Re: The extraordinary genius of Albert Einstein (DOC) | ScienceDump

[Shmuel Metz]

In <Yinwr.286010$Bx1....@fx11.am4>, on 05/27/2012
at 11:25 AM, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> said:

>Much of the problem is the term "electromagnetic" -- there are
>electric waves and magnetic waves, each dependent on the other
>and phase shifted 90 degrees, but there are no electromagnetic
>waves.

That's nonsense; if they satisfy Maxwell's Equations then they behave
like a single wave.

>He says light is a wave and therefore needs a medium, an d if it
>were one wave it would need a medium,

No, it wouldn't, although a disturbance in a medium might be easier to
visualize.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 09:34:09 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>In <Yinwr.286010$Bx1....@fx11.am4>, on 05/27/2012
> at 11:25 AM, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> said:
>
>>Much of the problem is the term "electromagnetic" -- there are
>>electric waves and magnetic waves, each dependent on the other
>>and phase shifted 90 degrees, but there are no electromagnetic
>>waves.
>
>That's nonsense; if they satisfy Maxwell's Equations then they behave
>like a single wave.

...and to what is their speed relative?

>>He says light is a wave and therefore needs a medium, an d if it
>>were one wave it would need a medium,
>
>No, it wouldn't, although a disturbance in a medium might be easier to
>visualize.

Why would it?

[Salmon Egg]

In article <4fc22d51$23$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net>,

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

> That's nonsense; if they satisfy Maxwell's Equations then they behave
> like a single wave.

Of course it is. You have to take into account that often the most
vehement posters are the "wrongest."

--

Sam

Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.

[Szczepan Bialek]

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> napisał w
wiadomości news:4fc22d51$23$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net...

> In <Yinwr.286010$Bx1....@fx11.am4>, on 05/27/2012
> at 11:25 AM, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> said:
>
>>Much of the problem is the term "electromagnetic" -- there are
>>electric waves and magnetic waves, each dependent on the other
>>and phase shifted 90 degrees, but there are no electromagnetic
>>waves.
>
> That's nonsense; if they satisfy Maxwell's Equations then they behave
> like a single wave.
>
>>He says light is a wave and therefore needs a medium, an d if it
>>were one wave it would need a medium,
>
> No, it wouldn't, although a disturbance in a medium might be easier to
> visualize.

For L. Lorenz the light is the electron waves:
""In 1867 Lorenz wrote: " Ludvig Valentin Lorenz, "On the identity of the
vibrations of light with
electrical currents," Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 34, 1867, p. 287-301"

http://books.google.pl/books?id=caJdQfAKHtMC&hl=pl&pg=RA1-PA287#v=onepage&q&f=false

On p. 301 he wrote:
"The present general opinion regards light as consisting of backward and
forward motions of particles of aether."
If this were the case the electrical current would be the progressive motion
of the aether in the direction of the electrical current."

In today's words: "Light is the oscillatory flow of electrons".
S*

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics.electromag Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:

> For L. Lorenz the light is the electron waves:
> ""In 1867 Lorenz wrote: " Ludvig Valentin Lorenz, "On the identity of the
> vibrations of light with
> electrical currents," Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 34, 1867, p. 287-301"
>
> http://books.google.pl/books?id=caJdQfAKHtMC&hl=pl&pg=RA1-PA287#v=onepage&q&f=false
>
> On p. 301 he wrote:
> "The present general opinion regards light as consisting of backward and
> forward motions of particles of aether."
> If this were the case the electrical current would be the progressive motion
> of the aether in the direction of the electrical current."
>
> In today's words: "Light is the oscillatory flow of electrons".
> S*

The key phrase here is "The present general opinion...", which has changed
a significantly in the 145 years since this was written.

You are a babbling idiot that will never be able to understand that many
of the original theories of electromagnetics of 150 years ago have proved
to be flat out wrong.

[Szczepan Bialek]

<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:c9ef99-...@mail.specsol.com...

All theories of electromagnetics have no physicasl sense. The analogy E-H is
usefull only in engineering.
In physics are electrodynamics.
S*

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci

Yet more babbling, ignorant, nonsense.

You are a babbling idiot that will never be able to understand that many
of the original theories of electromagnetics of 150 years ago have proved
to be flat out wrong.

The terms "electrodynamics" and "electromagnetics" both mean the same thing,
the more modern term being "electromagnetics".


You are an idiot.

[Don Kelly]

In defense of Bialek- there is a language barrier.
And, yes, one can consider only "electrodynamics" in considering the
forces between moving charges and one can derive B from such
considerations- something which he dismisses in favor of babbling and
aether .


However, except in a limited number of cases, we haven't any information
about the charges or their velocity so that it is not nice to deal with
the cross product of a cross product of unknowns, it is simpler to
simply call one cross product "B" or magnetic flux density as this is a
quantity which can be observed and measured. I have an old (engineering
"electromechanical energy conversion") text, which uses a page to deal
with this relationship and derivation of this then gets on with using B
and H etc-quantities that are measurable and useful.
By the way, the "analogy" that he refers to is not particularly useful
in engineering.



--
Don Kelly
cross out to reply

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Don Kelly <dh...@shawcross.ca> wrote:
> On 30/05/2012 10:18 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>> Yet more babbling, ignorant, nonsense.
>>
>> You are a babbling idiot that will never be able to understand that many
>> of the original theories of electromagnetics of 150 years ago have proved
>> to be flat out wrong.
>>
>> The terms "electrodynamics" and "electromagnetics" both mean the same thing,
>> the more modern term being "electromagnetics".
>>
>>
>> You are an idiot.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> In defense of Bialek- there is a language barrier.

Yeah, the language barrier being he is unable to understand anything in
any language no matter how many times he has been told and no matter
how many years he has been told and no matter how many references he
has been given.

This gibbering idiot has been spouting his nonsense for years now both
on sci.physics.electromag and rec.radio.amateur.antenna and no matter
how many times and how many people tell him he is full of crap, he
keeps on repeating the same old crap.

He is incapable of learning anything even if spoon fed in the simplest
of language.

His only value on USENET is as comic relief and a target of derision.

[bjacoby]

On 5/30/2012 6:57 PM, Don Kelly wrote:

> However, except in a limited number of cases, we haven't any information
> about the charges or their velocity so that it is not nice to deal with
> the cross product of a cross product of unknowns, it is simpler to
> simply call one cross product "B" or magnetic flux density as this is a
> quantity which can be observed and measured. I have an old (engineering
> "electromechanical energy conversion") text, which uses a page to deal
> with this relationship and derivation of this then gets on with using B
> and H etc-quantities that are measurable and useful.
> By the way, the "analogy" that he refers to is not particularly useful
> in engineering.

Actually, analogs can have a certain utility. Remember back when there
was a big argument over which was "best" analog or digital computing? Of
course the geeks won, and now everyone assumes that digital is it. Of
course that is also wrong. One can easily build an analog Hankel
transform computer that performs 2D transforms at the speed of light
that the fastest super computer would take hours if not days to do.


But obviously it's very specialized. The problem being that humans
always want to force all solutions into what they know best rather than
what fits the problem best. When your only tool is a hammer all problems
look like nails.

[Szczepan Bialek]

"Don Kelly" <dh...@shawcross.ca> napisal w wiadomosci
news:jBxxr.47892$ax3....@newsfe05.iad...

> On 30/05/2012 10:18 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Szczepan Bialek<sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>

>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> napisal w wiadomosci
>>> news:c9ef99-...@mail.specsol.com...

>>>>>
>>>>> In today's words: "Light is the oscillatory flow of electrons".
>>>

>>> All theories of electromagnetics have no physicasl sense. The analogy
>>> E-H is
>>> usefull only in engineering.
>>> In physics are electrodynamics.
>>> S*
>>
>> Yet more babbling, ignorant, nonsense.
>>
>>

>> The terms "electrodynamics" and "electromagnetics" both mean the same
>> thing,
>> the more modern term being "electromagnetics".
>>

> In defense of Bialek- there is a language barrier.
> And, yes, one can consider only "electrodynamics" in considering the
> forces between moving charges and one can derive B from such
> considerations- something which he dismisses in favor of babbling and
> aether .
>
>
> However, except in a limited number of cases, we haven't any information
> about the charges or their velocity so that it is not nice to deal with
> the cross product of a cross product of unknowns,

In physics are the two methods:
The charge method and the field method.

> it is simpler to simply call one cross product "B" or magnetic flux
> density as this is a quantity which can be observed and measured. I have
> an old (engineering "electromechanical energy conversion") text, which
> uses a page to deal with this relationship and derivation of this then
> gets on with using B and H etc-quantities that are measurable and useful.
> By the way, the "analogy" that he refers to is not particularly useful in
> engineering.

In physics is absolutelly useless.
For example, Dirac never mentioned EM and Heaviside (father of EM).
S*

[Don Kelly]

Yes- There are many analogs which are useful- for example, analysis of
mechanical and acoustic systems in terms of electric circuit analysis.
Analogues are great for visualization- only where they fit and one must
know the limits of the fit. In the above cases, the equations are
essentially the same.

Analogue computers are another thing

Ive worked with them- I like them for the ability to play with
parameters and get the results- far more fun than digital computers as
one can twitch a parameter and immediately see the result. In practice,
they are basically op-amps set up to sum and integrate. In complex
problems you are limited by the op-amps available and the setup can be a
real pain in the ass. New problem but want to keep the old one?- need to
store the wiring board of the old problem and set up another. I have
used conductive paper to evaluate fields (2D) or electrolytic tanks
(3D)- cumbersome and a lot of drawing of equipotentials and flow lines
using what was called "curvilinear squares" I have also used a Network
analyser for power system load flow and stability studies(and designed a
way to automate this on one such device). The advantage was that you
thought about what you were doing. The disadvantage was that a lot of
equipment and very many man hours were required for the setup and
analysis of one system as well as the limitations of such systems.
Digital methods now allow the solution of problems beyond the scope of
the largest of the analogue machines- and do as much or more than these
devices could do, in a fraction of the time, using a reasonably good
home computer. Analogue computers for situations as encountered now,
involving thousands of simultaneous non- linear equations and possibly
throwing in a few hundred non-linear DEQ's, just can't cope in terms of
time and cost. This was realized 60 years ago in the power industry. The
geeks won because one cando much more at far less cost in $ and time.

[bjacoby]

On 5/31/2012 11:24 PM, Don Kelly wrote:
> On 30/05/2012 10:08 PM, bjacoby wrote:

> I have used conductive paper to evaluate fields (2D) or electrolytic tanks
> (3D)- cumbersome and a lot of drawing of equipotentials and flow lines
> using what was called "curvilinear squares"

Wow! Somebody who as actually used "teledeltos paper"! (and those hosed
tanks!)

> Digital methods now allow the solution of problems beyond the scope of
> the largest of the analogue machines- and do as much or more than these
> devices could do, in a fraction of the time, using a reasonably good
> home computer. Analogue computers for situations as encountered now,
> involving thousands of simultaneous non- linear equations and possibly
> throwing in a few hundred non-linear DEQ's, just can't cope in terms of
> time and cost. This was realized 60 years ago in the power industry. The
> geeks won because one cando much more at far less cost in $ and time.

Actually the supposed "battle" between analog and digital computing
really wasn't real as the analog as a general method really was not
suitable. But it is amazing that the level that modern digital
computing has been taken to. An intel I7 Sandy bridge processor has 22nm
process, nearly 4 Ghz clock speed (has been overclocked to 7 GHz), does
about 70 Gigaflops (floating point operations) per second. Note that the
Cray 1 super computers used for Atomic bomb calculations and weather
prediction only did 80 megaflops and later Cray II was only 1.9 Gigaflop
at top speed. Your "home" computer is quite the calculation powerhouse.
(in spite of the ability of Windoze bloatware to bring the world's
fastest CPU to it's knees)

But that still doesn't clinch superiority over analog. Hyper complex
evaluations still are slow. Especially true of things like images with
lots of data and complex transforms. I recall havoc being created on a
project to recognize address location on packages. There were dual
projects one analog one digital. Digital folks were celebrating that
they FINALLY got an address position recognized in 20 minutes! We were
doing it as fast as you could move them past the camera. Since digital
was a "favorite son" approach many people were NOT happy with success! :-)

Many things lend themselves to analog computing (usually we are talking
optical here, not motorized multiplier pots!). Especially things like
images, antennas or other things with optical analogs and complex
transforms needed.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

is a photon considered to be one cycle,
one period of a wave in the Fourier sense of it?

> a specific number of photons.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:58:02 -0700 (PDT), 1treePetrifiedForestLane
<Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>is a photon considered to be one cycle,
>one period of a wave in the Fourier sense of it?

rubbish

[bjacoby]

Well actually, I was just going to say "no", but then I traced back and
found the original post came from Andro! Hence, "rubbish" is a much
better answer!

[Salmon Egg]

In article
<c288cf8e-a0ec-4d2a...@st3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

NO. If that is not enough, it is that property of light that causes
somethin to happen at a localized spot in a field of relatively low
energy concentration--at least until the event occurs.