# "... the voltage induced in a closed circuit ..."

59 views

### pez

Apr 14, 2017, 4:52:43 PM4/14/17
to

= Maxwell's equations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations

"Formulation in SI units convention

(/)(bS)>E.d>l = -d(//(S)>B.d>S)/dt

Meaning

The voltage induced in a closed circuit is proportional to the
rate of change of the magnetic flux it encloses."

- Well, I don't see any circuit in space. I can only see some
finite open surface S terminated with in a finite close line bS
in space. Moreover, if I accept as "closed circuit" this "close
line", then I can not see any gap on it, such that a voltage to
appear between its distinct end-points. Therefore, I can not
find any concrete logical meaning to this equation - probably
of hidden assumptions, I presume. Any objection, please?

### benj

Apr 14, 2017, 5:55:27 PM4/14/17
to
On 4/14/2017 4:52 PM, pez wrote:
>
> = Maxwell's equations:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
>
> "Formulation in SI units convention
>
>
> (/)(bS)>E.d>l = -d(//(S)>B.d>S)/dt
>
> Meaning
>
> The voltage induced in a closed circuit is proportional to the
> rate of change of the magnetic flux it encloses."

Yes that is what it says. Note voltage is not CAUSED by flux change.

> - Well, I don't see any circuit in space. I can only see some
> finite open surface S terminated with in a finite close line bS
> in space.

Yes, this is all about math and hence fantasy. You have some finite
surface S defined by a closed line at it's border in imaginary space.

> Moreover, if I accept as "closed circuit" this "close
> line", then I can not see any gap on it, such that a voltage to
> appear between its distinct end-points.

The "gap" can be defined anywhere you like on the line, only it's not a
"gap". You are thinking of reality when rather you need to be thinking
fantasy. We are not measuring any voltage, we are simply defining it.

The definition of voltage is therefore the line integral of the E field
along the line around the closed path. The integral actually starts and
ends on the same point. It doesn't short out the voltage because this is
all fantasy. OK?

Therefore, I can not
> find any concrete logical meaning to this equation - probably
> of hidden assumptions, I presume. Any objection, please?

Well, yes, there is logic to it. You need to step back a second and ask
just WHAT is this E field that is being integrated along the line to
give the induced voltage? Well, that is termed the electrokinetic E
field and is generated by the time rate of change of currents. Those are
the SAME currents that are creating the magnetic field that creates the
flux that you are calculating with a surface integral.

The Magnetic field does not create the E field, the currents do. Induced
"voltage" (Termed EMF for historical reasons) can appear even in regions
where magnetic field is zero (toroid). The integrated E field is not
"created" by the change in flux, only equal to it. In Maxwell's
equations there is great redundancy so expressions arise giving the
right answers but which do not necessarily make sense.

Wikipedia is not a good place to use as reference as they believe E and
H fields "create each other" and refuse to correct the statement even
when shown proof it is wrong.

I'm sure Jos and others can provide you with better justifications of
current electromagnetic dogma than I can. I'm a kook.

### Jos Bergervoet

Apr 15, 2017, 6:28:50 AM4/15/17
to
On 4/14/2017 11:55 PM, benj wrote:
> On 4/14/2017 4:52 PM, pez wrote:

>>
>> (/)(bS)>E.d>l = -d(//(S)>B.d>S)/dt
>>
>> Meaning
>>
>> The voltage induced in a closed circuit is proportional to the
>> rate of change of the magnetic flux it encloses."

This "meaning" is not something the Maxwell equations tell

We are free to call it pure nonsense, however, since:
1) Over a *closed* loop, voltage returns to the initial value.
2) You can choose a gap anywhere but the "average" over all
possible gap-choices would be zero (for the same reason as
point 1) so some give a positive value and some a negative.
3) Voltage is gauge dependent so you can choose many values,
including the choice V=0 everywhere (describing all fields
by time-dependent A).

Each of these reasons by itself suffices to show that the claim
cannot be true as a mathematically correct definition!

..
>> Moreover, if I accept as "closed circuit" this "close
>> line", then I can not see any gap on it, such that a voltage to
>> appear between its distinct end-points.
>
> The "gap" can be defined anywhere you like on the line, only it's not a
> "gap". You are thinking of reality when rather you need to be thinking
> fantasy. We are not measuring any voltage, we are simply defining it.

Yes, voltage has no other meaning than an arbitrarily chosen
book-keeping tool to compute fields.

> The definition of voltage is therefore the line integral of the E field
> along the line around the closed path.

No it is not, you can make many different gauge choices. But
what the Wikipedia page means is to choose *in this case* that
particular definition, to give the statement some meaning.

> The integral actually starts and
> ends on the same point. It doesn't short out the voltage because this is
> all fantasy. OK?

No, the reason it does not short out the voltage is the
particular property of the Maxwell equation to allow for
non-rotation-free E-fields.

Fantasy would enable you to define other equations that do
(for instance) require rot E = 0 and then, despite it all
being fantasy, the line integral would still give zero.

>> Therefore, I can not
>> find any concrete logical meaning to this equation - probably
>> of hidden assumptions, I presume. Any objection, please?
>
> Well, yes, there is logic to it. You need to step back a second and ask
> just WHAT is this E field that is being integrated along the line to
> give the induced voltage? Well, that is termed the electrokinetic E
> field

No, benj is wrong here, the meaning of the statement is
simply to take the E-field, not some specially defined
aternate E-field (whatever its purpose may be).
But *benj is right* that *if* you would leave out the
electrostatic part of E, then it would still be true.
(But it is not what the Wikipedia claim wants us to do).

...
> Wikipedia is not a good place to use as reference as they believe E and
> H fields "create each other" and refuse to correct the statement even
> when shown proof it is wrong.

This is alright because "create" has no meaning. The
universe is static in 4 dimensions (as a 4-dimensional
painting) so no creation occurs. Time-derivatives do of
course exist, but you cannot get a meaningful definition
of "creation" based on that.

> I'm sure Jos and others can provide you with better justifications of
> current electromagnetic dogma than I can. I'm a kook.

In my view you ware half-right in the statement you
wrote above. That simply is not sufficient to be a kook,
benj! Times have changed.. (And the spelling should now
be cuck, I've heard.)

--
Jos

### szczepan bialek

Apr 15, 2017, 11:58:21 AM4/15/17
to

news:elcr4p...@mid.individual.net...
>
> = Maxwell's equations:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
>
> "Formulation in SI units convention
>
>
> (/)(bS)>E.d>l = -d(//(S)>B.d>S)/dt
>
> Meaning
>
> The voltage induced in a closed circuit is proportional to the
> rate of change of the magnetic flux it encloses."
>
> - Well, I don't see any circuit in space.

"for example, a rotating bar magnet creates a changing magnetic field, which
in turn generates an electric field in a nearby wire."
Faraday used the closed wire. Why you do not?
S*

### benj

Apr 15, 2017, 9:42:45 PM4/15/17
to
On 04/15/2017 06:28 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 4/14/2017 11:55 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 4/14/2017 4:52 PM, pez wrote:
>
>>>
>>> (/)(bS)>E.d>l = -d(//(S)>B.d>S)/dt
>>>
>>> Meaning
>>>
>>> The voltage induced in a closed circuit is proportional to the
>>> rate of change of the magnetic flux it encloses."
>
> This "meaning" is not something the Maxwell equations tell
>
> We are free to call it pure nonsense, however, since:
> 1) Over a *closed* loop, voltage returns to the initial value.

This is not true for a path that is a loop unless it is a conservative E
field which is not the case here. Jos is saying transformers are nonsense.
There are solenoidal and irrotational E fields. Jos is pretending there
is only one E field.

> Fantasy would enable you to define other equations that do
> (for instance) require rot E = 0 and then, despite it all
> being fantasy, the line integral would still give zero.
>
>>> Therefore, I can not
>>> find any concrete logical meaning to this equation - probably
>>> of hidden assumptions, I presume. Any objection, please?
>>
>> Well, yes, there is logic to it. You need to step back a second and ask
>> just WHAT is this E field that is being integrated along the line to
>> give the induced voltage? Well, that is termed the electrokinetic E
>> field
>
> No, benj is wrong here, the meaning of the statement is
> simply to take the E-field, not some specially defined
> aternate E-field (whatever its purpose may be).
> But *benj is right* that *if* you would leave out the
> electrostatic part of E, then it would still be true.
> (But it is not what the Wikipedia claim wants us to do).

Generally in the case of Faraday's law conservative fields are not
present. Sure they COULD be but that isn't the issue. It only clouds it
and makes it more obscure.

> ...
>> Wikipedia is not a good place to use as reference as they believe E and
>> H fields "create each other" and refuse to correct the statement even
>> when shown proof it is wrong.
>
> This is alright because "create" has no meaning. The
> universe is static in 4 dimensions (as a 4-dimensional
> painting) so no creation occurs. Time-derivatives do of
> course exist, but you cannot get a meaningful definition
> of "creation" based on that.

Universe is not "static" in 4 dimensions. Otherwise how could it "warp"?
By your view (which is way off topic) the universe is basically a
machine that allows no choices in it's operation. There are some
differing views on this point.

>> I'm sure Jos and others can provide you with better justifications of
>> current electromagnetic dogma than I can. I'm a kook.
>
> In my view you ware half-right in the statement you
> wrote above. That simply is not sufficient to be a kook,
> benj! Times have changed.. (And the spelling should now
> be cuck, I've heard.)

And I say you are half-right by stressing only conservative fields.

I'll have to work harder at being a kook. How about if I read Jefimenko
again? I don't like that new spelling. Sounds vaguely sexual!

### Jos Bergervoet

Apr 17, 2017, 11:41:35 AM4/17/17
to
On 4/16/2017 3:42 AM, benj wrote:
> On 04/15/2017 06:28 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>> On 4/14/2017 11:55 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 4/14/2017 4:52 PM, pez wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> (/)(bS)>E.d>l = -d(//(S)>B.d>S)/dt
>>>>
>>>> Meaning
>>>>
>>>> The voltage induced in a closed circuit is proportional to the
>>>> rate of change of the magnetic flux it encloses."
>>
>> This "meaning" is not something the Maxwell equations tell
>>
>> We are free to call it pure nonsense, however, since:
>> 1) Over a *closed* loop, voltage returns to the initial value.
>
> This is not true for a path that is a loop unless it is a conservative E
> field which is not the case here. Jos is saying transformers are nonsense.

If it is not true then you don't see the potential as a well-
defined function of space, but you take a different potential
for each different closed loop and for each different starting
point on the loop you might take, and you allow the potential
to get new values each extra time you go around (you can take
more than one round of course).

This is possible but then it differs from the usual practice
of defining a potential just once (after making the gauge
choice) and then use it as it is (and if different gauges are
used simultaneously, the potentials are viewed as different
functions with different names).
have meant with its statement. Nevertheless, in electrodynamics
there is indeed just one E-field (in contrast, there are many
choices possible for the potentials!)

There are other E-fields if you include more interactions than
only EM. The strong interaction for instance has its "color-
electric" and "color-magnetic" fields. And in general relativity
one could call ordinary gravity as a kind of E-field and the
other space-time dragging and warping effects as "gravito-
magnetic" fields.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism

>> Fantasy would enable you to define other equations that do
>> (for instance) require rot E = 0 and then, despite it all
>> being fantasy, the line integral would still give zero.
>>
>>>> Therefore, I can not
>>>> find any concrete logical meaning to this equation - probably
>>>> of hidden assumptions, I presume. Any objection, please?
>>>
>>> Well, yes, there is logic to it. You need to step back a second and ask
>>> just WHAT is this E field that is being integrated along the line to
>>> give the induced voltage? Well, that is termed the electrokinetic E
>>> field
>>
>> No, benj is wrong here, the meaning of the statement is
>> simply to take the E-field, not some specially defined
>> aternate E-field (whatever its purpose may be).
>> But *benj is right* that *if* you would leave out the
>> electrostatic part of E, then it would still be true.
>> (But it is not what the Wikipedia claim wants us to do).
>
> Generally in the case of Faraday's law conservative fields are not
> present. Sure they COULD be but that isn't the issue. It only clouds it
> and makes it more obscure.

If there is a real conducting loop with a spark-gap then
the static field builds up just because this conductor is
inserted in an initially solenoidal field.

>> ...
>>> Wikipedia is not a good place to use as reference as they believe E and
>>> H fields "create each other" and refuse to correct the statement even
>>> when shown proof it is wrong.
>>
>> This is alright because "create" has no meaning. The
>> universe is static in 4 dimensions (as a 4-dimensional
>> painting) so no creation occurs. Time-derivatives do of
>> course exist, but you cannot get a meaningful definition
>> of "creation" based on that.
>
> Universe is not "static" in 4 dimensions. Otherwise how could it "warp"?
> By your view (which is way off topic) the universe is basically a
> machine that allows no choices in it's operation. There are some
> differing views on this point.

All accepted laws of physics are purely deterministic,
including Quantum Field theory. Those who believe differently
are thinking outside the currently know laws of physics,
which is of course allowed, but there is no proof for any
of it (in contrast to the accepted laws, which is why those
are "accepted".)

>>> I'm sure Jos and others can provide you with better justifications of
>>> current electromagnetic dogma than I can. I'm a kook.
>>
>> In my view you ware half-right in the statement you
>> wrote above. That simply is not sufficient to be a kook,
>> benj! Times have changed.. (And the spelling should now
>> be cuck, I've heard.)
>
> And I say you are half-right by stressing only conservative fields.

Liberally speaking, of course.

> I'll have to work harder at being a kook. How about if I read Jefimenko
> again? I don't like that new spelling. Sounds vaguely sexual!

Maybe you need to "pivot" and become a true believer of
mainstream physics?!

--
Jos

### benj

Apr 17, 2017, 5:18:21 PM4/17/17
to
On 4/17/2017 11:41 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 4/16/2017 3:42 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 04/15/2017 06:28 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>> On 4/14/2017 11:55 PM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 4/14/2017 4:52 PM, pez wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (/)(bS)>E.d>l = -d(//(S)>B.d>S)/dt
>>>>>
>>>>> Meaning
>>>>>
>>>>> The voltage induced in a closed circuit is proportional to the
>>>>> rate of change of the magnetic flux it encloses."
>>>
>>> This "meaning" is not something the Maxwell equations tell
>>>
>>> We are free to call it pure nonsense, however, since:
>>> 1) Over a *closed* loop, voltage returns to the initial value.
>>
>> This is not true for a path that is a loop unless it is a conservative E
>> field which is not the case here. Jos is saying transformers are
>> nonsense.
>
> If it is not true then you don't see the potential as a well-
> defined function of space, but you take a different potential
> for each different closed loop and for each different starting
> point on the loop you might take, and you allow the potential
> to get new values each extra time you go around (you can take
> more than one round of course).

When potential is path dependent it isn't especially well-defined.

> This is possible but then it differs from the usual practice
> of defining a potential just once (after making the gauge
> choice) and then use it as it is (and if different gauges are
> used simultaneously, the potentials are viewed as different
> functions with different names).

Yes.
Word games. Is it one thing with three different pieces where each piece
has it own differing properties or is that three things that are all of
a certain overarching quality?

> There are other E-fields if you include more interactions than
> only EM. The strong interaction for instance has its "color-
> electric" and "color-magnetic" fields. And in general relativity
> one could call ordinary gravity as a kind of E-field and the
> other space-time dragging and warping effects as "gravito-
> magnetic" fields.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism

Tangent. Gravity-EM analogs are not quite established things in spite of
the General Electric patents. Heaviside ideas are interesting, but not
much developed I think. Maybe S* can fill us in.

>>> Fantasy would enable you to define other equations that do
>>> (for instance) require rot E = 0 and then, despite it all
>>> being fantasy, the line integral would still give zero.
>>>
>>>>> Therefore, I can not
>>>>> find any concrete logical meaning to this equation - probably
>>>>> of hidden assumptions, I presume. Any objection, please?
>>>>
>>>> Well, yes, there is logic to it. You need to step back a second and ask
>>>> just WHAT is this E field that is being integrated along the line to
>>>> give the induced voltage? Well, that is termed the electrokinetic E
>>>> field
>>>
>>> No, benj is wrong here, the meaning of the statement is
>>> simply to take the E-field, not some specially defined
>>> aternate E-field (whatever its purpose may be).
>>> But *benj is right* that *if* you would leave out the
>>> electrostatic part of E, then it would still be true.
>>> (But it is not what the Wikipedia claim wants us to do).
>>
>> Generally in the case of Faraday's law conservative fields are not
>> present. Sure they COULD be but that isn't the issue. It only clouds it
>> and makes it more obscure.
>
> If there is a real conducting loop with a spark-gap then
> the static field builds up just because this conductor is
> inserted in an initially solenoidal field.

True. I've been through this before. The conductor develops a potential
between the ends due to charges "sloshing" toward ends due to the
solenoidal field. Hence the potential appears at the ends while the E
fields inside the conductor are zero (Obvious as current is zero). And
that potential across the gap creates an electrostatic E field which
creates a potential difference the exact opposite of the potential
induced across the gap. Hence the total potential around the loop
including gap is zero. This is like Kirchhoff's rule except his does not
apply here because the voltage rise is not from a conservative field as
is required.

>>>> Wikipedia is not a good place to use as reference as they believe E and
>>>> H fields "create each other" and refuse to correct the statement even
>>>> when shown proof it is wrong.
>>>
>>> This is alright because "create" has no meaning. The
>>> universe is static in 4 dimensions (as a 4-dimensional
>>> painting) so no creation occurs. Time-derivatives do of
>>> course exist, but you cannot get a meaningful definition
>>> of "creation" based on that.
>>
>> Universe is not "static" in 4 dimensions. Otherwise how could it "warp"?
>> By your view (which is way off topic) the universe is basically a
>> machine that allows no choices in it's operation. There are some
>> differing views on this point.
>
> All accepted laws of physics are purely deterministic,
> including Quantum Field theory. Those who believe differently
> are thinking outside the currently know laws of physics,
> which is of course allowed, but there is no proof for any
> of it (in contrast to the accepted laws, which is why those
> are "accepted".)

Oh Jos! Mathematics is fantasy. Math is not more real than reality. Your
assumption that it is only leads to unproven conclusions. You misstate
this by pretending that mathematical expression of laws is the same as
the actually physics of reality. Math can be "proved" but that does not
make the laws true until they are measured and verified. "Acceptance"
has nothing to do with it. Science is not done by democratic vote of
scientists and mathematicians. How do you know that quantum effects are
deterministic when the best anyone can do is a probability calculation?
Are you holding out on us and have a theory that provides the "true"
exact position of quantum objects? I heard Einstein's "Hidden variable"
theory is incorrect, (or else relativity is wrong).

>>>> I'm sure Jos and others can provide you with better justifications of
>>>> current electromagnetic dogma than I can. I'm a kook.
>>>
>>> In my view you ware half-right in the statement you
>>> wrote above. That simply is not sufficient to be a kook,
>>> benj! Times have changed.. (And the spelling should now
>>> be cuck, I've heard.)
>>
>> And I say you are half-right by stressing only conservative fields.
>
> Liberally speaking, of course.
>
>> I'll have to work harder at being a kook. How about if I read Jefimenko
>> again? I don't like that new spelling. Sounds vaguely sexual!
>
> Maybe you need to "pivot" and become a true believer of
> mainstream physics?!

<snort>! Fat chance of that. Jos, do you have ANY idea of just how HUGE
a mistake the "accepted" "Big Bang" theory is? And it's FAR worse than
that! I mean they (you) all start with this understandable mistake of
assuming that red shift is due to velocity and then upon that major
mistake they build this enormous structure of hideous fantasy like "dark
matter" and what have you. And you expect me to to just shut my yap,
suck it up, nod faithfully in total agreement? That Ain't Me!

### p.ki...@ic.ac.uk

Jul 13, 2017, 5:24:03 AM7/13/17
to
pez <pez.u...@gmail.com> wrote:

> (/)(bS)>E.d>l = -d(//(S)>B.d>S)/dt

> Meaning

> The voltage induced in a closed circuit is proportional to the
> rate of change of the magnetic flux it encloses."

If you take the common dictionary definition, where "induced"
means "has been caused by", then you should not use it in this
context. Better to say e.g. "the voltage associated with a change
in flux..."

> - Well, I don't see any circuit in space. I can only see some
> finite open surface S terminated with in a finite close line bS
> in space. Moreover, if I accept as "closed circuit" this "close
> line", then I can not see any gap on it, such that a voltage to
> appear between its distinct end-points. Therefore, I can not
> find any concrete logical meaning to this equation - probably
> of hidden assumptions, I presume. Any objection, please?

It's not open access, but

https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/aa6cea

"Electromagnetic response of a metal: a comparative analysis of the 'free charge model' and the 'bound charge model'"

Vinit Kumar

EJP 38, 045203 (2017)

has an interesting discussion on the notional circuits used
in discussions of Faraday's Law. If you really must, you can

https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.08406

#Paul

### larry harson

Jul 13, 2017, 9:20:50 PM7/13/17
to
I like your paper, especially its title and main aim: to demonstrate that a mathematical equation like Faraday's doesn't necessarily contain all the information about the causal relationships between its variables in the physical experiment it comes from. But I have some minor criticisms:

Section 2: Using a betatron rather than a circular conductor simplifies the physical picture considerably for me. I don't have to bother thinking about how the charges are moving inside the conductor, the internal compensating fields etc.

Section 3: Something analagous to the betatron picture would be easier to understand, but I can't think of anything right now.

I like the way you continue to explore other possibilities, but again I feel this relies too heavily on having a good understanding of the physics going on inside the materials. Finally, I think your paper has left out the important conclusion:

Faraday's law by itself doesn't contain enough information for finding *both* a physically acceptable and mathematically consistent causal relationship between the induced EMF and changing magnetic flux. To do this, we need to use *all* of Maxwell's equations to extract hidden information such as the propagation of effects at c, then deriving the Lienard-Wiechert fields of an arbitrarily moving charge.

Hence, it's the changing source current for the magnetic field that creates both the induced EMF and changing magnetic field that are physically correlated with one another in Faraday's law by itself.

We had this discussion a few years back:

Are Maxwell's equations causal?

My view was and is the same as yours in that each Maxwell equation with a time derivative is mathematically causal, although Fred vigorously disagreed with this. But today I'd also add that all the equations are needed together to mathematically prove a causal relationship between moving charges and their effects via Jefimenko's/Lienard-Wiechert equations that's now physically acceptable to Fred and others.

Regards,

Larry Harson

### benj

Jul 14, 2017, 7:05:07 PM7/14/17
to
On 7/13/2017 9:20 PM, larry harson wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 10:24:03 AM UTC+1, p.ki...@ic.ac.uk wrote:
>> pez <pez.u...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>
> Section 2: Using a betatron rather than a circular conductor simplifies the physical picture considerably for me. I don't have to bother thinking about how the charges are moving inside the conductor, the internal compensating fields etc.
>
> Section 3: Something analagous to the betatron picture would be easier to understand, but I can't think of anything right now.
>
> I like the way you continue to explore other possibilities, but again I feel this relies too heavily on having a good understanding of the physics going on inside the materials. Finally, I think your paper has left out the important conclusion:
>
> Faraday's law by itself doesn't contain enough information for finding *both* a physically acceptable and mathematically consistent causal relationship between the induced EMF and changing magnetic flux. To do this, we need to use *all* of Maxwell's equations to extract hidden information such as the propagation of effects at c, then deriving the Lienard-Wiechert fields of an arbitrarily moving charge.
>
> Hence, it's the changing source current for the magnetic field that creates both the induced EMF and changing magnetic field that are physically correlated with one another in Faraday's law by itself.
>
> We had this discussion a few years back:
>
> Are Maxwell's equations causal?
>
> My view was and is the same as yours in that each Maxwell equation with a time derivative is mathematically causal, although Fred vigorously disagreed with this. But today I'd also add that all the equations are needed together to mathematically prove a causal relationship between moving charges and their effects via Jefimenko's/Lienard-Wiechert equations that's now physically acceptable to Fred and others.

Yes a betatron is exactly the point! Why? Because it is a ELECTRIC FIELD
that is caused by the changing current. And of course electrons respond
to that field as expected.

Faraday's law is wrong not only because there is no causality between
magnetic flux and EMF but also because he never said it. I'm sure S* can
ask him and he will say that his "law" was that a changing CURRENT in
one wire can induce a current in another wire. Which is exactly correct.
A changing current induces an electrokinetic E field about itself and
that E field when applied to a closed wire loop induces a current in it.
IF there is no circuit the field then induces a potential difference at
the gap due to the impressed E field.

As for asserting the Maxwell time derivatives are causal it is easily
seen that any two simultaneous events cannot cause each other if
separated by any distance at all (requires FTL action) In the case of
the Maxwell the two events occur at the same spot which raises a
question. However. it is clear that a time derivative clearly requires
information from either the past or future so a limit can be taken for
the calculation. Clearly information from the future is out of the
question as it goes against the very definition of causality.

But what about the past? Well obviously one desires information from
both past and future to insure there are no singularities. But going
only from the past side leaves doubts. However, the assumptions used in
MAxwellian theory are that space is continuous and differentiable.

Therefore one is able to say that it MIGHT be possible that one side of
an equation might cause the other, based on the assumptions of Maxwell
theory, however, an equation only states that the two sides EQUAL EACH
OTHER, It does not imply causality which even with it possible to exist
it must be proved elsewhere.

### larry harson

Jul 14, 2017, 8:25:46 PM7/14/17
to
Mathematicians can use "cause" and "effect" in a way which is more general and rigorous, but then appearing to contradict what a physicist understands by these terms. So in Faraday's law as a differential, I find it perfectly reasonable for a mathematician to label all variables in a time differential as effects, and the rest causes. Whereas a physicist might claim that the "causes" could be effects from more fundamental causes and are correlated with the effects in the equation.

There will always be this redefining of physical/mathematical terms by the next generation of mathematicians as mathematics evolves. A "Scalar" in vector analysis, for example, originally scaled a vector's magnitude, whereas today it can even be a complex number and more.

Regards,

Larry Harson

### benj

Jul 14, 2017, 9:46:30 PM7/14/17
to
Hint: Mathematics is not more real than reality. In science reality is
the final word. In mathematical fantasy only consistency is the final word.

It is perfectly reasonable for a mathematician to do ANYTHING so long as
it is self-consistent within their imagined system. Such a system may
find a useful analog with reality or it may not. What the mathematician
says or labels anything is of little meaning to physics.

You sound like you've been studying at the feet of Jos!

### szczepan bialek

Jul 15, 2017, 4:41:34 AM7/15/17
to

news:59694ba3\$0\$18134\$c3e8da3\$a909...@news.astraweb.com...
> On 7/13/2017 9:20 PM, larry harson wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 10:24:03 AM UTC+1, p.ki...@ic.ac.uk wrote:
>>> pez <pez.u...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...

> Yes a betatron is exactly the point! Why? Because it is a ELECTRIC FIELD
> that is caused by the changing current. And of course electrons respond to
> that field as expected.

Electrons in the wire push the electrons in the adjacent air in the same
direction.
But only in close distance. It is the skeen effect (Tesla
In some distance the direction is reversed. It was discovered by Henry.

>
> Faraday's law is wrong not only because there is no causality between
> magnetic flux and EMF but also because he never said it. I'm sure S* can
> ask him and he will say that his "law" was that a changing CURRENT in one
> wire can induce a current in another wire.Which is exactly correct

"Faraday law" from the textbooks was wrote by Heaviside.
.
> A changing current induces an electrokinetic E field about itself and that
> E field when applied to a closed wire loop induces a current in it. IF
> there is no circuit the field then induces a potential difference at the
> gap due to the impressed E field.

A changing current induces the transversal oscillations in the electron sea
(Near field).
>
> As for asserting the Maxwell time derivatives are causal it is easily seen
> that any two simultaneous events cannot cause each other if separated by
> any distance at all (requires FTL action) In the case of the Maxwell the
> two events occur at the same spot which raises a question. However. it is
> clear that a time derivative clearly requires information from either the
> past or future so a limit can be taken for the calculation. Clearly
> information from the future is out of the question as it goes against the
> very definition of causality.
>
> But what about the past? Well obviously one desires information from both
> past and future to insure there are no singularities. But going only from
> the past side leaves doubts. However, the assumptions used in MAxwellian
> theory are that space is continuous and differentiable.

In Maxwell space are massive electric paricles and ions.
Who than wrote the MAxwellian theory ?
>
> Therefore one is able to say that it MIGHT be possible that one side of an
> equation might cause the other, based on the assumptions of Maxwell
> theory, however, an equation only states that the two sides EQUAL EACH
> OTHER, It does not imply causality which even with it possible to exist it
> must be proved elsewhere.

Are you wrote about the Maxwell theory, or the Biot -Savart/ Heaviside
theory?
In Maxwell theory the electric particles in the space are moved in the wire
current direction.
In Biot-Savart is the mistery magnetic fluid around the wire.
S*

### Jos Bergervoet

Jul 15, 2017, 10:56:46 AM7/15/17
to
On 7/15/2017 12:54 AM, benj wrote:
> On 7/13/2017 9:20 PM, larry harson wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 10:24:03 AM UTC+1, p.ki...@ic.ac.uk wrote:
>>> pez <pez.u...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Maxwell?
...
...
> ..., however, an equation only states that the two sides EQUAL EACH
> OTHER, It does not imply causality which even with it possible to exist
> it must be proved elsewhere.

When does anything ever prove causality? All statements
is happening.

Does it even have any meaning to assume that there is a
thing like causality? How could it ever be proven?

[Or: How do you disprove that the universe is just a 4-
dimensional painting? And don't hide behind 'disputed in
the literature', just say why it isn't!]

--
Jos

### Jos Bergervoet

Jul 15, 2017, 11:00:27 AM7/15/17
to
Aha, 'not more'! So the two can be equal, by your statement.

..
> You sound like you've been studying at the feet of Jos!

You and Larry have both been very good students, I do admit.

--
Jos

### benj

Jul 16, 2017, 1:31:42 AM7/16/17
to
GOT ME! (Forced into a corner. Hoist by his own petard)

OK. So the two CAN be equal over some limited domain. That is what new
theories are about, right? Expanding the domain of valid analogy.

The fact that there is no equality over ALL domains in observed in the
failure of mathematical models in various regions.

However, the statement that mathematics is not MORE real than reality is
a statement that reality takes precedence over mathematics. When the two
do not agree the nod is ALWAYS given to reality (termed experiments and
measurements used as an approximation to reality).

So math may be perfect in it's agreement within it's own system but that
alone does not allow anyone to assume that reality must obey that system.

Wiggle Squirm.

### benj

Jul 16, 2017, 1:31:53 AM7/16/17
to
On 07/15/2017 10:56 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 7/15/2017 12:54 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 7/13/2017 9:20 PM, larry harson wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 10:24:03 AM UTC+1, p.ki...@ic.ac.uk wrote:
>>>> pez <pez.u...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Maxwell?
> ...
> ...
>> ..., however, an equation only states that the two sides EQUAL EACH
>> OTHER, It does not imply causality which even with it possible to exist
>> it must be proved elsewhere.
>
> When does anything ever prove causality? All statements
> is happening.

I'm still waiting for all you nay-sayers to show me an example of when a
present action is determined by FUTURE events. But then you go one
better and deny that past events have any reality as well. How is life
there in your fantasy world. Say hi to Tinkerbell for me.

> Does it even have any meaning to assume that there is a
> thing like causality? How could it ever be proven?

Um, proven by careful observation. It's called "science".

> [Or: How do you disprove that the universe is just a 4-
> dimensional painting? And don't hide behind 'disputed in
> the literature', just say why it isn't!]

Been hanging around Plato's cave again I see. So how does one "prove"
that anything is happening at all? I say the universe it a fixed ND
landscape and all "action" and "motion" is only the result of the
velocity of consciousness over that landscape. Do you agree?

### benj

Jul 16, 2017, 1:38:23 AM7/16/17
to
On 07/15/2017 04:43 AM, szczepan bialek wrote:
> "benj" <be...@nobody.net> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci

Magnetic field = flow of aether.
Protons = condensed aether particles
electrons = vortexes in aether
Electric field = extra-dimensional aether flow.
EM radiation = Waves propagated in Aether.
Near field = acceleration of aether storing energy in space.
Relativity = due to retardation of waves in aether medium.

example: In Biot-Savart electrons (vortexes) in wire line up and all
spin in the same direction this causes aether to spin around the wire
giving what people interpret as a "magnetic field",

You agree?

### FrediFizzx

Jul 16, 2017, 3:40:31 AM7/16/17
to
"larry harson" wrote in message

"We had this discussion a few years back:

Are Maxwell's equations causal?

My view was and is the same as yours in that each Maxwell equation with a
time derivative is mathematically causal, although Fred vigorously disagreed
with this. But today I'd also add that all the equations are needed together
to mathematically prove a causal relationship between moving charges and
their effects via Jefimenko's/Lienard-Wiechert equations that's now
physically acceptable to Fred and others."
--------------------------

The solution to the problem is so simple.

curl E = -dB/dt = - (mu0/4pi) \$ (curl (1/r)[dJ/dt])dv'

The Maxwell form of Faraday's law is simply not complete so all it is is a
relationship between E and B fields. The above expression is complete since
it includes the source.

### Jos Bergervoet

Jul 16, 2017, 3:41:05 AM7/16/17
to
On 7/16/2017 7:10 AM, benj wrote:
> On 07/15/2017 10:56 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>> On 7/15/2017 12:54 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 7/13/2017 9:20 PM, larry harson wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 10:24:03 AM UTC+1, p.ki...@ic.ac.uk
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> pez <pez.u...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Maxwell?
>> ...
>> ...
>>> ..., however, an equation only states that the two sides EQUAL EACH
>>> OTHER, It does not imply causality which even with it possible to exist
>>> it must be proved elsewhere.
>>
>> When does anything ever prove causality? All statements
>> is happening.
>
> I'm still waiting for all you nay-sayers to

The nay-sayer is you! You deny that E-fields are causing B-fields.
(While I am only wondering what caused you to reject this idea.)

> ... show me an example of when a
> present action is determined by FUTURE events.

Observation! When an event of type B is always preceded by an event
of type A, we must conclude that events of type A are "caused" by a
future event of type B.

> .. But then you go one
> better and deny that past events have any reality as well. How is life
> there in your fantasy world. Say hi to Tinkerbell for me.
>
>> Does it even have any meaning to assume that there is a
>> thing like causality? How could it ever be proven?
>
> Um, proven by careful observation. It's called "science".

You mean that when an event of type A is always followed by an event
of type B, we must conclude that events of type B are "caused" by a
past event of type B. The same argument can go the other way!

>> [Or: How do you disprove that the universe is just a 4-
>> dimensional painting? And don't hide behind 'disputed in
>> the literature', just say why it isn't!]
>
> Been hanging around Plato's cave again I see. So how does one "prove"
> that anything is happening at all?

The painting is static, of course! So nothing needs to happen and
we do not need to prove any such thing.

> I say the universe it a fixed ND
> landscape and all "action" and "motion" is only the result of the
> velocity of consciousness over that landscape. Do you agree?

If consciousness exists outside the universe (i.e. outside the
static painting) then this could happen. But that means you are
now involving a "painter" to go with the painting!

Yes, I can see Pablo, or Salvador, parading in front of it and
contemplating some finishing touch here and there.. But then it
is not static after all! You've explained non-determinism and
randomness in that way, benj. The cubist painters are doing it!
<http://www.dalipaintings.com/images/paintings/cubist-self-portrait.jpg>

--
Jos

### benj

Jul 17, 2017, 1:27:27 AM7/17/17
to
Correct.

### benj

Jul 17, 2017, 1:28:36 AM7/17/17
to
On 07/16/2017 03:40 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 7/16/2017 7:10 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 07/15/2017 10:56 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>> On 7/15/2017 12:54 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 7/13/2017 9:20 PM, larry harson wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 10:24:03 AM UTC+1, p.ki...@ic.ac.uk
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> pez <pez.u...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Maxwell?
>>> ...
>>> ...
>>>> ..., however, an equation only states that the two sides EQUAL EACH
>>>> OTHER, It does not imply causality which even with it possible to exist
>>>> it must be proved elsewhere.
>>>
>>> When does anything ever prove causality? All statements
>>> is happening.
>>
>> I'm still waiting for all you nay-sayers to
>
> The nay-sayer is you! You deny that E-fields are causing B-fields.
> (While I am only wondering what caused you to reject this idea.)

I have never said that an E field from the future is causing a B field
in the present even if it were possible for E and B fields to "create
each other" as the saying goes.

Jefimenko caused me to reject this idea. Or for that matter the post
right above from FreddiFizzx. Why are you so much of a believer that you
won't even examine the arguments. Got religion?

>> ... show me an example of when a
>> present action is determined by FUTURE events.
>
> Observation! When an event of type B is always preceded by an event
> of type A, we must conclude that events of type A are "caused" by a
> future event of type B.

Correlation is not causation. Basic science 101.

>> .. But then you go one
>> better and deny that past events have any reality as well. How is life
>> there in your fantasy world. Say hi to Tinkerbell for me.
>>
>>> Does it even have any meaning to assume that there is a
>>> thing like causality? How could it ever be proven?
>>
>> Um, proven by careful observation. It's called "science".
>
> You mean that when an event of type A is always followed by an event
> of type B, we must conclude that events of type B are "caused" by a
> past event of type B. The same argument can go the other way!

Missed the word 'careful" did we? Once again correlation does not euqal
caustation.

>>> [Or: How do you disprove that the universe is just a 4-
>>> dimensional painting? And don't hide behind 'disputed in
>>> the literature', just say why it isn't!]
>>
>> Been hanging around Plato's cave again I see. So how does one "prove"
>> that anything is happening at all?
>
> The painting is static, of course! So nothing needs to happen and
> we do not need to prove any such thing.

So nothing is happening at all. Got it. What ever happened to the
"settled" law of the "certainty of change"?

>> I say the universe it a fixed ND
>> landscape and all "action" and "motion" is only the result of the
>> velocity of consciousness over that landscape. Do you agree?
>
> If consciousness exists outside the universe (i.e. outside the
> static painting) then this could happen. But that means you are
> now involving a "painter" to go with the painting!

Creation and "painter" is a separate issue. Is not relevant to the
discussion of mechanisms. For you just pretend painting just 'appeared"

> Yes, I can see Pablo, or Salvador, parading in front of it and
> contemplating some finishing touch here and there.. But then it
> is not static after all! You've explained non-determinism and
> randomness in that way, benj. The cubist painters are doing it!
> <http://www.dalipaintings.com/images/paintings/cubist-self-portrait.jpg>

The whole point of the theory was that the painting IS ASSUMED static.
So why do you always try to immediately reverse all assumptions to
change the discussion on it's head? Nothing better to do?

### szczepan bialek

Jul 17, 2017, 4:10:18 AM7/17/17
to

news:596af9e9\$0\$53094\$c3e8da3\$fdf4...@news.astraweb.com...
> On 07/15/2017 04:43 AM, szczepan bialek wrote:
>>>>
>> Electrons in the wire push the electrons in the adjacent air in the same
>> direction.
>> But only in close distance. It is the skeen effect (Tesla
>> In some distance the direction is reversed. It was discovered by Henry.
>>
>>>
>> A changing current induces the transversal oscillations in the electron
>> sea
>> (Near field).
>>>
>>>
>
>> In Maxwell space are massive electric paricles and ions.
>> Who than wrote the MAxwellian theory ?
>>>
>>
>> Are you wrote about the Maxwell theory, or the Biot -Savart/ Heaviside
>> theory?
>> In Maxwell theory the electric particles in the space are moved in the
>> wire
>> current direction.
>> In Biot-Savart is the mistery magnetic fluid around the wire.
>> S*
>
> It's all about Aether, S*.
>
> Magnetic field = flow of aether.
> Protons = condensed aether particles
> electrons = vortexes in aether
> Electric field = extra-dimensional aether flow.
> EM radiation = Waves propagated in Aether.
> Near field = acceleration of aether storing energy in space.
> Relativity = due to retardation of waves in aether medium.

Do you know what are the aether particles made of?

>
> example: In Biot-Savart electrons (vortexes) in wire line up and all spin
> in the same direction this causes aether to spin around the wire giving
> what people interpret as a "magnetic field",

> You agree?

No. Because "In some distance the direction is reversed. It was discovered
by Henry."
And what are: "EM radiation = Waves propagated in Aether." Are they
longitudinal?
Are they transport the aether particles?
S*