Induction: Aetherists lend me a hand!
Benj
Electromagnetic Induction? How does it work?
OK. I know you all want a chance to be "smarter than Einstein" and I,
like you, believe in the holy luminiferous aether. And I believe that
through aether theory shall come that long-sought "theory of
everything", but we are far from that point now.
So here is where I need help. Let us start with something basic and
simple: Electromagnetic Induction. I'm trying to develop an Aether
model to 'explain" this phenomena.
Here's what I know: A current element in one straight wire that has
either an increasing or decreasing current will produce E fields about
that source that will induce currents in other wires. The induced
currents will be either parallel or anti-parallel to the source
current. The Induced current falls off by 1/distance from the source
current. We know that the induction is uniform in all directions about
the source current.
We know that the induction is NOT produced by a B field from the
source current.This is because induction occurs in regions of zero B,
self-induction occurs in a straight wire while Biot-Savart says that B
from a current element is zero on it's axis. And also because while B
is caused by the source current there is not a causal relation between
the retarded B and the electrokinetic E field that forces the induced
currents.
We know that the relationship between the source current and induced
current is causal, but the source current ALSO causes B and A though
neither are causal to E. Hence, the question that needs to be
modeled, is what kind of "aether stress" would produce this induction?
If it is not B nor A then what kind of "model" can we imagine that
would produce the parallel electrokinetic E field that generates
induction? What kind of "stress" in the Aether can we imagine that
does this?
Anyone?
PS. If non-aetherists wish to comment, you are free to imagine these
effects taking place by stresses in "nothing at all".
Sue...
> Electromagnetic Induction? How does it work?
>
> OK. I know you all want a chance to be "smarter than Einstein" and I,
> like you, believe in the holy luminiferous aether. And I believe that
> through aether theory shall come that long-sought "theory of
> everything", but we are far from that point now.
>
> So here is where I need help. Let us start with something basic and
> simple: Electromagnetic Induction. I'm trying to develop an Aether
> model to 'explain" this phenomena.
Steal one instead. Stand on the shoulders of others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
>
> Here's what I know: A current element in one straight wire that has
> either an increasing or decreasing current will produce E fields about
> that source that will induce currents in other wires. The induced
> currents will be either parallel or anti-parallel to the source
> current. The Induced current falls off by 1/distance from the source
> current. We know that the induction is uniform in all directions about
> the source current.
The Coulomb fields are isotropic. The induced fields are shaped
by a line connecting the superpositioned charges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applications
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/magnetostatics/index.htm
>
> We know that the induction is NOT produced by a B field from the
> source current.This is because induction occurs in regions of zero B,
> self-induction occurs in a straight wire while Biot-Savart says that B
> from a current element is zero on it's axis. And also because while B
> is caused by the source current there is not a causal relation between
> the retarded B and the electrokinetic E field that forces the induced
> currents.
>
> We know that the relationship between the source current and induced
> current is causal, but the source current ALSO causes B and A though
> neither are causal to E. Hence, the question that needs to be
> modeled, is what kind of "aether stress" would produce this induction?
> If it is not B nor A then what kind of "model" can we imagine that
> would produce the parallel electrokinetic E field that generates
> induction? What kind of "stress" in the Aether can we imagine that
> does this?
The ~stress~ is pushing positive charges away while pulling
negative charges toward the source. It is a dielectric
effect with no mechanical equivalent.
Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html
Propagation in a conductor
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node102.html
>
> Anyone?
>
> PS. If non-aetherists wish to comment, you are free to imagine these
> effects taking place by stresses in "nothing at all".
What is a non-aetherist ? AEther your equations
work or they don't.
Sue...
Uncle Al
>
> Electromagnetic Induction? How does it work?
<http://www.ieee-virtual-museum.org/media/vteMZRuVyAd9.jpg>
<http://www.physics.hmc.edu/courses/Ph51/maxwell.gif>
Faraday's law
<http://www.cs.umbc.edu/~squire/images/maxwell1.jpg>
<http://www.physics.udel.edu/~watson/phys208/formulas/maxwell.gif>
One presumes you are illiterate so the above are pictures. Maxwell's
equations are covariant right out of the box.
> OK. I know you all want a chance to be "smarter than Einstein" and I,
> like you, believe in the holy luminiferous aether.
[snip rest of crap]
1) No aether
http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
<http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
2) No Lorentz violation
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
3) Fucking imbecile
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
hhc...@yahoo.com
>
> OK. I know you all want a chance to be "smarter than Einstein" and I,
> like you, believe in the holy luminiferous aether. And I believe that
> through aether theory shall come that long-sought "theory of
> everything", but we are far from that point now.
>
> So here is where I need help. Let us start with something basic and
> simple: Electromagnetic Induction. I'm trying to develop an Aether
> model to 'explain" this phenomena.
This is likely a good place to begin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday's_law_of_induction
After that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations
As you will note, no "Aether" is required nor desired.
Note also that physics explains 'how' things work, but not 'why'.
'Why' is the concern of theology.
Harry C.
Szczepan Bialek
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net>wrote
news:ce437eaa-3871-4990...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Electromagnetic Induction? How does it work?
>
> from a current element is zero on it's axis.
Biot-Savart use the hydraulic analogy.
Use the gas analogy and all will be clear.
S*
Benj
> This is likely a good place to begin:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday's_law_of_induction
>
> After that:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations
>
> As you will note, no "Aether" is required nor desired.
>
> Note also that physics explains 'how' things work, but not 'why'.
> 'Why' is the concern of theology.
Excuse me responders. I appreciate your responses but you don't quite
have the idea here. You are all responding as if quoting some
mathematical equations is a MODEL for the action. It is not. Math is
NOT reality. Math isn't even a MODEL for reality. And math is
certainly NOT an "explanation" of anything. It only show a certain
correspondence between man-made mathematical systems and some observed
data. They are not the same or equivalent.
So barfing out Maxwells equations and saying that "explains it all" is
nonsense. In fact, you have failed to read what I wrote because most
of you are barfing maxwell's equations in non-causal form which means
that they don't even apply as MATH let alone as reality! Didn't you
guys get the part about how a B field or an A field is NOT causal to
the induced electrokinetic field?
So here' s the question again. What kind of physical phenomena starts
with a current in a given direction and then induces Electric Fields
in the space about that current that are PARALLEL to it and
furthermore fall off in ALL directions as 1/distance from the source
current. As someone noted Coulomb forces are spherical about the
charge. But forces are directed RADIALLY not parallel to the source.
And of course they do not depend upon the rate of change of the
source.
Again. Personally, I find the whole mechanism of induction weird. It
depends on the rate of change of the source. It is 1/r and spherical
about the source. BUT at the same time the induced forces are parallel
(or anti-parallel) to the source. What kind of MODEL (not equations)
could explain such a thing? And note the model of the source current
causing a magnetic field which causes the induction or an vector
magnetic potential that causes the induction forces is clearly WRONG!
The causality relations Between B or A and E are not there. Hint: a
changing B does not cause E and a changing E does not cause B!
Benj
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net>wrotenews:ce437eaa-3871-4990...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Hey S*! You are the only one answering the question properly!
I am interested in your gas-analogy model. I had read what you posted
before about gas analogy with regard to heavy currents in conductors
and found it very interesting! But I must admit I don't understand it.
Therefore tell us more about how a gas-analogy Biot-Savart law would
work!
benj
Aetherist
Well perhaps Maxwell himself can help you, see:
http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf
This also has visual aids,
http://www.cft.edu.pl/~birula/publ/VortEM.pdf
Cheers,
hhc...@yahoo.com
> On Aug 5, 1:10 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > This is likely a good place to begin:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday's_law_of_induction
>
> > After that:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations
>
> > As you will note, no "Aether" is required nor desired.
>
> > Note also that physics explains 'how' things work, but not 'why'.
> > 'Why' is the concern of theology.
>
> Excuse me responders. I appreciate your responses but you don't quite
> have the idea here. You are all responding as if quoting some
> mathematical equations is a MODEL for the action. It is not. Math is
> NOT reality. Math isn't even a MODEL for reality. And math is
> certainly NOT an "explanation" of anything. It only show a certain
> correspondence between man-made mathematical systems and some observed
> data. They are not the same or equivalent.
Then how would you descibe such a model, except by using the language
of mathematics? Would you prefer a bunch of mindless arm waving, that
that cannot make any predictable results nor be subject to
experimental tests?
> So barfing out Maxwells equations and saying that "explains it all" is
> nonsense. In fact, you have failed to read what I wrote because most
> of you are barfing maxwell's equations in non-causal form which means
> that they don't even apply as MATH let alone as reality!
Hate to tell you this my young, ignorant friend, but analytical
results with predictable and measirable consequences is what science
is all about. If you believe otherwise, you are posting in the wrong
newsgroup.
The simple fact is that if you cannot calaibrate your model in
meaningful parameters capable of being measured, and accompany them
with some sort of a relationship (mathematical or otherwise) that can
be employed to numerically make meaningful predictions of results,
then you don't have any model at all.
Without this, all that you will have is a bit of meaningless words and
arm waving, similiar to that of one of today's presidential
candidates. It will fool some people into believing that you know
what you are talking about, but the wind will go out of your sails
once people realize that all you are selling is hot air, which cannot
put food on anyone's dinner table!
If you cannot hack the details or math required in science, then for
heavens's sake get you lazy ass out of the scientific kitchen!
Harry C.
Benj
> >The causality relations Between B or A and E are not there. Hint: a
> >changing B does not cause E and a changing E does not cause B!
>
> Well perhaps Maxwell himself can help you, see:
>
> http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf
>
> This also has visual aids,
>
> http://www.cft.edu.pl/~birula/publ/VortEM.pdf
>
> Cheers,
YES! The vortex model is a kind of answer here! Very interesting
papers and ideas even though they are separated in time by a large
value! A current as a source of "vortexes" which as Maxwell noted can
create a "tension" or "flux line" along the axis of rotation can also
be spewed into space in a spherical "explosion": that mimics the
mathematics of Induction. However if the axes of the vortices are all
parallel, it "explains" the unitary direction of the resultant E
field!
VERY interesting hint!
Obviously most of the people posting here don't have a clue what we
are talking about!
Thanks for the hint!
Benj
> Then how would you descibe such a model, except by using the language
> of mathematics? Would you prefer a bunch of mindless arm waving, that
> that cannot make any predictable results nor be subject to
> experimental tests?
I prefer something called "natural philosophy". It is where the
understanding of phenomena comes through the creation of "models" that
make the phenomena "reasonable". You idea that somehow mathematics is
a "model" is nonsense. Mathematics are a human-created systems and
those systems can be created ANY self-consistent way we choose! Hence
you call "ideas" like "the properties of nothing at all" or "particles
existing or not existing depending upon if we are thinking about them"
or "a changing B field creates an E field and a changing E field
creates a B field" a "model" subject to "predictable results".
Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. Your whole
physics is BASED upon the "unpredictability of results"! Saying that
on average you know the "statistics" so you therefore know
"everything" about the subject is like saying you know where the next
hit is going to land because you know a players batting average.
Idiot!
> > So barfing out Maxwells equations and saying that "explains it all" is
> > nonsense. In fact, you have failed to read what I wrote because most
> > of you are barfing maxwell's equations in non-causal form which means
> > that they don't even apply as MATH let alone as reality!
>
> Hate to tell you this my young, ignorant friend, but analytical
> results with predictable and measirable consequences is what science
> is all about. If you believe otherwise, you are posting in the wrong
> newsgroup.
Hate to tell you my old omniscient friend, but mathematics is a MAN
MADE system and can be put together any way you like so long as you
are self-consistent! While in many cases mathematical systems seem to
mimic reality which allows one to use mathematics to make predictions
of phenomena that turn out true, the mathematics does not give one
UNDERSTANDING. So do parallel lines meet at infinity or do they not
meet there? Which one does math "explain" as the true one? Oh wait!
Parallel lines BOTH meet at infinity as well as NEVER MEET ever! The
"physics" of it simply has to recognize the fact that two mutually
exclusive things are always true under the right conditions! That is
how screwed up your thinking is! You think that these kind of "arm-
waving explanations" make sense in some manner! They do not. Hence the
importance of "natural philosophy".
PhD stands for "doctor of philosophy" and the "philosophy" referred to
happens to be "natural philosophy"!
I presume that wikipedia is about as close as you get to ever seeing
an advanced degree in person.
> The simple fact is that if you cannot calaibrate your model in
> meaningful parameters capable of being measured, and accompany them
> with some sort of a relationship (mathematical or otherwise) that can
> be employed to numerically make meaningful predictions of results,
> then you don't have any model at all.
And if all you can do is point to mathematics and say, "see the math
say that two mutually exclusive things are both true", then you have
nothing but a bunch of insane ramblings. Mathematics do indeed
quantify and "calibrate" a model but they are NOT (repeat NOT) the
model! So yes, the role of mathematics is as you say valid, but with
out any logical framework upon which to hang the math, all you have is
imaginary worlds which can be anything you say they are. Sure fiction
is fun, but then you are posting in the wrong newsgroup. Try
cosmology.
> Without this, all that you will have is a bit of meaningless words and
> arm waving, similiar to that of one of today's presidential
> candidates. It will fool some people into believing that you know
> what you are talking about, but the wind will go out of your sails
> once people realize that all you are selling is hot air, which cannot
> put food on anyone's dinner table!
Why do I suspect I've put more food on my table creating practical
applications of scientific models than you have with your
presentations of mathematics as some kind of "ultimate truth". In
case you never noticed, "real" mathematicians eschew anything that is
"applied" and consider it a badge of honor to sell "hot air". I
presume that also is you.
> If you cannot hack the details or math required in science, then for
> heavens's sake get you lazy ass out of the scientific kitchen!
I can "hack" BOTH the details and the "math" required by science. You
apparently can only hack the math.
So if you really want to spend your life in a presidential candidate's
imaginary dreamworld then for heaven's sake go get a job teaching
mathematics somewhere and you'll never have to understand how anything
"works" again. Oh wait! You probably already do have that job!
Moron.
Unfortunately, none of this BS by you or me is the subject of this
thread so how about we stow it?
Benj
> One presumes you are illiterate so the above are pictures. Maxwell's
> equations are covariant right out of the box.
Yes they are. So? You saying that they can't be then written in non-
causal form? And in fact are usually presented not only as an
incomplete set (hence can't "explain" anything) but also in that non-
causal form. Garbage in = Garbage out.
<Snip and severely edit yet another of uncle Al's canned bullshit
responses that we've all seen here thousands of times>
Hey Unc. You need to update your spew. Some of your reference URLs
don't work anymore! You could actually try going back to thinking
again.
> 1) No aether
> 2) No Lorentz violation
> 3) Fucking imbecile
Yawn. Heard it all before a thousand times.
Nothing to see here. Keep moving along....
hhc...@yahoo.com
> On Aug 5, 10:36 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Then how would you descibe such a model, except by using the language
> > of mathematics? Would you prefer a bunch of mindless arm waving, that
> > that cannot make any predictable results nor be subject to
> > experimental tests?
>
> I prefer something called "natural philosophy". It is where the
> understanding of phenomena comes through the creation of "models" that
> make the phenomena "reasonable". You idea that somehow mathematics is
> a "model" is nonsense.
If you cannot deal with even the verbal description of induction
priciples, and cannot grasp they concepts in mathematical descriptive
terminology, then how will you possibly ever be able to describe to
anyone what even your 'Aether' theory is, or what makes it correct and
predictive?
If it cannot be employed to make useful, measurable predictions, then
you are only preaching imaginary bullshit!
Fools revel in in these types of speculation simply because they are
too lazy or stupid to learn even scientific basics.
Harry C.
hhc...@yahoo.com
ROFL!
Never give up you day job mopping floors at Burger King!
Harry C.
Szczepan Bialek
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote
news:f7ab135d-02af-474f...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 5, 2:02 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Benj"
> <bjac...@iwaynet.net>wrotenews:ce437eaa-3871-4990...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > Electromagnetic Induction? How does it work?
>
> > self-induction occurs in a straight wire while Biot-Savart says that B
> > from a current element is zero on it's axis.
>
> Biot-Savart use the hydraulic analogy.
> Use the gas analogy and all will be clear.
> S*
Hey S*! You are the only one answering the question properly!
I am interested in your gas-analogy model.
It is not mine. Everybody knows that in conductors is the electron gas. As
such it is compressible. So oscillating current produces alternate charge
density.
> I had read what you posted before about gas analogy with regard to heavy
> currents in conductors
>and found it very interesting! But I must admit I don't understand it.
>Therefore tell us more about how a gas-analogy Biot-Savart law would work!
Biot-Savard is from fluid dynamics. I do not know if now are ready math in
gas dynamics. Maybe is it too late for such. Now is time of computers
models.
Of course we do not need magnetic field. The alternate charge density
produce an alternate electric field.
In electrostatics charged body moves electrons in an adjacent conductor. In
electrdynamics the alternate charge density in one conductor produces the
oscillating current in the other.
The fluid dynamics models are a "pieces to teach".
S*
Benj
> Fools revel in in these types of speculation simply because they are
> too lazy or stupid to learn even scientific basics.
>
> Harry C.
Yawn. One more teenager who thinks he knows it all.
Nothing significant here. Keep moving along...
Benj
> If it cannot be employed to make useful, measurable predictions, then
> you are only preaching imaginary bullshit!
Lessee. Which "theory" is better? Keplerian analytic geometry or the
previous system of epicycles? Which one has the better math? Which one
gives the "correct" answer? What is it that makes one system "better"
than the other?
Hint: Both systems are WRONG! The stability of the solar system has
never been shown mathematically. And BOTH give equally accurate
answers for practical problems. The difference between them lies in
the insight of the simplicity of one POINT OF VIEW over the other.
So. What is a "point of view"? Duh. It's a "model". Get it? Yeah, I
thought not.
God I pray that you are not out there drumming your moronic philosophy
into young pliable minds!
Please! Say it ain't so!
> Fools revel in in these types of speculation simply because they are
> too lazy or stupid to learn even scientific basics.
Right, sure. Parroting establishment nonsense really takes a LOT of
work and a LOT of intelligence! Hint: the thing you seem to be
missing here is called "thinking for yourself" or just thinking at
all!
You are wasting everyone's time here.
Benj
> >Therefore tell us more about how a gas-analogy Biot-Savart law would work!
>
> Biot-Savard is from fluid dynamics. I do not know if now are ready math in
> gas dynamics. Maybe is it too late for such. Now is time of computers
> models.
Hey, it's never too late. But yes, I know what you mean about computer
models (or more exactly numerical approximations) And I do understand
how Biot-Savart (And Maxwell, of course) are all fluid models. I"m not
sure what the change to gas dynamics from a perfect fluid does to
"open up" theory.
> Of course we do not need magnetic field. The alternate charge density
> produce an alternate electric field.
Yes, magnetic field is not needed in fact CANNOT be used because it's
not causal to the E field. However, I can see how alternate charge
density can produce alternate electric fields. And presumably that
"might" be transmitted over a distance to produce the E fields of
Induction. Exactly how, though isn't clear to me, but I did love the
"vortex" suggestions as one way of explaining the parallel rather than
radial forces produced.
> In electrostatics charged body moves electrons in an adjacent conductor. In
> electrdynamics the alternate charge density in one conductor produces the
> oscillating current in the other.
But of course the forces of induction are not alternating (except very
long term) so one wonders how that might produce induction. I might
suggest, however, that a rotating vortex does indeed project an
"alternation" when viewed from the side. Perhaps there is something of
value there?
> The fluid dynamics models are a "pieces to teach".
Of course one serious problem with "aether theory" is that the
proposed properties of the luminiferous aether are so extreme that any
classification into "fluid dynamics" or "gas dynamics" or "vibrations
in solids" doesn't seem possible because they ALL seem to apply!
Interesting!
Aetherist
That's not really true, however most don't give a hoot about trying
to visualize such things. The mathematics is ALL that matters.
I think its left brain - right brain thing. Right brain types need to
visualize to own it. Tesla and Faraday are examples of these types.
You still do need the math to quantify things (although Tesla and
Faraday did wonders without it).
Regards
>
>Thanks for the hint!
Szczepan Bialek
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote
news:d4d41022-aaa8-4a38...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 6, 12:34 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> >Therefore tell us more about how a gas-analogy Biot-Savart law would
> >work!
>
> Biot-Savard is from fluid dynamics. I do not know if now are ready math in
> gas dynamics. Maybe is it too late for such. Now is time of computers
> models.
Hey, it's never too late. But yes, I know what you mean about computer
models (or more exactly numerical approximations) And I do understand
how Biot-Savart (And Maxwell, of course) are all fluid models. I"m not
sure what the change to gas dynamics from a perfect fluid does to
"open up" theory.
After discovery of electrons this change is necessary. Industry use the gas
analogy.
> Of course we do not need magnetic field. The alternate charge density
> produce an alternate electric field.
Yes, magnetic field is not needed in fact CANNOT be used because it's
not causal to the E field. However, I can see how alternate charge
density can produce alternate electric fields. And presumably that
"might" be transmitted over a distance to produce the E fields of
Induction. Exactly how, though isn't clear to me, but I did love the
"vortex" suggestions as one way of explaining the parallel rather than
radial forces produced.
The vortex and the idle gear are not simple. In nature all is simple.
>> In electrostatics charged body moves electrons in an adjacent conductor.
>> In
> electrdynamics the alternate charge density in one conductor produces the
> oscillating current in the other.
>But of course the forces of induction are not alternating (except very
long term) so one wonders how that might produce induction. I might
suggest, however, that a rotating vortex does indeed project an
"alternation" when viewed from the side. Perhaps there is something of
value there?
Must be more simple.
>> The fluid dynamics models are a "pieces to teach".
>Of course one serious problem with "aether theory" is that the
proposed properties of the luminiferous aether are so extreme that any
classification into "fluid dynamics" or "gas dynamics" or "vibrations
in solids" doesn't seem possible because they ALL seem to apply!
We must use the actual knowledge about waves (transverse are only in math).
>Interesting!
The most interesting is why electrons prefer charged body than vacuum.
S*
Benj
> > VERY interesting hint!
> > Obviously most of the people posting here don't have a clue what we
> > are talking about!
>
> That's not really true, however most don't give a hoot about trying
> to visualize such things. The mathematics is ALL that matters.
Are you saying that they do know what we are talking about but are
pretending to not have a clue for their own purposes? Yeah, could be.
Their posts clearly are not following the discussion, however.
Are you saying "mathematics is all that matters" or are you saying
"mathematics is all that matters TO THEM"!
I'd accept the latter as true.
> I think its left brain - right brain thing. Right brain types need to
> visualize to own it. Tesla and Faraday are examples of these types.
> You still do need the math to quantify things (although Tesla and
> Faraday did wonders without it).
Yes I do understand the connection between art and science, between
vision and inspiration as opposed to mechanical understanding of
mathematical mechanics. Since Tesla and Faraday manged to "invent the
20th century" without abstruse mathematics, clearly as I indicated
before it is "point of view" that is the essence of the "big" concepts
of science and not detailed understandings of esoteric mathematical
systems. The latter may be impressive to those who do NOT understand
those esoteric systems, but I'm more impressed by a new "point of
view" that suddenly opens vast vistas that nobody had guessed before
were there. Obviously Tesla and Faraday were two who did that. Sure
"quantification" is good, but what is it without the proper "point of
view"? It is just a bunch of busy-work.
blackhead
Benj, I think you have failed to mention one extremely important
point: The direction of the induced EMF at a point caused by the
changing current in the current element depends upon where the rest of
the closed path is taken!
Similarly, if you have a test charge, the induced EMF acting upon it
depends upon the direction the charge is moving in. Or if you have a
static B, the force acting on the charge is always normal to the
direction it's moving in. Which begs the question: How can a changing
current produce an E or a static current produce a B that "knows"
which direction the test charge is moving in to consistently apply a
force in a direction related to the direction the charge is moving in?
I think the answer is simply that the E field of the test charge acts
upon the charges that make up the current element which likewise
creates a retarded E field that acts back upon the test charge which
acts back upon the current element etc etc.
Electromagnetism as taught in textbooks seem to miss out the
complicated feedback relationship that exists between charges as the
source of electromagnetism and the reacting charges.
Benj
> > We know that the relationship between the source current and induced
> > current is causal, but the source current ALSO causes B and A though
> > neither are causal to E. Hence, the question that needs to be
> > modeled, is what kind of "aether stress" would produce this induction?
> > If it is not B nor A then what kind of "model" can we imagine that
> > would produce the parallel electrokinetic E field that generates
> > induction? What kind of "stress" in the Aether can we imagine that
> > does this?
>
> > Anyone?
> Benj, I think you have failed to mention one extremely important
> point: The direction of the induced EMF at a point caused by the
> changing current in the current element depends upon where the rest of
> the closed path is taken!
>
> Similarly, if you have a test charge, the induced EMF acting upon it
> depends upon the direction the charge is moving in. Or if you have a
> static B, the force acting on the charge is always normal to the
> direction it's moving in. Which begs the question: How can a changing
> current produce an E or a static current produce a B that "knows"
> which direction the test charge is moving in to consistently apply a
> force in a direction related to the direction the charge is moving in?
You are obviously correct and one "answer" is that the E produced from
a changing current element is NOT the usual electrostatic E as is
commonly assumed. The properties are quite different and it has been
termed variously "E induction" or "Electrokinetic E" to point out the
differences.
For everyone else: We are talking here about placing a charge on on
pole of an electromagnet that is increasing (or decreasing) in field.
The charge will experience a force that drives it in a circle. BUT the
direction and location of the circle depend upon the initial velocity
of the charge! There is NOT a single E field in a single direction!
> I think the answer is simply that the E field of the test charge acts
> upon the charges that make up the current element which likewise
> creates a retarded E field that acts back upon the test charge which
> acts back upon the current element etc etc.
Possibly. I'd have to think about it.
> Electromagnetism as taught in textbooks seem to miss out the
> complicated feedback relationship that exists between charges as the
> source of electromagnetism and the reacting charges.
Now this is very, very true. Nobody in EM seems to "get" what feedback
relationships mean. One of the most salient examples is the
calculation of the self-inductance of a straight wire. Everybody has a
cow over the fact that the mutual inductance equation has an R in the
denominator that goes to zero as the separation between the source
current and the induced current goes to zero. It "blows up" they all
cry! But does it really? No. The key is that as you reduce the
distance between the source and induced elements the mutual coupling
gets larger and by doing so the mutual inductance reflects emf BACK
upon the driving source reducing the source current and finally
driving it to zero! These feedback kinds of relationships just fly
right over the heads of people used to straight linear math. It's a
whole area of calculation that has been TOTALLY ignored!
Aetherist
>On Aug 6, 8:23 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@best.net> wrote:
>
>> > VERY interesting hint!
>> > Obviously most of the people posting here don't have a clue what we
>> > are talking about!
>>
>> That's not really true, however most don't give a hoot about trying
>> to visualize such things. The mathematics is ALL that matters.
>
> Are you saying that they do know what we are talking about...
No, I'm saying that they don't, and don't care to. Much Llike Sheldon on
the TV comedy 'Big Bang Theory'. They 'think' they know all that there
is to know by being able to utilize the mathematical quantifications.
And also, like the character Sheldon, their mega-egos don't allow them
to even consider things that they have already decided are wrong.
>... but are pretending to not have a clue for their own purposes? Yeah,
> could be. Their posts clearly are not following the discussion,
In their minds, your ideas are wrong at worst, irrelevant at best...
Mostly they chime in here in an attempt dissuade you and others from
persuing this train of thought.
> however. >Are you saying "mathematics is all that matters" or are you
> saying "mathematics is all that matters TO THEM"! I'd accept the latter
> as true.
All that matters to them, of course.
>> I think its left brain - right brain thing. Right brain types need to
>> visualize to own it. Tesla and Faraday are examples of these types.
>> You still do need the math to quantify things (although Tesla and
>> Faraday did wonders without it).
>
> Yes I do understand the connection between art and science, between
> vision and inspiration as opposed to mechanical understanding of
> mathematical mechanics. Since Tesla and Faraday manged to "invent the
> 20th century" without abstruse mathematics, clearly as I indicated
> before it is "point of view" that is the essence of the "big" concepts
> of science and not detailed understandings of esoteric mathematical
> systems. The latter may be impressive to those who do NOT understand
> those esoteric systems, but I'm more impressed by a new "point of
> view" that suddenly opens vast vistas that nobody had guessed before
> were there. Obviously Tesla and Faraday were two who did that. Sure
> "quantification" is good, but what is it without the proper "point of
> view"? It is just a bunch of busy-work.
It's not art per-se, it how the brain is wired. I've often wondered
how those that actually believe that science can only be accomplished
by mathematical expression reconcile the startling achievements of
those like Tesla for example. Farady was derided by colleages for
his inability to express his ideas mathematically. How rude!
However, there is a problem. Telsa was mostly unable to adequately
communicate much of his inherent knowledge to others. This is where
mathematical quantification comes in. Faraday had Maxwell to accomplish
this for him. This is a perfect example of synergy.
As for the aether, try looking into super-solids. Therein lies the path
to understanding. Below is a short list of some of my past efforts in
this area.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/index_ps.htm
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/bc2bcdc1adf9cffd?hl=en&dmode=source
Regards,
blackhead
Since E is, by definition, the force per unit charge that increases
its kinetic energy, then I don't see how creating a name for E when
the charge is static and another for when it is moving helps. They are
both the same - A measurement of the force on a charge that increases
its kinetic energy. Perhaps by "Electrokinetic E" you mean the E that
arises from the complex interaction of the sources and responses
propagating with a finite velocity C which is too complicated to model
fundamentally.
> whole area of calculation that has been TOTALLY ignored!- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Aetherist
>On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 21:01:07 -0700 (PDT), Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 6, 8:23 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@best.net> wrote:
<Snip...>
>
>As for the aether, try looking into super-solids. Therein lies the path
>to understanding. Below is a short list of some of my past efforts in
>this area.
>
>http://www.mountainman.com.au/index_ps.htm
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/bc2bcdc1adf9cffd?hl=en&dmode=source
>
>Regards,
Here are some other good references...
http://www.pmmh.espci.fr/Cargese_2004/Rousseaux.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9310/9310039v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9208/9208062v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9805/9805128v2.pdf
Benj
> On 8 Aug, 23:02, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> Since E is, by definition, the force per unit charge that increases
> its kinetic energy, then I don't see how creating a name for E when
> the charge is static and another for when it is moving helps. They are
> both the same - A measurement of the force on a charge that increases
> its kinetic energy. Perhaps by "Electrokinetic E" you mean the E that
> arises from the complex interaction of the sources and responses
> propagating with a finite velocity C which is too complicated to model
> fundamentally.
>
> > For everyone else: We are talking here about placing a charge on on
> > pole of an electromagnet that is increasing (or decreasing) in field.
> > The charge will experience a force that drives it in a circle. BUT the
> > direction and location of the circle depend upon the initial velocity
> > of the charge! There is NOT a single E field in a single direction!
Yes the effect of an E field is to increase the kinetic energy of the
charge so they are ALL "E" fields. The question is are they all the
SAME E field? Bridgeman proposed that one should examine these things
in an "operational" approach. namely to note how the given "E" field
arises. For example. A static E field arises from the Position of the
charges. A qVxB field from the Velocity (first derivative of
position) of the charges and the Inductive E field from the
Acceleration of the charges (second derivative). He therefore
suggested that these should be treated as separate things.
Since "ElectroKinetic E field" is not my terminology, I can't say why
the name was chosen, but the E field produced by induction has
properties that are NOTHING like an electrostatic E field. Hence it
would be a true stretch to say they are the "same". As I noted in the
example above, the latter depends upon the initial velocity a charge
has, while the former does not. But you are right they both provide
momentum transfer to a charge and thus both are "E" fields in that
sense.