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:
>>>>> Maxwell–Faraday equation (Faraday's law of induction)
>>>>> (/)(bS)>E.d>l = -d(//(S)>B.d>S)/dt
>>>>> 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
>>> you. It is your referenced Wikipedia page that claims this.
>>> 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
> 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).
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.
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
>>> 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
>>>> 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!