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

A better quote for your poetry corner is this quote from me:

Woe, woe to those who wish to excel in Physics, but never think they have to first excel in logical thinking-- AP

[Serigo]

On 10/22/2016 3:51 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 1:14:25 PM UTC-5, Poutnik Fornntp
> wrote:
>> Dne 22/10/2016 v 09:53 Archimedes Plutonium napsal(a):
>>>
>>> I think you can see where I am going. I am insisting that a
>>> concept of Voltage is very valid and has physical meaning. But a
>>> concept of Electric Field is more like a idealization or a
>>> fiction of thinking the movement of Voltage delivers anything
>>> other than just voltage.
>>>
>> So by very other words you are saying that
>>
>> a concept of altitude is very valid and has physical meaning, but a
>> concept of slope is more like a idealization or a fiction of
>> thinking the movement of altitude delivers anything other than just
>> altitude.
>>
>
> I just answered this problem for Serigo.
>
> Looks like I have to teach another duped fool of Old Physics.
>
> Look at the definition of current as A*second

units are off=>

1 coulomb = 1 ampere-second

Definition
I = current = coulomb/second = ampere-second/second = ampere

> Look at Ohm's law V= A*s*R

you have an extra s

Ohms law is V = A * R

> Look at Electric Field as units as V/m
>
> Now, revisit Ohm's law and divide by s on both sides we have V/s =
> A*R
>
> Now, focus on V/s, or Voltage/seconds
>
> Now, in modern physics we recognize, not the boneheads of physics,
> but the genuine scientists, we recognize that time and distance are
> often interchangeable. As I told Serigo, that New York is 500 km or 2
> hours.

interchangeable only at a fixed given rate, and simplestic relationship,

distance * time = Konstant

>
> So in Voltage, in EM physics, can we safely say that V/s is just the
> same as V/m,

nope, the units are completly different,
change in volts per unit time
change in volts per unit distance

s it time, m is distance, there is no simplestic fixed relationship
between the two, unless you define it using an equation for your problem
you are trying to solve, they are two free dimentions, not interchangeable.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 5:08:01 PM UTC-5, Serigo wrote:
> On 10/22/2016 3:51 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

(snipped)

> > So in Voltage, in EM physics, can we safely say that V/s is just the
> > same as V/m,
>
> nope, the units are completly different,
> change in volts per unit time
> change in volts per unit distance
>
> s it time, m is distance, there is no simplestic fixed relationship
> between the two, unless you define it using an equation for your problem
> you are trying to solve, they are two free dimentions, not interchangeable.

You are mixing up letters.

Current = i = dq/dt

Ohm's law = V = iR

V= (dq/dt)(R)

V*dt = dq*R

So, you want V/m

But current is charge that passes through a plane xx in time dt.

So, what you have is that V is the same as V/m is the same as Vdt. All three are the same as V.

Now, Serigo, you still have failed to show in any experiment a parameter of Voltage and a parameter of Electric Field independent parameters.

Why is that so Serigo? Is it because Electric Field does not exist and is the Voltage? Do you think that is why you never have both in any one experiment?

AP

[Michael Moroney]

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes:

>Now, take a few minutes and look at Ohm's law

>V = current times resistance

>Now, realize that current is A*seconds, charge times seconds

No, A (amperes) is current. A*seconds is charge. Current is equivalent
to charge/second.

Ohm's Law is Voltage is current times resistance, V=I*R (I is standard
notation for current in amperes A)

How the hell can you claim to be "fixing" Maxwell's equations if you
don't even know what current or charge are?

>In Electricity/Magnetism we can easily and justifiably intermingle time
>with distance, almost in every situation.

>So now, V= A*s*(resistance)

>then, V/s = A*R

>now, intermingling seconds with meters we finally have

>V/m = A*R

All based on a false assumption so all that is wrong.

>What I am doing is showing and proving that the Electric Field is a
>nonexistent concept,

"There is no electric field because I said so" is not proof.

Now go ahead and call me a "physics failure" or something. You have
nothing else.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 11:53:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >Now, take a few minutes and look at Ohm's law
>
> >V = current times resistance
>
> >Now, realize that current is A*seconds, charge times seconds
>
> No, A (amperes) is current. A*seconds is charge. Current is equivalent
> to charge/second.
>

Good that one of the two physics failures gets involved, because when one gets involved, I can explain the physics better.

It so happens that Halliday & Resnick, my source for units, in their PHYSICS, Extended Version (yellow cover with green waves) 1986, page A21 uses the Electric Current symbol A, amperes.

H&R do not use "i" but use A

And further down H&R calls V for voltage as that of kg*m^2/A*s^3

Quantity of Electricity, charge, Coulomb = C = A*s

Voltage is the (a) Electric Potential, the (b) Potential Difference and (c) Electromotive Force and all with the Units of W/A =  kg*m^2/A*s^3

Capacitance = farad = C/V = A^2*s^4 / kg*m^2

Electrical Resistance = ohm = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3

Conductance = A/V = A^2*s^3 / kg*m^2

Magnetic Flux = V*s = kg*m^2 /A*s^2

Magnetic Field = tesla = kg /A*s^2

Inductance =  kg*m^2 /A^2*s^2

> Ohm's Law is Voltage is current times resistance, V=I*R (I is standard
> notation for current in amperes A)
>
> How the hell can you claim to be "fixing" Maxwell's equations if you
> don't even know what current or charge are?
>

So that a physics failure has a mind of concrete and when he sees A, the failure could never envision it being current as ampere. A failure of physics thinks current can only be "i" because that is what he learned in a textbook with his concrete mind.

> >In Electricity/Magnetism we can easily and justifiably intermingle time
> >with distance, almost in every situation.
>
> >So now, V= A*s*(resistance)
>
> >then, V/s = A*R
>
> >now, intermingling seconds with meters we finally have
>
> >V/m = A*R
>
> All based on a false assumption so all that is wrong.
>

All of mine above is correct if you realize that current is measured in Ampere which is A = dq/dt across a x*x cross section.

So the definition of current embodies several distance length in meters and several time parameters in seconds. Far over the head of a physics failure.

What I am saying is that when we look at an equation of V= current*resistance, that the current term has so many parameters of distance length already built into it. And that V*s or V/m are the same as V itself.

> >What I am doing is showing and proving that the Electric Field is a
> >nonexistent concept,
>
> "There is no electric field because I said so" is not proof.
>

The physics failure says "abracadabra" and runs back into his mouse hole.

> Now go ahead and call me a "physics failure" or something. You have
> nothing else.

Ahh, still sore that I won the Juno bet. That is why I am a physicist and you the failure.

Now, on a bright note.

The proof that no electric field exists, is experiments. And the World has not one single lousy experiment that shows an Electric field independent of Voltage. Not one louse experiment where you can graph electric field on the x-axis and Voltage on the y-axis that is not the function Voltage = Electric Field.

And the reason no-one saw this before is that they were too screwed up in mind with V/m and V alone, not realizing that there are so many distance length values that goes into forming the current, such as the x*x cross section that H&R talk about in their Physics textbook.

AP

[Poutnik]

Dne 23/10/2016 v 00:07 Serigo napsal(a):

> On 10/22/2016 3:51 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

>>>
>>
>> I just answered this problem for Serigo.
>>
>> Looks like I have to teach another duped fool of Old Physics.
>>
>> Look at the definition of current as A*second
>
> units are off=>
>
> 1 coulomb = 1 ampere-second
>
> Definition
> I = current = coulomb/second = ampere-second/second = ampere

The coulomb is defined as ampere . second,
not ampere as coulomb per second.

[Poutnik]

Dne 22/10/2016 v 22:51 Archimedes Plutonium napsal(a):

>
> Look at Ohm's law V= A*s*R

Ohm law is defined either in a integral form
U = R .I
either in a differential form
E = ro . J

where
U is voltage
R is resistance
I is current
E is intensity of electrostatic field
ro is resistivity
J is current density.

Your lack of knowledge of basics is evident.

[Poutnik]

Dne 23/10/2016 v 04:51 Archimedes Plutonium napsal(a):

>
> Ohm's law = V = iR
>
> V= (dq/dt)(R)
>
> V*dt = dq*R
>
> So, you want V/m

You confuse 2 terms with the same symbol.

V in the equations is the voltage
V in the sentence is the Volt.

>
> But current is charge that passes through a plane xx in time dt.

Current is the primary quantity in SI system,
charge is derived quantity as time integral of current.

>
> So, what you have is that V is the same as V/m is the same as Vdt. All three are the same as V.

No, you have not.
And you keep using V for both voltage and Volt.
Nobody reasonable would do so.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

No, now, I am on iPhone replying to Poutnik.

You are weak in physics, as you quibble over symbols, never able to focus on theory.

The bulk of this discussion is show me an experiment where voltage and electric field are separate and independent concepts. Since you cannot do that, they are one and the same.

And what had you fooled and dumbfounded about V and V/m and Vs is the fact that current has extra length distance and extra second terms. Look at Halliday Resnick with their XX cross section.

So show me an experiment that features electric field independent of voltage or run back into your squirrel hole.

iPhone post

AP

[Poutnik]

Dne 23/10/2016 v 09:19 Archimedes Plutonium napsal(a):

> No, now, I am on iPhone replying to Poutnik.
>
> You are weak in physics, as you quibble over symbols, never able to focus on theory.

Well, as usual over the years I watch you,
you replace knowledge by personal assaults.

> The bulk of this discussion is show me an experiment where voltage and electric field are separate and independent concepts.

It is not about experiments, but definitions.
Concepts are separate, quantities are linked.
You measure quantities, not concepts.

The phenomena can be destribed
either differentially by E, either integrally as U.

The relation between E and U is DEFINED as
E = grad U, U2-U1 = path integral of E.

>
> And what had you fooled and dumbfounded about V and V/m and Vs
is the fact that current has extra length distance and extra second terms.

Well, this is obvious to all.

>
> So show me an experiment that features electric field independent of voltage or run back into your squirrel hole.

You say they are independent, not me.
E = grad U, U2-U1 = path integral of E.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, getting to the heart of the matter. That means, solving the question of whether Voltage is Electric Field and that one of them-- electric field is redundant garbage, for it does not exist.

To solve this, we need go to the Law of Electricity and the Law of Magnetism. There have never been any experiments in physics that displays both Electric Field and Voltage as separate entities. Every experiment, if it has voltage, no need to invoke electric field.

So, looking at the units of Voltage and of Magnetic Field:

V = kg*m^2/A*s^3

Magnetic Field = kg/A*s^2

Now some weak physicists attest to a Electric Field being that of V/m = kg*m/A*s^3

Now, since no experiments ever reveal a voltage and electric field present and independent of one another means electric field is nonexistent and fakery.

That means the Voltage is the Electric Field and what that means is that the units of Voltage must agree with the units of Magnetic Field by a factor that is the angular momentum to uphold the Law of Electricity and Law of Magnetism.

So we compare

kg*m^2/A*s^3 versus kg/A*s^2

What is the factor between Voltage and Magnetic Field?

It is a factor of m^2/s

And what is m^2/s, is angular momentum

Now, what factor would Law of Electricity and Law of Magnetism require for turning a Magnetic Field into that of a Electric Field, if such exists?

Well, the law of electricity and magnetism do not call for a factor of m/s, (velocity) as the difference between electric field and magnetic field. But the law of electricity and magnetism, require that the difference between electric field and magnetic field be that of angular momentum. Why? because the coulomb force in law of electricity is a inverse square of distance and requires angular momentum.

Thus, I have proven that the Electric Field is a nonexistent fakery of physics, and that Voltage replaces the concept of electric field fakery.

AP

[Poutnik]

Dne 23/10/2016 v 11:13 Archimedes Plutonium napsal(a):

Technical note: it is very ugly habit
to change thread subject and even removing the Re: prefix.

Create independent thread instead, if you have to.

[Poutnik]

Dne 23/10/2016 v 11:13 Archimedes Plutonium napsal(a):

> Alright, getting to the heart of the matter. That means, solving
> the question of whether Voltage is Electric Field and that one
> of them-- electric field is redundant garbage, for it does not exist.
>

The electrostatic field is not quantity.
Therefore voltage as quantity
cannot be something, that is not quantity.

The electrostatic field is described by 2 ways.
By integral way via U - electrostatic potential / voltage
or
by differential way via E - intensity of electrostatic field.

E = grad U, delta U = path integral of E.

Neither a quantity can be a quantity of different dimensions.

Voltage cannot be voltage gradient,
altitude cannot be altitude gradient,
concentration cannot be concentration gradient,
temperature cannot be temperature gradient

X = grad Y and delta Y = path integral of X
are valid relations of the differential and concepts,
describing a phenomena via X. respectively Y.

[Poutnik]

Dne 23/10/2016 v 11:48 Poutnik napsal(a):

> Neither a quantity can be a quantity of different dimensions.
>

> Voltage cannot be voltage gradient, ....

The essential note is, that
voltage and electrostatic potential are synonyms
( with objection of eventual different zero reference level )

voltage gradient and intensity of electrostatic field
are synonyms as well ( exactly )

Where there is a scalar voltage field,
there is a vector field of voltage gradient as well.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, there is a very quick test on Voltage replacing the Electric Field.

If we thrust a bar magnet through a closed loop of wire, we gain an electric current in that wire.

So what has to happen in order for that to come about?

Well, the bar magnet is kg/A*s^2 and the closed loop of wire has to be kg*m^2/A*s^3, so that the lines of force of the bar magnet cut through, meaning, divide out the Voltage, and what remains in the closed wire loop is angular momentum of m^2/s for electrons flowing as current.

Now, if we had the closed loop be Electric Field as kg*m/A*s^3 and thrust the bar magnet through with kg/A*s^2 we end up with m/s for electrons flowing as a current. We end up with a linear momentum.

And we all know that electricity requires a Closed Loop.

So, the Maxwell Equations with an Electric Field being V/m cannot produce electricity in a closed loop of Faraday's Law. But can produce a electric current when Voltage is the parameter.

AP

[Michael Moroney]

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes:

>On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 11:53:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >Now, take a few minutes and look at Ohm's law
>>
>> >V = current times resistance
>>
>> >Now, realize that current is A*seconds, charge times seconds
>>
>> No, A (amperes) is current. A*seconds is charge. Current is equivalent
>> to charge/second.
>>

>Good that one of the two physics failures gets involved, because when
>one gets involved, I can explain the physics better.

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself, calling yourself a "physics failure".
Who is the second one?

>It so happens that Halliday & Resnick, my source for units, in their
>PHYSICS, Extended Version (yellow cover with green waves) 1986, page A21
>uses the Electric Current symbol A, amperes.

Electrical engineers (of which I am one) use I (not "i") as the symbol for
current. But regardless, the symbol used doesn't matter. However, the
units do. My point, which you deliberately avoided, was that you had
wrong definitions for current and charge. To wit:

>>>Now, take a few minutes and look at Ohm's law

>>>V = current times resistance

>>>Now, realize that current is A*seconds, charge times seconds

You didn't even know that A was already current! You multiplied current
A times second and claimed that was current. You didn't even know that
A*s was charge, not current!! Flunk!!!

I repeat my question:

>>How the hell can you claim to be "fixing" Maxwell's equations if you
>>don't even know what current or charge are?

Any answer?

>H&R do not use "i" but use A

Again, the symbol doesn't matter (and again EE's use "I" (not "i"))

>Quantity of Electricity, charge, Coulomb = C = A*s

So *now* you use the correct definition for charge and current, unlike
your last post.

>So that a physics failure has a mind of concrete

Again, you shouldn't be so hard on yourself, calling yourself a failure
with a mind of concrete. If you are willing to learn, you, too, can learn
physics. It takes a lot of studying, but yes, if you are willing to
expend the effort, you can learn physics.

>> >In Electricity/Magnetism we can easily and justifiably intermingle time
>> >with distance, almost in every situation.

>> >So now, V= A*s*(resistance)
>>
>> >then, V/s = A*R
>>
>> >now, intermingling seconds with meters we finally have
>>
>> >V/m = A*R
>>
>> All based on a false assumption so all that is wrong.

>All of mine above is correct if you realize that current is measured in
>Ampere which is A = dq/dt across a x*x cross section.

Again *now* you use the correct units, after I corrected you. But you
wrote "So now, V= A*s*(resistance)" which is completely wrong. The correct
definition of Ohms law is V=IR or V=AR if you want to use what H&R uses.
Your next several lines are based on your incorrect "So now, V= A*s*(resistance)"
definition, so are therefore wrong.

>What I am saying is that when we look at an equation of V=
>current*resistance, that the current term has so many parameters of
>distance length already built into it. And that V*s or V/m are the same
>as V itself.

The units don't even match, so as any high school physics teacher will
tell you, that's automatically wrong. Flunk.

It should be extremely obvious that V*s, V/m and V all have different
units even if you didn't know the units of V itself.

>> >What I am doing is showing and proving that the Electric Field is a
>> >nonexistent concept,
>>
>> "There is no electric field because I said so" is not proof.

>The physics failure says "abracadabra" and runs back into his mouse hole.

You failed to address the fact that claiming "There is no electric field
because I said so" is not a proof.

If you think there is no electic field, why not prove it? This time,
use logic, not "There is no electric field because I said so".

>> Now go ahead and call me a "physics failure" or something. You have
>> nothing else.

And I am correct, 1000 times over. All you can do is insult anyone who
challenges your made-up "proofs". Because you have nothing. And you
know it.

>Ahh, still sore that I won the Juno bet.

Actually I won that bet. I bet that if there was any problem whatsoever
with Juno, spin related or not, you would be crowing about the failure
somehow being proof of your "spin out of control" claims. And I am 100%
correct. We have a sticky valve and a software reset. You are crowing
"See I told you that Juno would fail!" Neither problem seems to be spin
related in any way. The latter sounds like radiation related (which I also
predicted, so did NASA, who stated several sensors would probably fail
after the first several orbits). I also admitted my predictions weren't
much of a prediction since it was too easy to predict you'd claim success
for an unrelated failure. Kind of like predicting a toad hopping across
a busy interstate highway would get squished by an 18 wheeler.

And yet again, you have no answer why Galileo was successful in its multi
year mission orbiting Jupiter, once you disregard its antenna failure and
experiments not done because of it. Galileo worked for years and years.
Quite well. Explain that.

> That is why I am a physicist and you the failure.

No, it's why I am a successful engineer but you have failed, trying for
over 20 years to accomplish something here, with nothing to show for it.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now let me say a few words about "units" in physics. For I am a great admirer of units and know they are extremely important. But there is a caution that I would stress about units, that the greenhorns and failures of physics would never catch a glimpse of and would fall head first into a pit of mistakes.

Units are important but they are sometimes misleading. For example Electric Field if it existed, which it does not exist, would be characterized as that of V/m = kg*m/A*s^3 while the Magnetic Field which truly does exist and is kg/A*s^2 would thus be a factor of m/s to make a Electric Field.

Now, few physicists have logical commonsense, or they would know that if you give velocity to a Magnetic Field, should you expect a Electric Field to come of a velocity placed upon a magnetic field? Only if you are a silly physicist.

Now another important error physicists make in units. Is that they are awestruck of a unit like Magnetic Field as V/m and believe thence, that V/s or V*s or V*m or V/m^2 or V*s^2 or V*s^3 are all valid Physics concepts of those units. These rumdummy physicists believes every one of those units just prattled off is some special unit in physics just as Voltage or Magnetic Field is a special and important unit in physics.

Here I have news for the rumdummies, in that physics has only special units and then the multitude of made up units like V*m are just either nonexistent or compound units of a simple true existing unit. Just like V/m is really just a Magnetic Field given a velocity and is not a Electric Field. But try telling that to the many failures of physics with their loud mouths and no brains.

AP

[Odd Bodkin]

On 10/22/2016 3:51 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> Look at the definition of current as A*second

Uh....what????

--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Odd Bodkin]

On 10/23/2016 2:19 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> The bulk of this discussion is show me an experiment where voltage and electric field are
> separate and independent concepts. Since you cannot do that, they are one and the same.

The are not independent, but they are not the same.
Voltage is the integral of the electric field over a path.
They have different units. They cannot possibly be the same.

Likewise, velocity is the integral of acceleration. The two concepts are
not independent but they are CLEARLY not the same. They also have
different units.

Anybody who would claim that voltage and electric field are the same
would have to also conclude by the same argument that velocity and
acceleration are the same, and at that point that person would surely
have to blush.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 10/23/2016 10:08 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Units are important but they are sometimes misleading. For example Electric Field
> if it existed, which it does not exist, would be characterized as that of
> V/m = kg*m/A*s^3 while the Magnetic Field which truly does exist and is kg/A*s^2
> would thus be a factor of m/s to make a Electric Field.
>
> Now, few physicists have logical commonsense, or they would know that if you give
> velocity to a Magnetic Field, should you expect a Electric Field to come of a
> velocity placed upon a magnetic field? Only if you are a silly physicist.

No physicist would claim that. Nor would they claim that if you impart
speed to a momentum you will get energy. That's not what factoring of
units is intended to imply.

[Poutnik]

Similarly, the product of length[m] and speed[m/s] has dimension m^2/s,
but does not become the kinematic viscosity of the same dimension.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscosity#Units

[Serigo]

On 10/23/2016 12:48 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 11:53:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney
> wrote:
>> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Now, take a few minutes and look at Ohm's law
>>
>>> V = current times resistance
>>
>>> Now, realize that current is A*seconds, charge times seconds
>>
>> No, A (amperes) is current. A*seconds is charge. Current is
>> equivalent to charge/second.
>>
>
> Good that one of the two physics failures gets involved, because when
> one gets involved, I can explain the physics better.
>
> It so happens that Halliday & Resnick, my source for units, in their
> PHYSICS, Extended Version (yellow cover with green waves) 1986, page
> A21 uses the Electric Current symbol A, amperes.
>
> H&R do not use "i" but use A

they are both use for current, I, i typically, and A is the amount or
magnitude, or mA, or ma, or......

>
> And further down H&R calls V for voltage as that of kg*m^2/A*s^3
>
> Quantity of Electricity, charge, Coulomb = C = A*s

which is not current......

>
>> Ohm's Law is Voltage is current times resistance, V=I*R (I is
>> standard notation for current in amperes A)
>>
>> How the hell can you claim to be "fixing" Maxwell's equations if
>> you don't even know what current or charge are?
>>
>
> So that a physics failure has a mind of concrete and when he sees A,
> the failure could never envision it being current as ampere. A
> failure of physics thinks current can only be "i" because that is
> what he learned in a textbook with his concrete mind.

nope, it depends upon context. in circuit design problems, I is
current, A is amps. if you use SPICE or other simulators, i means
current, usally with a subcase number per element. current i1 in
resistor 1....

But i also is (-1)^0.5, and currents can be complex numbers, 1+i1, and
the elements can have have complex impeadance. So j is also used as
(-1)^0.5

>
>>> In Electricity/Magnetism we can easily and justifiably
>>> intermingle time with distance, almost in every situation.
>>
>>> So now, V= A*s*(resistance)
>>
>>> then, V/s = A*R
>>
>>> now, intermingling seconds with meters we finally have
>>
>>> V/m = A*R
>>
>> All based on a false assumption so all that is wrong.
>>
>
> All of mine above is correct if you realize that current is measured
> in Ampere which is A = dq/dt across a x*x cross section.

dq/dt is rate of charge per unit time or coulmbs per second which is
measured in Amperes, which disagrees with your definition of current is
ampere-seconds

and it is still all wrong as you are trying to substitute meters for
seconds. In Physics the units must always check, yours do not.

>
> So the definition of current embodies several distance length in
> meters and several time parameters in seconds. Far over the head of a
> physics failure.

definition of current is

I = current = coulomb/second = ampere-second/second = ampere

and has nothing to do with distance.

>
> What I am saying is that when we look at an equation of V=
> current*resistance, that the current term has so many parameters of
> distance length already built into it. And that V*s or V/m are the
> same as V itself.

sigh, still confused,
but remember the Physics rule,

Units Must Match (UMM)

V is not V*s, V*s is not V/m, V/m is not V

the math shows you directly that s or m is needed, and you are dealing
with different units.

V*s in a 50 ohm system is Energy

V/m for Earth is about 150 Volts per meter near the surface,

(you can not measure it with your meter as the input impeadance is not
high enough, a specialized meter is needed, or you can wire up a neon
bulb, one side to earth the other side to a wire that goes about 30 feet
up, you will see it flash at night, also remember Ben Franklin had a
wire into the air with pith ball that would ring a bell in his house in
the 1700s, when the Electric field of the earth got high enough, you can
do that too)

if you continue to ignore the math, it leads into strange conjectures

>
> The proof that no electric field exists, is experiments. And the
> World has not one single lousy experiment that shows an Electric
> field independent of Voltage.

silly rabbit, E-field is measured in Voltage and direction (vector)
dependent upon location.

all "fields" have a magnitude and a direction (vector)

Is there a Current Field ? Yes.

take a copper wire with high frequency current, there is magnitude and
direction dependent upon location in the wire.

> Not one louse experiment where you can
> graph electric field on the x-axis and Voltage on the y-axis that is
> not the function Voltage = Electric Field.

I don't think you know what a "field" is.

think of a 3 dimentional array of points, where each point has a value
and a direction, a little arrow, similar to the 2 dimentional weather
map with wind shown by a magnitude 20mph and an arrow, which way it is
going.

>
> And the reason no-one saw this before is that they were too screwed
> up in mind with V/m and V alone, not realizing that there are so many
> distance length values that goes into forming the current, such as
> the x*x cross section that H&R talk about in their Physics textbook.

current is not defined in terms of distance.

perhaps your book means a "surface" instead of x*x cross section, or the
amount of charge per second going through a surface, that is valid and
required.

a wire has a fixed cross section, which leads to problems if you define
current on a certian size wire.

So instead they define current as going past a surface or past a
point(if one dimentional current)


and V/m is not V. units do not match.

if you measure a E-Field, you normalize it to one meter, like you
measure 2000 Volts across 10 meters, that is 200 V/m.
if you say it is 2000 volts you would be wrong.

[Michael Moroney]

Yes, you can't read too much into the meaning of a unit's dimensions.
Force and torque have the same units (kg m^2/s^2) but are definitely not
the same thing.

I believe, but am not sure, that the electric and magnetic fields of a
photon are in a constant ratio, and if you divide its electric field
strength by its magnetic field strength, you get the velocity of the
photon, or c. I'll have to look that up.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:12:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
(snipped)

>
> Yes, you can't read too much into the meaning of a unit's dimensions.
> Force and torque have the same units (kg m^2/s^2) but are definitely not
> the same thing.
>
> I believe, but am not sure, that the electric and magnetic fields of a
> photon are in a constant ratio, and if you divide its electric field
> strength by its magnetic field strength, you get the velocity of the
> photon, or c. I'll have to look that up.

For once you are sounding like a normal human, not a subhuman science wannabe. So maybe there is hope for you failures of physics, but I would not hold my breathe for that to happen.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Well, hold on, I skimmed the above and did not recognize your (kg m^2/s^2) immediately. So, when is acceleration that of m^2/s^2, when it is m/s^2

Again, you fail

[Michael Moroney]

I never said acceleration was m^2/s^2. I never even mentioned acceleration.
I was talking about torque and energy. Typo: I wrote force when I should
have written energy.

>Again, you fail

The failure (in this case, to read correctly) is all yours.

[Serigo]

I have submitted this fail, failure to the Physics Fail Review Board,
which consists of all people who post in sci.physics.

We will hold a blame assignment meeting, and assign blame thusly.

Thus, The Great Pooba in the Sky (or all posters in sci.physics) is
Judge, not any one mear mortal aposting in sp

[except for commonlly known physics, math, ee knowledge immediatly
verifyable by single searches]


(mis-speltings are not a blamable item)

[Serigo]

first law of physics, => Units Must Match

if they dont, then YOU have mistake, or YOU have to rewrite all the laws
of physics, or try too, [but they already got all that stuff worked out
and it took them years and years...]

[Wally W.]

Well, finally!

It's about time someone did this in an organized fashion.

Where has the mob mentaility been when we needed it?

How long has it been since a group of smug prigs have blamed someone,
thrashed them, and held them up to ridcule?!

Oh, wait ... maybe that should be how many times in the last
nanosecond ...

>Thus, The Great Pooba in the Sky (or all posters in sci.physics) is
>Judge, not any one mear mortal aposting in sp
>
>[except for commonlly known physics, math, ee knowledge immediatly
>verifyable by single searches]
>
>
>(mis-speltings are not a blamable item)

Not until the list of is written into the bylaws ... then, more
blaming.

As an organizer, you can exclude from the list: spelTings.

[Michael J. Strickland]

Only if volts (V) = volts per meter (E = V/d).

The electric field determines the electrical force on a unit charge
(e.g. an electron). E = F / q and F = E * q. It is the rate of change
of the voltage over a unit distance (e.g. 1 meter). That's why its
measured in volts per meter.

The voltage (or potential difference) is the integral of that force
over distance which is why its sometimes called potential (energy).

Electric Field strength determines the acceleration a unit charge
experiences (velocity acquired) per unit distance. It is the analog of
acceleration in the mechanical formula (F = M * a).


On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 11:30:42 +0200, Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Dne 23/10/2016 v 11:13 Archimedes Plutonium napsal(a):
>
>Technical note: it is very ugly habit
>to change thread subject and even removing the Re: prefix.
>
>Create independent thread instead, if you have to.

See you at the show trials - lol.
---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

[Michael J. Strickland]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:14:13 -0400, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:05:55 -0500, Serigo wrote:
>
>>On 10/24/2016 1:43 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:22:47 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:12:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>> (snipped)
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> Yes, you can't read too much into the meaning of a unit's dimensions.
>>>>>> Force and torque have the same units (kg m^2/s^2) but are definitely not
>>>>>> the same thing.

Technically Work (W = F dot s) might be construed to have the same
units (Newtons * meters) as Torque (Newtons * meters) but the first is
a dot product and the second is a cross product. Therefore,
technically the respective units are Newtons dot meters (Work) and
Newtons cross meters (Torque) so they are not the same.

I just now realized this. That one has nagged me for a while too -
lol.

...

[Odd Bodkin]

On 10/24/2016 1:12 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 10/23/2016 10:08 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> Units are important but they are sometimes misleading. For example Electric Field
>>> if it existed, which it does not exist, would be characterized as that of
>>> V/m = kg*m/A*s^3 while the Magnetic Field which truly does exist and is kg/A*s^2
>>> would thus be a factor of m/s to make a Electric Field.
>>>
>>> Now, few physicists have logical commonsense, or they would know that if you give
>>> velocity to a Magnetic Field, should you expect a Electric Field to come of a
>>> velocity placed upon a magnetic field? Only if you are a silly physicist.
>
>> No physicist would claim that. Nor would they claim that if you impart
>> speed to a momentum you will get energy. That's not what factoring of
>> units is intended to imply.
>
> Yes, you can't read too much into the meaning of a unit's dimensions.
> Force and torque have the same units (kg m^2/s^2) but are definitely not
> the same thing.

You probably meant energy and torque.

>
> I believe, but am not sure, that the electric and magnetic fields of a
> photon are in a constant ratio, and if you divide its electric field
> strength by its magnetic field strength, you get the velocity of the
> photon, or c. I'll have to look that up.
>

If you take the electric and magnetic fields of a traveling
electromagnetic wave, they have the ratio c. But you are in no way
imparting a speed to either field to get the other.

Likewise, the energy of a photon and the *magnitude* of a photon are
related by the ratio c, but in no way do you impart a speed to a
momentum to get the energy.

[Wally W.]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 04:16:08 -0400, Michael J. Strickland wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:14:13 -0400, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:05:55 -0500, Serigo wrote:
>>
>>>On 10/24/2016 1:43 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:22:47 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:12:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> (snipped)
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, you can't read too much into the meaning of a unit's dimensions.
>>>>>>> Force and torque have the same units (kg m^2/s^2) but are definitely not
>>>>>>> the same thing.
>
>Technically Work (W = F dot s) might be construed to have the same
>units (Newtons * meters) as Torque (Newtons * meters) but the first is
>a dot product and the second is a cross product. Therefore,
>technically the respective units are Newtons dot meters (Work) and
>Newtons cross meters (Torque) so they are not the same.

But dividing either by time gives power.

In what way is rotational power different from linear power?

[Serigo]

On 10/25/2016 8:03 AM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 04:16:08 -0400, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:14:13 -0400, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:05:55 -0500, Serigo wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/24/2016 1:43 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:22:47 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:12:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>> (snipped)
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, you can't read too much into the meaning of a unit's dimensions.
>>>>>>>> Force and torque have the same units (kg m^2/s^2) but are definitely not
>>>>>>>> the same thing.
>>
>> Technically Work (W = F dot s) might be construed to have the same
>> units (Newtons * meters) as Torque (Newtons * meters) but the first is
>> a dot product and the second is a cross product. Therefore,
>> technically the respective units are Newtons dot meters (Work) and
>> Newtons cross meters (Torque) so they are not the same.
>
> But dividing either by time gives power.
>
> In what way is rotational power different from linear power?

dot product is scalar

cross product is vector

power is scalar, like voltage.

>
>
>> I just now realized this. That one has nagged me for a while too -
>> lol.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> See you at the show trials - lol.

bring torches and pitchforks for the Blame Assignment Meeting! (BAM!),

[Wally W.]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:20:16 -0500, Serigo wrote:

>On 10/25/2016 8:03 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 04:16:08 -0400, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:14:13 -0400, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:05:55 -0500, Serigo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/24/2016 1:43 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:22:47 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:12:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> (snipped)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, you can't read too much into the meaning of a unit's dimensions.
>>>>>>>>> Force and torque have the same units (kg m^2/s^2) but are definitely not
>>>>>>>>> the same thing.
>>>
>>> Technically Work (W = F dot s) might be construed to have the same
>>> units (Newtons * meters) as Torque (Newtons * meters) but the first is
>>> a dot product and the second is a cross product. Therefore,
>>> technically the respective units are Newtons dot meters (Work) and
>>> Newtons cross meters (Torque) so they are not the same.
>>
>> But dividing either by time gives power.
>>
>> In what way is rotational power different from linear power?
>
>dot product is scalar
>
>cross product is vector
>
>power is scalar,

Agreed.

So is time, as I use it.

So how does a vector (torque) divided by a scalar (time) become a
scalar (power)?

>like voltage.

Isn't voltage a vector? It has magnitude and direction.

Current is a vector.

Power is V dot I, with cos(theta) being the power factor.

>>
>>
>>> I just now realized this. That one has nagged me for a while too -
>>> lol.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> See you at the show trials - lol.
>
>bring torches and pitchforks for the Blame Assignment Meeting! (BAM!),

Woo hoo.

It will suck to be those **other** people who deserve blame.

But how will we distinguish our self-righteousness from the type
exhibited by greenies who fly chartered jets to conferences about
banning fossil fuels?

[Serigo]

if you take the magnitude of torque, you loose the direction of torque
so it changed to scalar.

>
>> like voltage.
>
> Isn't voltage a vector? It has magnitude and direction.

it can be, typically is is just a number, a value
it depends upon context,

as a complex voltage in complex plane, same as magnitude and angle. (2-D
vector)

Voltage Field is Vector Field, is E Field, a 3 dimentional vector array
representation

>
> Current is a vector.

same as voltage above

>
> Power is V dot I, with cos(theta) being the power factor.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I just now realized this. That one has nagged me for a while too -
>>>> lol.
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> See you at the show trials - lol.
>>
>> bring torches and pitchforks for the Blame Assignment Meeting! (BAM!),
>
> Woo hoo.
>
> It will suck to be those **other** people who deserve blame.
>
> But how will we distinguish our self-righteousness from the type
> exhibited by greenies who fly chartered jets to conferences about
> banning fossil fuels?

secret handshake ?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 10/24/2016 11:52 PM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> Electric Field strength determines the acceleration a unit charge
> experiences (velocity acquired) per unit distance. It is the analog of
> acceleration in the mechanical formula (F = M * a).

No, that's not correct. The acceleration is related to the electric
field via the constant of proportionality q/m, which clearly varies from
object to object.

Compare this to gravity where gravitational charge (m) and inertial mass
(m) are the same and so the gravitational field does indeed relate
directly to acceleration and does not vary from object to object.

[Serigo]

I think he is talking about a CRT, electron gun, screen voltage, and in
oscilliscopes they use electrostatics to sweep out the field, at least
in the old ones. (for millenials, CRT=>Cathode Ray Tube)

F = ma

qE = ma

a = qE/m

When a charged particle is placed in an uniform electric field, in
absence of all other forces, it will experience an acceleration in the
direction of the field lines.

https://www.miniphysics.com/acceleration-due-to-electric-field.html

[noTthaTguY]

that is just a quandary,
the relation between voltage and dystance of ... some thing -- or
age-of-votingness

> > Note: the units are V/m for Electric Field. V = Voltage m=meter
>
> There is no electric field setting, another evidence in proof that the Voltage is the electric field.
>
> You have been hanging out too much with the physics failures of Moroney and Odd, and your posts are becoming as degenerate as theirs.
>
> AP

[Serigo]

On 10/21/2016 3:28 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, I am rather done with the textbook, but a immense amount of
> polishing needs be done now. And the way I plan to do this polishing
> is by having a commentary talk corner.

> Today for discussion is that I have recently bought a precision
> multimeter which gives Voltage of a very delicate amount. And unlike
> the dial multimeters I was used to in the past, this digital
> multimeter is far superior.
>
> So in the textbook I raise the issue that the Electric Field is phony
> baloney and what replaces that fakery is Voltage.

> So, why is my multimeter reading upwards of .014 volts in ambient
> air. When I press the meter against magnets 0 reading but when I
> measure the air and move the leads about in Ambient Air, I get many
> various readings of voltage, I get .014, then .009 then .005 then
> .012 etc etc. The same happens when I go outside into Nature and the
> ambient air can even go as high as .05 volts.
>
> So, what is happening here? The answer is that the Electric Field is
> phony baloney, but electricity is represented not by a field, but by
> Voltage. So, there never was a Electric Field, and it was always a
> Voltage.

> I suspect Maxwell never realized or understood that fact of physics.
> That the Electric Field was a garbage loser concept, and that Voltage
> was there, true blue.

> Only a illogical person would want to have Voltage exist and on top
> of voltage, want to have a dumb concept of a Electric Field along
> with voltage. A dumb illogical person would want both. Whereas a
> scientist who wants only the truth, the true blue, realizes that
> Voltage is the electric-field.
>
> AP
>

E fields are commonly used in CRTs in Ocilliscopes, TV sets, to
accellerate electrons.

Also in most Vacuum tubes.

I guess they don't know yet, that they are "phony baloney", as you say.
Now what did you replace it with ? so these things can still work ?

[Mahipal]

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 3:06:03 PM UTC-4, Serigo wrote:
> On 10/24/2016 1:43 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:22:47 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:12:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>> (snipped)
>
> >>>> Yes, you can't read too much into the meaning of a unit's dimensions.
> >>>> Force and torque have the same units (kg m^2/s^2) but are definitely not
> >>>> the same thing.

What school gave you a passing grade? Force and torque differ by metres|meters!

> >>>> I believe, but am not sure, that the electric and magnetic fields of a
> >>>> photon are in a constant ratio, and if you divide its electric field
> >>>> strength by its magnetic field strength, you get the velocity of the
> >>>> photon, or c. I'll have to look that up.

I have learned, it's better to look it up before posting about it==anything.
Conclusion: There exist no new thoughts and ideas; just go read their Books|Links!

> >>> For once you are sounding like a normal human, not a subhuman science
> >>> wannabe. So maybe there is hope for you failures of physics, but I
> >>> would not hold my breathe for that to happen.

Subhuman? Seriously? I think you meant to write 'your failures' not ...youKnow.
O wait... that 'you' is a jab at all of us who took a physics class. Good one!

> >> Well, hold on, I skimmed the above and did not recognize your (kg
> >> m^2/s^2) immediately. So, when is acceleration that of m^2/s^2, when it
> >> is m/s^2
> >
> > I never said acceleration was m^2/s^2. I never even mentioned acceleration.
> > I was talking about torque and energy. Typo: I wrote force when I should
> > have written energy.

Can relate, I too hate it when I make extreme typos that big Big BIG!

> >> Again, you fail
> >
> > The failure (in this case, to read correctly) is all yours.
>
> I have submitted this fail, failure to the Physics Fail Review Board,
> which consists of all people who post in sci.physics.
>
> We will hold a blame assignment meeting, and assign blame thusly.
>
> Thus, The Great Pooba in the Sky (or all posters in sci.physics) is
> Judge, not any one mear mortal aposting in sp

A-posting? Ok, I must feel forced to intervene here! Help me... Me... ME...

There is {mere, mear, amir, ..., and whatever rhymes with her sex(y) rear}.
M(y) pal Amir daily says/saying to himself: A mere mortal am I... Amir?!
Mahipal: Wait a mere Amir... mere is mere==mine as in O mere dil ke chain...?!

Here, no need for you to go out of your way and type. You are welcome:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=O+mere+dil+ke+chain What does it mean?!

> [except for commonlly known physics, math, ee knowledge immediatly
> verifyable by single searches]
>
> (mis-speltings are not a blamable item)

I suspect Usenet is a text-based-words-playing medium Medium MEDIUM, rare.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”

[Wally W.]

It seems contrived.

Why don't we take the magnitude of a velocity, divide it by time, and
come up with a scalar version of acceleration (as speed is a scalar
version of velocity) by losing the direction of the velocity?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 10/25/2016 8:03 AM, Wally W. wrote:

>> Technically Work (W = F dot s) might be construed to have the same
>> >units (Newtons * meters) as Torque (Newtons * meters) but the first is
>> >a dot product and the second is a cross product. Therefore,
>> >technically the respective units are Newtons dot meters (Work) and
>> >Newtons cross meters (Torque) so they are not the same.
> But dividing either by time gives power.
>
> In what way is rotational power different from linear power?
>
>

I don't think if you divide torque by time you get power. Torque divided
by time is a vector quantity, power is a scalar quantity.

[Michael Moroney]

Torque time rotation rate equals power. Motorheads may know that (in
English units) engine horsepower = torque * RPM/5252. In SI units,
rotation rate (angular velocity) has units of 1/sec or omega/sec.
Rotation rate or angular velocity is a vector (pseudovector) and
the power must be the dot product of torque and angular velocity.

[Wally W.]

Aha.
Thanks.

[noTthaTguY]

viz the secondpoweer of the speed of light,
i areal acceleration, so to say