Maxwell's theory and it's assumptions.
John Schoenfeld
of several assumptions.
1. Symmetry of Faraday's law
That a changing E Field produces an M Field as a changing M field
produces an E Field with perfect symmetry is a fairly optimistic
assumption isn't it?
If A then B doesn't mean If B then A, so why would the reverse of
Faraday's law be true? It's only true if one assumes it to be true, or
am I wrong?
2. Continuous magnetic field lines (since no magnetic monopoles
exist).
What would be the effect on the equations if magnetic monopoles exist?
Would invariant light speed c remain true?
3. Superposition principle
This is a very fundamental assumption. There is no reason to assume
that fields add linearly other than that of the crude empirical
evidence given long ago.
I heard somewhere (in engineering circles) that very strong E fields
are inconsistent with the superposition principle. Is there much
evidence of this principle or is it another assumption?
JS
Richard Perry
You heard wrong. Superposition is well established, barring claims by
the occasional kook who discounts contributions from external elements
unaccounted for.
--
Richard Perry
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
John Anderson
John Schoenfeld wrote:
> After reading somewhat on Maxwell's equations, they seem to be based
> of several assumptions.
>
[snip]
Maxwell's equations are based on physical observations.
The "assumptions" that you're citing are based on experiments,
not postulates.
John Anderson
Timo Nieminen
> After reading somewhat on Maxwell's equations, they seem to be based
> of several assumptions.
>
> 1. Symmetry of Faraday's law
>
> That a changing E Field produces an M Field as a changing M field
> produces an E Field with perfect symmetry is a fairly optimistic
> assumption isn't it?
>
> If A then B doesn't mean If B then A, so why would the reverse of
> Faraday's law be true? It's only true if one assumes it to be true, or
> am I wrong?
Quick recipe for Maxwell's equations:
1) Take the 5 known (pre-Maxwell) equations of electromagnetism:
* Gauss's law
* Ampere's law
* Faraday's law
* div B = 0 (does this have a possessive name?)
* conservation of charge
2) Note that these are inconsistent. In particular, Ampere's law. Use
conservation of charge to fix Ampere's law.
Symmetry of the curl equations isn't surprising after noting this.
> 2. Continuous magnetic field lines (since no magnetic monopoles
> exist).
>
> What would be the effect on the equations if magnetic monopoles exist?
> Would invariant light speed c remain true?
Maxwell's equations are readily adjusted for magnetic charge and current;
a very nicely symmetric set of equations result. Just use zero as the
value of magnetic charge and current, and get the usual equations.
Speed of EM waves in source-free media is unchanged.
> 3. Superposition principle
>
> This is a very fundamental assumption. There is no reason to assume
> that fields add linearly other than that of the crude empirical
> evidence given long ago.
Note that this assumption is not made in Maxwell's equations. In general,
epsilon and mu are functions of the fields, and the past histories of the
fields. Often it's good enough to assume that epsilon and mu are functions
of frequency, and constant otherwise. But, in general, fields don't add
linearly.
The assumption that epsilon0 and mu0 are constants is based on very
accurate empirical evidence. But this is just a special case of epsilon
and mu. However, it is a very important case. Further discussion below.
> I heard somewhere (in engineering circles) that very strong E fields
> are inconsistent with the superposition principle. Is there much
> evidence of this principle or is it another assumption?
Yes, linear addition of fields in vacuum is known to break down. The
evidence is good. Maxwellian EM is only an approximation; if you want to
do EM outside the classical regime, then you're going to need QED.
In the classical regime, linear superposition of fields in vacuum is a
very, very accurate approximation. No evidence against it, a lot of
evidence for it.
The other quantum thing that could break classical EM would be photons of
non-zero rest mass. I don't know what the current upper limit to the
possible photon rest mass is, but it used to be below 10^{-50} kg.
Wouldn't make any practical difference for most applications of classical
EM. It would give a frequency-dependent speed of light.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Jon Bell
John Schoenfeld <j.scho...@programmer.net> wrote:
>
>That a changing E Field produces an M Field as a changing M field
>produces an E Field with perfect symmetry is a fairly optimistic
>assumption isn't it?
Yes, it was, in Maxwell's day. But it led him to a theory which made
predictions which were verified by experiment.
>What would be the effect on the equations if magnetic monopoles exist?
Gauss's Law for magnetic fields would acquire a term that depends on the
magnetic charge, just as Gauss's Law for electric fields has a term that
depends on the electric charge. Also, Faraday's Law would acquire a term
that depends the current of magnetic charge, just as Ampere's Law has a
term that depends on the current of electric charge.
When I was a freshman a long time ago, my General Physics book (Halliday
and Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics) discussed this, and showed what the
modified Maxwell's equations would look like. I don't know if the current
edition still does this.
>Would invariant light speed c remain true?
Maxwell's equations in free space (no charges, either electric or
magnetic) would still produce a wave equation with a propagation speed the
same as given by the standard Maxwell's equations.
>I heard somewhere (in engineering circles) that very strong E fields
>are inconsistent with the superposition principle. Is there much
>evidence of this principle or is it another assumption?
I'm not an expert in this area, but I think quantum electodynamics
predicts the existence of photon-photon interactions, for which the
classical analog would be non-superposition of electromagnetic fields.
This is a very weak effect (involving production and annihilation of
virtual-particle pairs, if I remember correctly), but I think it has been
observed and studied using high-energy photon beams. This is beyond the
realm of classical electrodynamics, of course.
--
Jon Bell <jtbe...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
elea...@bellsouth.net
"John Schoenfeld" <j.scho...@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.03040...@posting.google.com...
> 2. Continuous magnetic field lines (since no magnetic monopoles
> exist).
> What would be the effect on the equations if magnetic monopoles exist?
> Would invariant light speed c remain true?
The idea that Maxwell says something about the invariant velocity of light
is cultist idiocy.
Maxwell's equations are about EM, not coordinate systems, and the idea that
the c in Maxwell is relative to a coordinate system - rather than a field -
is right up there with a more obviously cult dogma such as 'exactly NINE! -
not ten - angels can dance on the head of a pin'.
Eleaticus
David McAnally
>On Thu, 9 Apr 2003, John Schoenfeld wrote:
>> After reading somewhat on Maxwell's equations, they seem to be based
>> of several assumptions.
>>
>> 1. Symmetry of Faraday's law
>>
>> That a changing E Field produces an M Field as a changing M field
>> produces an E Field with perfect symmetry is a fairly optimistic
>> assumption isn't it?
>>
>> If A then B doesn't mean If B then A, so why would the reverse of
>> Faraday's law be true? It's only true if one assumes it to be true, or
>> am I wrong?
>Quick recipe for Maxwell's equations:
>1) Take the 5 known (pre-Maxwell) equations of electromagnetism:
>* Gauss's law
>* Ampere's law
>* Faraday's law
>* div B = 0 (does this have a possessive name?)
>* conservation of charge
>2) Note that these are inconsistent. In particular, Ampere's law. Use
>conservation of charge to fix Ampere's law.
>Symmetry of the curl equations isn't surprising after noting this.
I recently acquired a book called "Faster Than Light: Superluminal
Loopholes in Physics", by "Nick Herbert, Ph.D., Author of 'Quantum
Reality'" (sic), which includes discussions on Godel's universe, Tipler's
rotating cylinders and other things. In the introduction, he referred to
one Jack Sarfatti. In the book, Herbert attributes the inclusion of the
the additional term to the equation for curl H to solely aesthetic
purposes, and a desire for symmetry. It was quite shocking to realize
that somebody who claimed to have a Ph.D. in physics failed to realize
that the equation as it stood before modification was inconsistent with
conservation of charge, and that the modification rendered by Maxwell was
necessary for consistency.
David McAnally
--------------
keith stein
news:007la.47860$bh3....@fe10.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> "John Schoenfeld" <j.scho...@programmer.net> wrote in message
> news:a98beaaa.03040...@posting.google.com...
>
> > 2. Continuous magnetic field lines (since no magnetic monopoles
> > exist).
>
> > What would be the effect on the equations if magnetic monopoles exist?
> > Would invariant light speed c remain true?
>
> The idea that Maxwell says something about the invariant velocity of light
> is cultist idiocy.
That is true eh!
Maxwell's e-m theory, (as taught by James Clerk Maxwell )
Electric Permittivity OF THE MEDIUM = K
Magnetic Permeability OF THE MEDIUM = Mu
Velocity of electromagnetic waves RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM
= 1/(K * Mu)^.5
keith stein
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=keith+stein&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&site=groups
Bilge
>of several assumptions.
>
>1. Symmetry of Faraday's law
>
>That a changing E Field produces an M Field as a changing M field
>produces an E Field with perfect symmetry is a fairly optimistic
>assumption isn't it?
electric field:
curl E = -dB/dt
It was determined empirically, so there was no assumption about it.
One merely need drop a magnet through a loop of wire connected to a
meter.
>If A then B doesn't mean If B then A, so why would the reverse of
>Faraday's law be true? It's only true if one assumes it to be true, or
>am I wrong?
The reverse is true because physicists believe charge is conserved.
If charge is conserved, then ampere's law:
curl H = 4pi J/c
is not consistent with maxwell's other equations for a changing current.
div curl H = (4pi/c) div J = 0
because the divergence of a curl is _always_ zero. However, if you have
charges moving around, the continuity equation (which is the equation
that tells you charge is conserved) reads:
div J + d rho/dt = 0
where rho is a charge density. What maxwell noticed, was that gauss' law
could be used to make ampere's law consistent, since:
div E = 4 pi rho => div dE/dt = 4pi d rho/dt
So, if div curl H = 0 regardless of what H is, then:
div J + d rho/dt = div (4pi J + dE/dt) = 0
regardless of what J and rho are, if charge conservation is true.
Therfore, ampere's law becomes:
curl H = 4pi J/c + (1/c)dE/dt
>2. Continuous magnetic field lines (since no magnetic monopoles
>exist).
>
>What would be the effect on the equations if magnetic monopoles exist?
>Would invariant light speed c remain true?
This is a more complex question. It is actually possible to write
maxwell's equations such that they are completely symmetric in B
and E, simply by redefining the fields in a particular way (a duality
transformation). However, it turns out that if the _ratio_ of magnetic
charge to electric charge is exactly the same for all matter, then
one can always make a duality transformation such that maxwell's equations
contain only one type of charge. So far, it appears that no matter
differs in the ratio of electric to magnetic charge, so all charge
is defined as electric charge.
>3. Superposition principle
>
>This is a very fundamental assumption. There is no reason to assume
>that fields add linearly other than that of the crude empirical
>evidence given long ago.
This is reason that classical E&M cannot describe quamtum phenomena.
Maxwell's equations are linear and even some of what is presented
as classical, like interference, stretches it a bit.
>I heard somewhere (in engineering circles) that very strong E fields
>are inconsistent with the superposition principle. Is there much
>evidence of this principle or is it another assumption?
The most well known example is delbruck scattering, which is the
scattering of light from light. It's a very small effect, but maxwell's
equations are totally incapable of describing it.
Mathew Orman
"John Schoenfeld" <j.scho...@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.03040...@posting.google.com...
> of several assumptions.
>
> 1. Symmetry of Faraday's law
>
> That a changing E Field produces an M Field as a changing M field
> produces an E Field with perfect symmetry is a fairly optimistic
> assumption isn't it?
No,
it is not an assumption
but the experimentally observed property!
>
> If A then B doesn't mean If B then A, so why would the reverse of
> Faraday's law be true? It's only true if one assumes it to be true, or
> am I wrong?
>
> 2. Continuous magnetic field lines (since no magnetic monopoles
> exist).
>
> What would be the effect on the equations if magnetic monopoles exist?
> Would invariant light speed c remain true?
Invariant light speed c is true WRT source!
>
> 3. Superposition principle
>
> This is a very fundamental assumption. There is no reason to assume
> that fields add linearly other than that of the crude empirical
> evidence given long ago.
Long ago is only philosophical effect in your mind.
Time does not exist as a property of space.
Continuous motion of matter does not affect laws of physical science.
>
> I heard somewhere (in engineering circles) that very strong E fields
> are inconsistent with the superposition principle. Is there much
> evidence of this principle or is it another assumption?
Only in the presence of medium that has nonlinear physical properties!
>
> JS
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
John Schoenfeld
The problem with those experiments is that they were done long ago,
when measuring devices were quite crude. Any weak superposition
violations at that time would've been dismissed as experimental error.
Richard Perry
In addition, if the terms in the original equations are thoroughly
defined, the then the terms in any conclusions will also be well
defined. Maxwell only gets and unqualified c. Note the contrast to my
equations in which all speeds, velocities etc. are relativistically
defined throughout, i.e. there is no ambiguity about what these speeds
are measured relative to. I find for c, that it is a property of the
medium itself, that is, it is the mean speed of the fundamental charges
of which it is composed.
Robert Kolker
John Anderson wrote:
>
> Maxwell's equations are based on physical observations.
There were no laboratory indications of the "displacement current" at
the time Maxwell postulated that term added to Faraday's Law. He added
it for reasons of mathematical completeness. The displacement current
was tested by Hertz in 1887, 8 years after Maxwell died.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Mathew Orman wrote:
> No,
> it is not an assumption
> but the experimentally observed property!
At the time Maxwell postulated the term, there was not a dight of
experimental evidence requiring it. Maxwell's motives were to restore
the mathematical condition of continuity and to render the equations
complete. In short, the -theory- required the displacement current, not
any findings in the lab.
Bob Kolker
Alfred Einstead
> > What would be the effect on the equations if magnetic monopoles exist?
> > Would invariant light speed c remain true?
> The idea that Maxwell says something about the invariant velocity of light
From Maxwell article 628:
If the units of length, mass and time are the same in the two
systems [the electrostatic and electromagnetic systems defined
earlier], the number of electrostatic units of electricity
contained in one electromagnetic unit is numerically equal
to a certain velocity, the absolute value of which does not
depend on the fundamental units employed. The velocity is
an important physical quantity which we shall denote by the
symbol V.
(Which Maxwell goes on to equate with the speed of light).
[He used V to denote light speed, predating the convention of
using c.]
Lawrence Foard
>of several assumptions.
>
>1. Symmetry of Faraday's law
>
>That a changing E Field produces an M Field as a changing M field
>produces an E Field with perfect symmetry is a fairly optimistic
>assumption isn't it?
Makes sense, if it weren't perfect light wouldn't be able to propogate
for billions of years.
>2. Continuous magnetic field lines (since no magnetic monopoles
>exist).
>
>What would be the effect on the equations if magnetic monopoles exist?
Not much except for making the 4 vector potetial no longer work.
>Would invariant light speed c remain true?
I don't believe it would cause an impact here.
>3. Superposition principle
>
>This is a very fundamental assumption. There is no reason to assume
>that fields add linearly other than that of the crude empirical
>evidence given long ago.
>
>I heard somewhere (in engineering circles) that very strong E fields
>are inconsistent with the superposition principle. Is there much
>evidence of this principle or is it another assumption?
I'm assuming you mean very extreme fields. Someone earlier mentioned
a change in the field equations for high energy particle interactions.
I assume at some point particle pair creation would become an issue.
--
Be a counter terrorist perpetrate random senseless acts of kindness
Rave: Immanentization of the Eschaton in a Temporary Autonomous Zone.
"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security"
-Benjamin Franklin
will grates
Assume, as always, energy is conserved <g>
Never heard of it until today! Will do
some digging and read a bit the first question
that came to mind...
Do the products, statistically, follow the same rules as in classical
EM nonlinear mixing (original, sum, difference, products) and if so
what does the analagous 'nonlinear device' look like???
EM=electro-magnetic, EM (NOT)=expectation-maximization <g>
Mathew Orman
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E95678B...@attbi.com...
As per above evidence
I did not say that there was an experimental prove!
I was quoting the current state of that theory!
Mathew Orman
Richard Perry
So he is supporting my derivation that c is a property, i.e. a 'speed'
of the electromagnetic units of charge. Go figure.
Bilge
>In article <a98beaaa.03040...@posting.google.com>,
>
>I'm not an expert in this area, but I think quantum electodynamics
>predicts the existence of photon-photon interactions, for which the
>classical analog would be non-superposition of electromagnetic fields.
>This is a very weak effect (involving production and annihilation of
>virtual-particle pairs, if I remember correctly), but I think it has been
>observed and studied using high-energy photon beams. This is beyond the
>realm of classical electrodynamics, of course.
is:
~ ~ Where two of the photon lines are virtual and the
~ ~ process involves the production and anihilation of
~+-->--+~ two virtual e+/e- pairs. There are a total of 6
| | diagrams which need to summed to obtain a covariant
| | result and which may obtain by various crossing of
+--<--+ the photon lines.
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
Robert Kolker
Richard Perry wrote:
> are measured relative to. I find for c, that it is a property of the
> medium itself, that is, it is the mean speed of the fundamental charges
> of which it is composed.
What medium. Have you detected a medium?
Bob Kolker
>
keith stein
If light travels through air the medium is air. (Maxwell's primary example)
If light travels through water the medium is water.
If light travels through glass the medium is glass.
If light travels through hydrogen the medium is hydrogen.
If light travels through paraffin the medium is paraffin (Maxwell's other
example
of a medium).
And as Maxwell well knew - there ain't no vacuum nowhere -
SO THERE IS MEDIUM EVERYWHERE eh!
keith stein
Bilge
>Assume, as always, energy is conserved <g>
>Never heard of it until today! Will do
>some digging and read a bit the first question
>that came to mind...
>
>Do the products, statistically, follow the same rules as in classical
>EM nonlinear mixing (original, sum, difference, products) and if so
>what does the analagous 'nonlinear device' look like???
Actually, I'm not sure what you mean by "classical E&M non-linear
mixing". Classical E&M is a linear theory and interference isn't
really addressed, except in an ad hoc sort of way. For example,
if you have two light sources, does classical E&M tell you whether
or not they interfere (even if the two sources are individually,
coherent)? If not, why should a single source, split into two
beams produce interference? In principle, one could always adjust
one of the sources to have the same phase relationship to the
other source, as the single beam acheives when split into two,
if classical E&M described interference. Classical interference is
based upon geometric optics, but that fails unless the interfering
wavefronts are derived from the same coherent source. In the 19th
century, it was, in fact, difficult to produce interference from
artificial light sources.
One cannot, for example, produce a circularly polarized beam
by simply overlapping two linearly polarized beams, even though
that is often how circular polarization is described.
As for delbruck scattering, the process occurs in free space.
It is the result of scattering light from an electromagnetic
field. The electromagnetic field is virtual, so what you have
is the following:
light
~ Both the propagating photon (light) and the virtual photon
~ can fluctuate into virtual e+/e- pairs, which, without the
~ presence of the second photon, would simply anihilate and
form a closed loop:
~ ~
~ ~
~ ( )
EM field
(virtual ~
photon) ~
Instead, the e+/e- pairs from different photons can anihilate with
each other so that you get the following:
incident scattered
light
~ ~
~ e+ ~
~+--<--+~
e+ | | e-
| |
+-->--+
~ e- ~
~ ~
~ ~
incident scattered
virtual
-----------
A non-linear "classical" device is really not classical (I'd like
to see someone explain it using classical E&M, without assuming
the non-linear mixing, ad hoc). A mixer provides for non-linear mixing,
but one merely assumes the mixing can occur.
Sam Wormley
>
>
> If light travels through air the medium is air. (Maxwell's primary example)
> If light travels through water the medium is water.
> If light travels through glass the medium is glass.
> If light travels through hydrogen the medium is hydrogen.
> If light travels through paraffin the medium is paraffin (Maxwell's other
> example
> of a medium).
>
> And as Maxwell well knew - there ain't no vacuum nowhere -
> SO THERE IS MEDIUM EVERYWHERE eh!
>
Medium is not required for propagation of electomagnetic waves.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectromagneticWave.html
Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AStein
tongaloa
Perhaps one of you QEM guys can say what if any relationship there
might be between the energies of the products and the sources,
other than conservation?
Say two scatter, hv(sub1) and hv(sub2) make hv(sub3) and hv(sub4)
product with energy equal before and after.
Do we ever see three or more products?
If we see three or more, how are the v's related, other than summing
to the same initial total?
Does this make my question more clear?
If we don't see more than two product, does the model predict more than
three, with any sort of relationship???
What's the model?
Thanks,
-Will
greywolf42
John Schoenfeld <j.scho...@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.03040...@posting.google.com...
You may be referring to the reports of deviations from Maxwell's equations
during railgun experiments. However, although I've heard of such
deviations, to my knowledge, none have been published.
Maxwell's equations are based on the assumption of a corpuscular,
(super)fluid aether. Maxwell first derived his equations in "On Physical
Lines of Force" in 1861. In said derivation he made several simplifying
approximations. The result was a compact, simple set of mathematical
equations -- that are only good when Maxwell's approximations hold.
However, Maxwell also found ("Treatise" in 1873) some mathematical rules and
assumptions that would allow him to duplicate equations obtained from the
physical derivation twelve years earlier.-- but from a purely mathematical
basis.
As to #1, the assumption of Faraday's law was one of the simplifying
assumptions that Maxwell made in his first (physical) derivation. That is,
he limited his analysis to situations where the either the source or the
target was stationary in his aether. Thus, keeping that assumption in 1873
was obvious.
As to #2, the physics community flirted with magnetic monopoles in the late
60s and 70s. The watchword of "symmetry" was intoned and no mathematical
reason was found to preclude their physical existence. Of course, nobody
bothered to apply Maxwell's original model (where such are expressly
precluded) -- so much time and effort was spent looking for what is now as
outdated a concept as the planet Vulcan.
As to #3, the assumption of superposition is another of those simplifying
assumptions made by Maxwell in 1861. The equations hold only so long as the
magnitude of the disturbance in the aether is significantly less than the
energy or pressure in the aether. (The same way there's a maximum sound
level in air.)
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
greywolf42
And another repeat of the Big Lie by Kolker. Pathetic, when you see how
many times he's been directed to Maxwell's derivation ("On Physical Lines of
Force", 1861).
keith stein
news:3E95DABA...@mchsi.com...
> keith stein wrote:
> >
> > If light travels through air the medium is air. (Maxwell's primary
example)
> > If light travels through water the medium is water.
> > If light travels through glass the medium is glass.
> > If light travels through hydrogen the medium is hydrogen.
> > If light travels through paraffin the medium is paraffin (Maxwell's
other
> > example
> > of a medium).
> >
> > And as Maxwell well knew - there ain't no vacuum nowhere -
> > SO THERE IS MEDIUM EVERYWHERE eh!
> >
>
> Medium is not required for propagation of electomagnetic waves.
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectromagneticWave.html
There is NOTHING in that which proves that medium is not required, merely an
assumption. What is the speed of the e-m wave derived from Maxwell's theory
relative to, without the medium ? A speed relative to nothing is nonsence
eh!
> Crank Information
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AStein
You had better include Maxwell in your list of cranks, Mr Wormley, because
Maxwell most certainly believed that medium IS necessary for propagation of
electromagnetic waves, and he said so very clearly.
keith stein
elea...@bellsouth.net
the two together. The paragraph you delete expanded/filled out what I was
saying.
"Alfred Einstead" <whop...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:e58d56ae.03041...@posting.google.com...
elea...@bellsouth.net
"Alfred Einstead" <whop...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:e58d56ae.03041...@posting.google.com...
Sam Wormley
>
> You had better include Maxwell in your list of cranks, Mr Wormley, because
> Maxwell most certainly believed that medium IS necessary for propagation of
> electromagnetic waves, and he said so very clearly.
>
It's not what Maxwell believed, it's what nature dictates....
A medium is not required for propagation of electomagnetic waves
keith stein
You have no evidence for that statement whatsoever, and i believe Maxwell
not you Mr. Wormley.
keith stein
Robert Kolker
keith stein wrote:
> And as Maxwell well knew - there ain't no vacuum nowhere -
> SO THERE IS MEDIUM EVERYWHERE eh!
Your "logic" is that if a something is true in six cases it must be true
for the seventh. But you have not answered my question. Has aether been
positively detected (not inferred, not guessed at but detected). A
simple yes or no would suffice. If yes, state the procedure which
detected it and give a reference from a reputable refereed journal
supporting your claim.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
keith stein wrote:
> You had better include Maxwell in your list of cranks, Mr Wormley, because
> Maxwell most certainly believed that medium IS necessary for propagation of
> electromagnetic waves, and he said so very clearly.
He also believed that the medium consisted of hex nuts separated by
roller bearings.
Bob Kolker
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
They were done long time ago, they were done short time ago, they were
done yesterday, they are being done today, they will be done
tomorrow. Any measurement or process involving EM fields is,
indirectly, a check of Maxwell's equations and, if and when
discrepancies between predictions and observations start appearing,
that's the time to revisit the theory and see what needs to be done.
It takes a gross lack of understanding of the scientific process to
think that a measurement is made, a model is created, the equatins are
cast onto a bronze tablet and nobody questions them fro this time on.
No, a scientific theory (*any* scientific theory) is forever in doubt
and checked anew every day.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Timo Nieminen
> In principle, one could always adjust
> one of the sources to have the same phase relationship to the
> other source, as the single beam acheives when split into two,
> if classical E&M described interference. Classical interference is
> based upon geometric optics, but that fails unless the interfering
> wavefronts are derived from the same coherent source. In the 19th
> century, it was, in fact, difficult to produce interference from
> artificial light sources.
>
> One cannot, for example, produce a circularly polarized beam
> by simply overlapping two linearly polarized beams, even though
> that is often how circular polarization is described.
A real problem in optics, until the laser, since one really had no control
over the phase. In principle, one can use a suitable statistical
description of the light, but often easier to just use geometric optics
and coherence length.
For lower frequency stuff, where it's easy to produce coherent beams with
known and measurable phases, classical EM is far more useful.
> A non-linear "classical" device is really not classical (I'd like
> to see someone explain it using classical E&M, without assuming
> the non-linear mixing, ad hoc). A mixer provides for non-linear mixing,
> but one merely assumes the mixing can occur.
Easy to explain with classical EM (in some not-very-useful sense of
"easy"). epsilon and mu are, in general, tensor functions of the fields,
the past history of the fields, and other things that affect the medium
(such as temperature). However, to quote Stratton, ``The relations between
the vectors, moreover, are linear in almost all the soluble problems of
electromagnetic theory.'' The fact that almost all work done in EM assumes
linearity is a matter of practicality and usefulness rather than
necessity. Prediction of epsilon and mu from first principles isn't easy,
but it isn't a fundamental defect in the theory.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Robert Kolker
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> No, a scientific theory (*any* scientific theory) is forever in doubt
> and checked anew every day.
When technology permits the theory to be checked under unusual
conditions, discrepancies may be found. As new instruments with greater
sensitivity are created, old measurements are repeated to see if there
are any variances.
Bob Kolker
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
and on Kepler's laws which, in turn, were based on the measurements
of Ticho de Brahe. The following 300 years of growing experimental
and mathemathical sophistication, eventually generated evidence that
some problems may be present. Standard scientific progression.
Robert Kolker
greywolf42 wrote:
>
> And another repeat of the Big Lie by Kolker. Pathetic, when you see how
> many times he's been directed to Maxwell's derivation ("On Physical Lines of
> Force", 1861).
Give a verbetim quote that shows that I am in error.
What observation or laboratory experiment forced Maxwell to add the
displacement current term to Faraday's law.
Bob Kolker
Jan
> The problem with those experiments is that they were done long ago,
> when measuring devices were quite crude.
Oh, come on! What planet do you live on? Do you think physics stopped
at the level of your current understanding of it? Sheesh...
Jan Bielawski
Jan
> I recently acquired a book called "Faster Than Light: Superluminal
> Loopholes in Physics", by "Nick Herbert, Ph.D., Author of 'Quantum
> Reality'" (sic), which includes discussions on Godel's universe, Tipler's
> rotating cylinders and other things. In the introduction, he referred to
> one Jack Sarfatti. In the book, Herbert attributes the inclusion of the
> the additional term to the equation for curl H to solely aesthetic
> purposes, and a desire for symmetry. It was quite shocking to realize
> that somebody who claimed to have a Ph.D. in physics failed to realize
> that the equation as it stood before modification was inconsistent with
> conservation of charge, and that the modification rendered by Maxwell was
> necessary for consistency.
RULE NUMBER ONE: Never ever read science books whose authors are
"So-and-so, Ph.D." (especially if the word "quantum" appears in the
title and doubly-especially is the word "God" appears there). Have you
ever seen a book by "Roger Penrose, Ph.D." or "Kip Thorne, Ph.D."?
The softer the science the higher the likelihood of the Ph.D.-postfix.
Jan Bielawski
Robert Kolker
Robert Kolker wrote:
>
> Give a verbetim quote that shows that I am in error.
>
> What observation or laboratory experiment forced Maxwell to add the
> displacement current term to Faraday's law.
Whoops. Make that Ampere's Law. Sorry.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Jan wrote:
>
> RULE NUMBER ONE: Never ever read science books whose authors are
> "So-and-so, Ph.D." (especially if the word "quantum" appears in the
> title and doubly-especially is the word "God" appears there). Have you
> ever seen a book by "Roger Penrose, Ph.D." or "Kip Thorne, Ph.D."?
>
> The softer the science the higher the likelihood of the Ph.D.-postfix.
Damn! That is one smart observation. Thank you.
Bob Kolker
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
A long post (Most of Maxwell's Part III of "On the Physical Lines
of Force San most equations is posted below)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PART III.-The Theory of Molecular Vortices applied to Statical Electricity.
IN the first part of this paper I have shown bow the forces acting between
magnets, electric currents, and matter capable of magnetic induction may
be accounted for on the hypothesis of the magnetic field being occupied
with innumerable vortices of revolving matter, their axes coinciding with
the direction of the magnetic force at every point of the field.
The centrifugal force of these vortices produces pressures distributed in
such a way that the final effect is a force identical in direction and
magnitude with that which we observe.
In the second part I described the mechanism by which these rotations may
be made to coexist, and to be distributed according to the known laws of
magnetic lines of force.
I conceived the rotating matter to be the substance of certain cells,
divided from each other by cell-walls composed of particles which are
very small compared with the cells, and that it is by the motions of
these particles, and their tangential action on the substance in the
cells, that the rotation is communicated from one cell to another.
I have not attempted to explain this tangential action, but it is
necessary to suppose, in order to account for the transmission of
rotation from the exterior to the interior parts of each cell, that the
substance in the cells possesses elasticity of figure, similar in kind,
though different in degree, to that observed in solid bodies. The
undulatory theory of light requires us to admit this kind of
elasticity in the luminiferous medium, in order to account for
transverse vibrations. We need not then be surprised if the magneto-
electric medium possesses the same property.
According to our theory, the particles which form the partitions between
the cells constitute the matter of electricity. The motion of these
particles constitutes an electric current; the tangential force with
which the particles are pressed by the matter of -the cells is
electromotive force, and the pressure of the particles on each other
corresponds to the tension or potential of the electricity.
If we can now explain the condition of a body with respect to the
surrounding medium when it is said to be "charged" with electricity,
and account for the forces acting between electrified bodies, we shall
have established a connection between all the principal phenomena of
electrical science.
We know by experiment that electric tension is the same thing, whether
observed in statical or in current electricity; that an electromotive
force produced by magnetism may be ,made to charge a Leyden jar, as
is done by the coil machine.
When a difference of tension exists in different parts of any body,
the electricity passes, or tends to pass, from places of greater to
places of smaller tension. If the body is a conductor, an actual
passage of electricity takes place; and if the difference of tensions
is kept up, the current continues to flow with a velocity proportional
inversely to the resistance, or directly to the conductivity of the
body.
The electric resistance has a very wide range of values, that of the
metals being the smallest, and that- of glass being so great that a
charge of electricity has been preserved* in a glass vessel for years
without penetrating the thickness of the glass.
Bodies which do not permit a current of electricity to flow through
them are called insulators. But though electricity does not flow
through them, electrical effects are propagated through them, and
the amount of these effects differs 'according to the nature of the
body; so that equally good insulators may act differently as
dielectrics*.
Here then we have two independent qualities of bodies, one by which
they allow of the passage of electricity through them, and the other
by which they allow of electrical action being transmitted through
them. without any electricity being allowed to pass. A conducting
body may be compared to a porous membrane which opposes more or
less resistance to the passage of a fluid, while a dielectric is
like an elastic membrane which may be impervious to the fluid, but
transmits the pressure of the fluid on one side to that on the other.
As long as electromotive force acts on a conductor, it produces a
current which, as it meets with resistance, occasions a continual
transformation of electrical energy into heat, which is incapable
of being restored again as electrical energy by any reversion of
the process.
Electromotive force acting on a dielectric produces a state of
polarization of its parts similar in distribution to the polarity
of the particles of iron under the influence of a magnet, and,
like the magnetic polarization, capable of being described as a
state in which every particle has its poles in opposite
conditions.
In a dielectric under induction, we may conceive that the
electricity in each molecule is so displaced that one side is
rendered positively, and the other negatively electrical, but that
the electricity remains entirely connected with the molecule, and
does not pass from one molecule to another.
The effect of this action on the whole dielectric mass is to produce
a general displacement of the electricity in a certain direction.
This displacement does not amount to a current, because when it has
attained a certain value it remains constant, but it is the
commencement of a current, and its variations constitute currents in
the positive or negative direction, according as the displacement is
increasing or diminishing. The amount of the displacement depends on
the nature of the body, and on the electromotive force; so that if h
is the displacement, R the electromotive force, and c a coefficient
depending on the nature of the dielectric.,
R = - 4piE^2h {NOT Planck's Constant!}
and if r is the value of the electric current due to displacement,
dh
r= --
dt
These relations are independent of any theory about the internal
mechanism of dielectrics; but when we find electromotive force
producing electric displacement in a dielectric, and when we find
the dielectric recovering from Its state of electric displacement
with an equal electromotive force, we cannot help regarding the
phenomena as those of an elastic body, yielding to a pressure, and
recovering its form when the pressure is removed.
According to our hypothesis, the magnetic medium is divided into
cells, separated by partitions formed of a stratum of particles
which play the part of electricity. When the electric particles
are urged in any direction, they will, by their tangential action
on the elastic substance of the cells, distort each cell, and call
into play an equal and opposite force arising from the elasticity
of the cells. When the force is removed, the cells will recover
their form, and the electricity will return to its former
position.
In the following investigation I have considered the relation
between the displacement and the force producing it, on the
supposition that the cells are spherical. The actual form of the
cells probably does not differ from that of a sphere sufficiently
to make much difference in the numerical result.
I have deduced from this result the relation between the statical
and dynamical measures of electricity, and Ave shown, by a,
comparison of the electro-magnetic experiments of MM.
Kohransch and Weber with the velocity of light as found by M. Fizeau,
that the elasticity of the magnetic medium in air is the same as that
of the luminiferous medium, if these two coexistent, coextensive, and
equally elastic media are not rather one medium.
It appears also from Prop. XV. that the attraction between two
electrified bodies depends on the value of E2, and that therefore it
would be less in turpentine than in air, if the quantity of
electricity in each body remains the same. If, however, the
potentials of the two bodies were given, the attraction between them
would vary inversely as E^2 and would be greater in turpentine than
in air.
Pro. XII. - To find the conditions of equilibrium of an elastic
sphere whose surface is exposed to normal and tangential forces,
the tangential forces being proportional to the sine of the distance
from a given point on the sphere.
Let the axis of z be the axis of spherical coordinates.
Let e, n, z be the Displacements of any particle of the sphere in the
directions of x, y, and z.
Let Pxx, Pyy, Pzz be the stresses normal to planes perpendicular to
the three axes, and let pyx, Pzx, Pxy be the stresses of distortion
in the planes yz, zx, and xy.
Let A be the coefficient of cubic elasticity, so that if
...(80)
Let m be the coefficient of rigidity, so that
...(81)
Then we have the following equations of elasticity in an isotropic
medium,
...(82)
with similar equations in y and z, and also
...(83)
In the case ~f the sphere, let us assume the radius = a, and
...(84)
Then
...(85)
The equation of internal equilibrium with respect to z is
...(86)
which is satisfied in this-ease if
...(87)
The tangential stress on the surface of the sphere, whose radius
is a at an angular distance 0 from the axis in plane xz,
...(88)
...(89)
In order that T may be proportional to sin 0, the first term must
vanish, and therefore
...(90)
...(91)
The normal stress on the surface at any point is
...(92)
or by (87) and (90)
...(93)
The tangential displacement of any point is
...(94)
The normal displacement is
...(95)
If we make
...(96)
there will be no normal displacement, and the displacement
will be entirely tangential, and we shall have
...(97)
The whole work done by the superficial forces is
...
the summation being extended over the surface of the sphere.
The energy of elasticity in the substance of the sphere is
...
the summation being extended to the whole contents of the sphere.
We find, as we ought, that these quantities have the same value,
namely
...(98)
We may now suppose that the tangential action on the surface
arises from a layer of particles in contact with it, the
particles being acted on by their own mutual pressure, and acting
on the surfaces of the two cells with which they are in contact.
We assume the axis of z to be in the direction of maximum
variation of the pressure among the particles, and we have to
determine the relation between an electromotive force R acting on
the particles in that direction, and the electric displacement h
which accompanies it.
Prop. XIII - To find the relation between electromotive force and
electric displacement when a uniform electromotive force R acts
parallel to the axis of z.
Take any element 88 of the surface, covered with a stratum whose
density is p, and having its normal inclined (theta) to the axes
of z; then the tangential force upon it will be
...(99)
T being, as before, the tangential force on each side of the
surface. Putting p = 1/2pi as in equation (34)*, we find
...(100)
The displacement of electricity due to the distortion of the sphere
is
...(101)
and if h is the electric displacement per unit of volume, we shall
have
...(102)
... to (106)
Finding e and f from (87) and (90) we get
...(107)
The ratio of m to u varies in different substances; but in a medium
whose elasticity depends entirely upon forces acting between pairs of
particles, this ratio is that of 6 to 5., and in this case
...(108)
When the resistance to compression is infinitely greater than the
resistance to distortion, as in a liquid rendered slightly elastic
by gum or jelly,
...(109)
The value of c must lie between these limits. It is probable that the
substance of our cells is of the former kind, and that we must use
the first value of c^2, which is that belonging to a hypothetically
"perfect" solid*, in which
...(110)
so that we must use equation (108).
Prop. XIV - To correct the equations (9) t of electric currents for
the effect due to the elasticity of the medium.
We have seen that electromotive force and electric displacement are
connected by equation (105). Differentiating this equation with
respect to t, we find
DR/dt = -4pi(dh/dt)c^2 ...(111)
showing that when the electromotive force varies, the electric
displacement also varies. But a variation of displacement is equivalent
to a current, and this current must be taken into account in equations
(9) and added to r. The three equations then become
...(112)
wbere p, q, r are the electric currents in the directions of x, y, and
z; a, B, g are the components of magnetic intensity; and P, Q, R are
the electromotive forces. Now if e be the quantity of free electricity
in unit of volume, then the equation of continuity will be
...(113)
Differentiating (112) with respect to x, y, and z respectively, and
substituting, we find
...(114)
whence
e = 1/c^24pi[dP/dx + dQ/y + dR/z] ...(115)
the constant being omitted, because e = O when there are no electromotive
forces.
Prop. XV - To find the force acting between two electrified bodies.
The energy in the medium arising from the electric displacement ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, in Part II we find,
"We have thus determined three quantities, F, G, H, from which we can find
P, Q, and R by considering these latter quantities as the rates at which
the former ones vary. In the paper already referred to, I have given
reasons for considering the quantities F, G, H as the resolved parts of
that which Faraday has conjectured to exist, and has called the
electrotonic state. In that paper I have stated the mathematical relations
between this electrotonic state and the lines of magnetic force as
expressed in equations (55), and also between the electrotonic state and
electromotive force as expressed in equations (58). We must now endeavor
to interpret them from a mechanical point of view in connection with our
hypothesis. ..."
In Simpson's book "Maxwell on the Electromagnetic Field, A Guided Study"
he says of this section,
"This is an astounding claim and one on which the rest of
the theory will depend. The implication of Maxwell's
account is that even in absolutely empty space, the
variation of the electric strain is equivalent to a current
and will give rise to the same magnetic effects as if
actual currents were flowing. These in turn, of course, will
induce new electromotive forces, so all the interactive
processes of electromagnetism must actually be going On
without a need for circuits or conductors in a total vacuum!
Unfortunately, the effect must be so slight that Maxwell saw
no prospect of a direct experimental test of the predicted
effect. Less directly, however, as he shows next, it has an
enormous implication - that of a propagating electromagnetic
wave. ..."
But, no rational person reading the above paper of Maxwell could
claim that Maxwell wasn't basing his work on experiments, mainly
those performed by Faraday!
Paul Stowe
Bilge
>
>> In principle, one could always adjust
>> one of the sources to have the same phase relationship to the
>> other source, as the single beam acheives when split into two,
>> if classical E&M described interference. Classical interference is
>> based upon geometric optics, but that fails unless the interfering
>> wavefronts are derived from the same coherent source. In the 19th
>> century, it was, in fact, difficult to produce interference from
>> artificial light sources.
>>
>> One cannot, for example, produce a circularly polarized beam
>> by simply overlapping two linearly polarized beams, even though
>> that is often how circular polarization is described.
>
>A real problem in optics, until the laser, since one really had no control
>over the phase. In principle, one can use a suitable statistical
>description of the light, but often easier to just use geometric optics
>and coherence length.
polarized beam and geometric optics says nothing about combining linear
polarizations into circular ones. Geometric optics says nothing about
coherence - it assumes it.
>For lower frequency stuff, where it's easy to produce coherent beams with
>known and measurable phases, classical EM is far more useful.
You'll have to be more specific. The uncertainty relation between the
number operator and the phase means that the absolute phase of the field
is not an observable.
>> A non-linear "classical" device is really not classical (I'd like
>> to see someone explain it using classical E&M, without assuming
>> the non-linear mixing, ad hoc). A mixer provides for non-linear mixing,
>> but one merely assumes the mixing can occur.
>
>Easy to explain with classical EM (in some not-very-useful sense of
>"easy"). epsilon and mu are, in general, tensor functions of the fields,
>the past history of the fields, and other things that affect the medium
>(such as temperature). However, to quote Stratton, ``The relations between
>the vectors, moreover, are linear in almost all the soluble problems of
>electromagnetic theory.''
Sure, but that does not describe the actual process by which mixing
occurs. It merely assumes the mixing and then treats the results as
ordinary E&M, without asking how the interactions with the charges
in the medium contribute. If the medium is linear then no mixing
occurs.
>The fact that almost all work done in EM assumes linearity is a matter
>of practicality and usefulness rather than necessity. Prediction of
>epsilon and mu from first principles isn't easy, but it isn't a
>fundamental defect in the theory.
I do not see how classical E&M can be used to obtain \epsilon and
\mu at all, let alone first pronciples. At the very least one must
make use of harmonically bound charges and that falls outside of
classical E&M. I'm not saying that classical E&M isn't useful. I'm
saying that to use it one must assume quite a bit that isn't justified
by classical E&M.
Timo Nieminen
> Timo Nieminen:
> >On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Bilge wrote:
> >
> >> In principle, one could always adjust
> >> one of the sources to have the same phase relationship to the
> >> other source, as the single beam acheives when split into two,
> >> if classical E&M described interference. Classical interference is
> >> based upon geometric optics, but that fails unless the interfering
> >> wavefronts are derived from the same coherent source. In the 19th
> >> century, it was, in fact, difficult to produce interference from
> >> artificial light sources.
> >>
> >> One cannot, for example, produce a circularly polarized beam
> >> by simply overlapping two linearly polarized beams, even though
> >> that is often how circular polarization is described.
> >
> >A real problem in optics, until the laser, since one really had no control
> >over the phase. In principle, one can use a suitable statistical
> >description of the light, but often easier to just use geometric optics
> >and coherence length.
>
> Huh? A statistical mixture of linear polarizations is not a circularly
> polarized beam and geometric optics says nothing about combining linear
> polarizations into circular ones. Geometric optics says nothing about
> coherence - it assumes it.
Sorry for the confusion, my comment relates more to the first of your two
paragraphs. If one can describe the two linearly polarised beams properly,
then one can readily calculate their superposition. If the phase
relationship between them varies with time, then, yes, the result is not a
circularly polarised beam. However, take two coherent beams with
orthogonal linear polarisations and combine them and you do get a
circularly polarised beam. Both cases describable with classical EM; only
difference is coherence of sources. Classical EM describes interference
very well, but it isn't always (or even often) useful for describing
natural light.
In my experience, GO assumes incoherence, since distances are typically
much greater than the coherence length. You can patch polarisation into GO
with a rather crude hack, and interference, too. Never had cause to do so
myself.
> >For lower frequency stuff, where it's easy to produce coherent beams with
> >known and measurable phases, classical EM is far more useful.
>
> You'll have to be more specific. The uncertainty relation between the
> number operator and the phase means that the absolute phase of the field
> is not an observable.
Easy enough to measure phase of an RF field (mod 2 pi, of course).
Classically, one can ignore uncertainty relation. Also easy enough to
generate coherent EM waves even from two independent sources (coherence
length will depend on frequency accuracy and stability).
> I do not see how classical E&M can be used to obtain \epsilon and
> \mu at all, let alone first pronciples. At the very least one must
> make use of harmonically bound charges and that falls outside of
> classical E&M.
Sure, classical EM doesn't specify anything about molecules. But I
wouldn't regard determining epsilon and mu for a medium from (perhaps
experimentally determined) properties of molecules non-classical. I can
see why you call that ad hoc, but it really isn't any different from using
experimentally measured values of epsilon(omega) and mu(omega) in
principle. To call nonlinear EM non-classical on these grounds implies to
me that classical EM would only apply to free space.
Steve Harris
Maxwell postulated it, but didn't dare publish until he'd
done the experiment to measure displacement current himself.
Took a big double plate capacitor, put a compass between the
plates, and charged her up. Needle was deflected.
SBH
keith stein
> keith stein wrote:
> > And as Maxwell well knew - there ain't no vacuum nowhere -
> > SO THERE IS MEDIUM EVERYWHERE eh!
>
> Your "logic" is that if a something is true in six cases it must be true
> for the seventh. But you have not answered my question. Has aether been
> positively detected (not inferred, not guessed at but detected). A
> simple yes or no would suffice.
No. No "aether", Mr.Kolker, BUT Maxwell's medium is "matter",
and "matter" is detected everywhere.
Now here is a question for you Mr. Kolker:
What's the difference between a vacuum and a gas at 10^-10 Torr ?
And here is the answer for you Mr. Kolker:
The difference is that the gas defines a frame of reference eh!
keith stein
jmfb...@aol.com
I think somebody needs to sign up for some lab courses. Kiddies
have to do the "old" experiments to learn how to do experiments.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
David Evens
Continueing to pretend that observations do not exist will not make
them stop existing.
keith stein
news:3e969f8...@news.falls.igs.net...
And continuing to pretend that observation do exist will not make
them exist eh!
keith stein
Maxwell commences his mathematical treatment with this clear definition of
his frame of reference :-
"Let us next determine the conditions of the propagation of an
electromagnetic disturbance through a uniform medium, which we shall
suppose to be at rest, that is, to have no motion except that which may
be involved in electromagnetic disturbances."
What is the speed of light relative to without the medium, "nothing"!
The speed of "anything" relative to "nothing" is nonsense,of course!
Maxwell's theory gives the speed relative to the 'medium', and that's
why from first to last Maxwell insisted on the necessity of a 'medium':-
"In several parts of this treatise an attempt has been made to
explain electromagnetic phenomena by means of mechanical action
transmitted from one body to another my means of a medium occupying the
space between them. The undulatory theory of light also assumes the
existence of a medium. We have now to shew that the properties of the
electromagnetic medium are identical with those of the luminiferous
medium. ......if the study of two different branches of science has
independently suggested the idea of a medium .... the evidence for the
physical existence of the medium will be considerable strengthened.
...... and the combination of the optical with the electrical evidence
will produce a conviction of the reality of the medium ...
According to the theory of undulation, there is a material
medium which fills the space between the two bodies, and it is by the
action of contiguous parts of this medium that the energy is passed
on... We must therefore regard the medium as having a finite density."
Clearly Maxwell knew that light travels across interstellar
space, so i can only think that he must have correctly guessed that
there was some finite density gas out there, or was the Hydrogen in
space actually discovered much earlier than i thought? Certainly the
examples Maxwell gives of what he meant by a medium are real substances e.g.
Air, or paraffin, and he doesn't mention 'ether' anywhere.
and Maxwell concludes:-
"In fact,whenever energy is transmitted from one body to another
in time, there must be a medium or substance in which the energy exists
after it leasves one body and before it reaches the other,for energy,as
Torricelli remarked,'is a quintessence of so subtile a nature that it
cannot be contained in any vessel except the inmost substance of
material things.' Hence all these theories lead to the conception of a
medium in which the propagation takes place..."
--
keith stein
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=keith+stein&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&site=groups
Robert Kolker
Steve Harris wrote:
>> Maxwell postulated it, but didn't dare publish until he'd
> done the experiment to measure displacement current himself.
> Took a big double plate capacitor, put a compass between the
> plates, and charged her up. Needle was deflected.
Even so, it is not clear what kind of -current- could flow in the gap
between capacitor plates. The air barrier is sufficient insulation to
prevent charge from going from one plate to another. Well if it was not
charge, then what? Also the magnetic field in the air gap was transient,
so clearly it was not the result of steady current flow, as Ampere's law
would have it. The postulation that the "displacement current" was
proportional to the -rate- of electric field change in the gap, was not
something demanded by the observation. It was pure genius. There is no
current (i.e. charge in motion) in the gap unless the diaelectric breaks
down. The "displacement current" (a misnomer) term is an example of
mathematical genius and inspiration. Were the Gods or Muses whispering
in Maxwell's ear?
The full test of his equations (or modifications to the equations of
electromagnetic field) did not really happen until after Maxwell's
death. Such tests were made by Hertz in 1887.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
keith stein wrote:
> No. No "aether", Mr.Kolker, BUT Maxwell's medium is "matter",
> and "matter" is detected everywhere.
Matter you say? Then why doesn't this matter slow the planets down and
cause them to spiral into the sun. It it is matter than Newton's third
law applies to the interaction between planets and the aether. The
planets push the aether aside and the aether pushes back in a direction
opposite to that of the planet in its course. This should slow the
planets down. Any evidence of this?
Now you know why the aether hypothesis was dumped a hundred years ago.
Because it raises problems like this.
Bob Kolker
greywolf42
Steve Harris <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:b75pq2$la0$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
A new poster boy for the Big Lie.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
greywolf42
Yep. It's because of liars like Bob Kolker. For about the dozenth time,
Bob. See "Einstein Plus Two" by Beckmann for the derivation of the stable
planetary orbits .... Bode's Law.
The short answer is that the resistance in the medium (Pioneer drag) is
counteracted by the aberration due to the speed of gravity. But only for
certain orbits (which happens to be Bode's Law).
keith stein
news:sjtn5v0ggjvo35hg1...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:39:52 -0000, "keith stein"
> >There most certainly IS a medium, in MAXWELL'S theory, Mr Gisse.
>
> Prove it.
Delighted to do that for you Mr.Gisse.
"THE ENERGY OF ELECTRIFICATION RESIDES IN THE DIELECTRIC
MEDIUM,WHETHER THAT MEDIUM BE SOLID, LIQUID, OR
GASEOUS, DENSE OR RARE, OR EVEN WHAT IS CALLED A
VACUUM." J.C. Maxwell
And from Maxwell's "A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism"
"If it should be found that the velocity of propagation of
electromagnetic disturbances is the same
as the velocity of light, and this not only in AIR, but
in other TRANSPARENT MEDIA, ........................
.................Hence our theory agrees with the undulatory
theory in assuming the existence of a medium........
Let us next deterring the conditions of the propagation of
an electromagnetic disturbance through a uniform medium,
which we shall suppose to be at rest, that is, to have no
motion except that which may be involved in electromagnetic
disturbances.
................................
788} In other media than AIR..............
.................................The adulatory theory of light also assumes
the
existence of a medium. We have now to shew that the properties of the
electromagnetic medium are identical with those of the luminiferous
medium.
......if the study of two different branches of science has
independently suggested the idea of a medium .... the evidence for the
physical existence of the medium will be considerable strengthened.
...... and the combination of the optical with the electrical evidence
will produce a conviction of the reality of the medium ...
According to the theory of undulation, there is a material
medium which fills the space between the two bodies, and it is by the
action of contiguous parts of this medium that the energy is passed
on... We must therefore regard the medium as having a finite density."
............Hence all these theories lead to the conception of a medium
in which the propagation takes place..." Maxwell 1881
Thus we have proved the initial assertion:
>>There most certainly IS a medium, in MAXWELL'S theory, Mr Gisse.
> What experiment shows there is a medium?
That just depends what the particular medium is Mr.Gisse.
For example in air, you could try blowing on you hand,
in water you could try sticking your head under it eh!
>The medium does not affect
> light parallel or perpendicular to earth, nor does it affect things
> far away.
It is the permittivity and permeability of the medium which determines
the velocity of light, Mr.Gisse.
>If the medium is there, it is not massive nor is it
> interacting with matter.
Since Maxwell's medium has "finite density" the medium IS matter eh!
keith stein
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=keith+stein&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&site=groups
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E96C630...@attbi.com...
No aether but plenty of hydrogen eh! And if you don't beleive me Mr.Kolker
can I suggest that you read "The Fullness of Space" by Gareth Wynn-Williams,
published by Cambridge University Press ISBN 0 521 35591 5
keith stein
John Schoenfeld
So I take it by your remark that the superposition of E & M fields is
still empirically true?
Your ideas are intriguing to me, I wish to subscribe to your
newsletter or magazine.
JS
Robert Kolker
keith stein wrote:
>
> No aether but plenty of hydrogen eh! And if you don't beleive me Mr.Kolker
> can I suggest that you read "The Fullness of Space" by Gareth Wynn-Williams,
> published by Cambridge University Press ISBN 0 521 35591 5
I have no doubt that space is filled with very diffuse hydrogen gas.
There is more hydrogen than anything else, in the kosmos. But hydrogen
gas is not an elastic medium that carries electromagnetic waves.
Face it. Aether is dead. It is as dead as phlogiston and caloric.
Bob Kolker
keith stein
> keith stein wrote:
> >
> > No aether but plenty of hydrogen eh! And if you don't beleive me
Mr.Kolker
> > can I suggest that you read "The Fullness of Space" by Gareth
Wynn-Williams,
> > published by Cambridge University Press ISBN 0 521 35591 5
> I have no doubt that space is filled with very diffuse hydrogen gas.
"THE ENERGY OF ELECTRIFICATION RESIDES IN THE DIELECTRIC
MEDIUM,WHETHER THAT MEDIUM BE SOLID, LIQUID, OR
GASEOUS, DENSE OR RARE, OR EVEN WHAT IS CALLED A
VACUUM." J.C. Maxwell
> There is more hydrogen than anything else, in the kosmos. But hydrogen
> gas is not an elastic medium that carries electromagnetic waves.
If you study Mr.Wynn-Williams book you will discover that not only does the
intersellar hydrogen transmit light waves, but it also transmits sounds
waves eh!
> Face it. Aether is dead. It is as dead as phlogiston and caloric.
Right Mr.Kolker "Aether is dead". Long live "hydrogen" eh!
keith stein
Robert Kolker
keith stein wrote:
> If you study Mr.Wynn-Williams book you will discover that not only does the
> intersellar hydrogen transmit light waves, but it also transmits sounds
> waves eh!
Oh bullshit. The gas is much too difuse for that. In space, no one can
hear you scream. In addition a rare gas would carry vibrations
longitudinally. Light waves are transverse.
Bob Kolker
Steve Harris
much as it was never meant to be a "current of charges" in
the old sense of the word "current." The quaint term is
Maxwell merely saying that a changing electric field in
vacuum would produce the same effects as an ordinary current
of charges crossing the same space.
It's sort of like a horseless carriage driver, don't you
know. No animals are actually being driven.
SBH
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E96C58F...@attbi.com...
keith stein
>
>
> keith stein wrote:
> > If you study Mr.Wynn-Williams book you will discover that not only does
the
> > intersellar hydrogen transmit light waves, but it also transmits sounds
> > waves eh!
>
> Oh bullshit. The gas is much too difuse for that. In space, no one can
> hear you scream.
"It is true that sound waves travel very poorly in the thin gas of
interstellar space, but they certainly do exist. The speed of sound
in space depends mainly on gas temperature, and is always about
the same as the thermal motions. In an 80 K gas of atomic hydrogen,
the speed of sound is 1 km/s, approximately three times faster than
the speed of sound in the Earth's atmosphere." Gareth Wynn-Williams
Stephen Speicher
>
> "Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3E961291...@attbi.com...
> >
> > add the displacement current term to Faraday's law.
> >
>
> done the experiment to measure displacement current himself.
Do you have a reference for this?
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kolker
keith stein wrote:
>
> "It is true that sound waves travel very poorly in the thin gas of
> interstellar space, but they certainly do exist. The speed of sound
> in space depends mainly on gas temperature, and is always about
> the same as the thermal motions. In an 80 K gas of atomic hydrogen,
> the speed of sound is 1 km/s, approximately three times faster than
> the speed of sound in the Earth's atmosphere." Gareth Wynn-Williams
>
Try this. Take a ride up to ISS Alpha Shithole One. Now do an e.v.a.
carry a pair of cymbils. Crash the cymbals together with all your might.
Now do you seriously expect a microphone (the best available) to pick up
the sound of the cymbals? Do you really? And what will be the speed of
sound through a gas in which there is may one molecule every cubic meter?
I have heard of the harmony of the spheres but this is a bit much.
Bob Kolker
Steve Harris
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030411...@localhost.loca
ldomain...
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Steve Harris wrote:
> >
> > "Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E961291...@attbi.com...
> > >
> > > What observation or laboratory experiment forced
Maxwell to
> > > add the displacement current term to Faraday's law.
> > >
> >
> > Maxwell postulated it, but didn't dare publish until
he'd
> > done the experiment to measure displacement current
himself.
>
> Do you have a reference for this?
>
> --
> Stephen
> s...@speicher.com
No, not off hand. I probably read of it in Pais' Inward
Bound, which if you have at hand, you can take a look at.
SBH
keith stein
> keith stein wrote:
> >
> > "It is true that sound waves travel very poorly in the thin gas of
> > interstellar space, but they certainly do exist. The speed of sound
> > in space depends mainly on gas temperature, and is always about
> > the same as the thermal motions. In an 80 K gas of atomic hydrogen,
> > the speed of sound is 1 km/s, approximately three times faster than
> > the speed of sound in the Earth's atmosphere." Gareth Wynn-Williams
Gareth Wynn-Williams received a
doctorate in radio astronomy from Cambridge. After which he conducted
post doctoral research at the Californian Institute of Technology, before
returning to Cambridge to teach. He has co-authored over 70 scientific
papers, and written an excellent book - "The Fullness of Space", from
which the above quote is taken. Last i heard he was professor of
astronomy at the University of Hawaii.
> Try this. Take a ride up to ISS Alpha
Before i go i will synchronise a couple of clocks. Take one with me, and ask
you to bring the other one up when you fetch me. That should end Einstein's
silly nonsence about time dilations eh!
>Shithole One. Now do an e.v.a.
> carry a pair of cymbils. Crash the cymbals together with all your might.
> Now do you seriously expect a microphone (the best available) to pick up
> the sound of the cymbals? Do you really?
Really i never said one would hear "cymbals". I just quoted
Mr.Wynn-Williams,
but i happen to know he was refering to rather lower frequencies than are
generated by cymbals Mr. Kolker.
>And what will be the speed of
> sound through a gas in which there is may one molecule every cubic meter?
You seem to be refering to intergallactic space, rather than interstellar
space, there Mr.Kolker. As Mr.Wynn-Williams points out in his excellent
book at the speed sound goes it would take it rather more than the age of
the universe to travel across just our galaxy, so we haven't heard anything
from our neighbouring galaxies - (yet eh! :-)
> I have heard of the harmony of the spheres but this is a bit much.
>
> Bob Kolker
There are more things in heaven and earth than you have dreamed of Mr.Kolker
Get the book eh!
keith stein
Paul Stowe
> keith stein wrote:
> > You had better include Maxwell in your list of cranks, Mr Wormley, because
> > Maxwell most certainly believed that medium IS necessary for propagation of
> > electromagnetic waves, and he said so very clearly.
>
> roller bearings.
Sleazy pathetic liar, do you have a reference? Or are you going to
slink off and hide as usual???
Paul Stowe
Stephen Speicher
>
> "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030411...@localhost.loca
> ldomain...
> > On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Steve Harris wrote:
> > >
> > > "Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3E961291...@attbi.com...
> > > >
> > > > What observation or laboratory experiment forced Maxwell
> > > > to add the displacement current term to Faraday's law.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Maxwell postulated it, but didn't dare publish until he'd
> > > done the experiment to measure displacement current
> > > himself.
> >
> > Do you have a reference for this?
> >
>
> Bound, which if you have at hand, you can take a look at.
>
I do not own that book. But, regardless, the claim is contrary to
what I have read about and by Maxwell, so in lieu of a specific
citation as evidence, I take the claim as being false.
Robert Kolker
Paul Stowe wrote:
>>He also believed that the medium consisted of hex nuts separated by
>>roller bearings.
>
>
> Sleazy pathetic liar, do you have a reference? Or are you going to
> slink off and hide as usual???
See "On Physical Lines of Force" Plate VIII Figure 2.
Read -Maxwell on the Electromagnetic Field: A guided study-. It is on
page 162 and is a reproduction of the diagram that appeared in Maxwell's
paper.
Bob Kolker
Steve Harris
Stephen Speicher
>
> See "On Physical Lines of Force" Plate VIII Figure 2.
>
In a 19 October 1861 letter, Maxwell tells Faraday about an
instrument he had built, one whose purpose was to detect
molecular vortices!
The apparatus can be seen as Plate X in "The Scientific Letters
and Papers of James Clerk Maxwell," Volume I, Edited by P.M.
Harman, _Cambridge University Press_, 1990.
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
This is your evidence? Illustrations of a pattern. Either you're
incredibly stooopid or deliberately self blinded. Let's see what
Simpson has to say about this,
"It is interesting to watch Maxwell in his efforts to
keep bis argument utterly general: he did not want
to specify shape, yet had to revert to circular
vortices to keep his mechanical reasoning simple. ..."
Note stupid, CIRCULAR!
"... Now, however, he retreats and lets a single constant C
which immediately reverts to u/4pi for future purposes
absorb the effects of varying the shape. We should remember
that u, though it bears other implications, has come in by
way of the "shape constant" of this vortex. (This shape
constant will show up as k in our reasoning below.) The
actual shape shape Maxwell adopts in diagraming his
vortices is the hexagon, evidently to achieve CLOSE PACKING.
..."
Now, if you take a soap bubble (a sphere, right?) and fill a region
with them, what shape do they take when combined? Are they "Hex
Nuts"? No, the packing create the hexagonal pattern since this
is natures way of minimizing surface area. Not convinced, do a
Google search on "Hexagonal" and Soap Bubbles! If you would like to
'see' a real world example of Maxwell's illustration see,
http://www.etl.noaa.gov/eo/pdf/RBCells.html
But, you've been told/shown this all before. In fact, to my
knowledge Maxwell was anticipating this since in his time no one
has ever achieved creating them!
Now, show me WHERE MAXWELL CLAIMS HEX NUTS ARE IN, PART OF, OR
EVEN ANALOGOUS TO HIS MODEL! Just ONE reference ouote will do!
But perhaps, after all is said and done, you were/are just incredibly
stupid after all...
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
Robert Kolker
Stephen Speicher wrote:
> In a 19 October 1861 letter, Maxwell tells Faraday about an
> instrument he had built, one whose purpose was to detect
> molecular vortices!
Did he find any?
Bob Kolker
Stephen Speicher
> In article <3E9753BA...@attbi.com>,
> Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> > See "On Physical Lines of Force" Plate VIII Figure 2.
> >
> > Read -Maxwell on the Electromagnetic Field: A guided study-. It is on
> > page 162 and is a reproduction of the diagram that appeared in Maxwell's
> > paper.
>
> This is your evidence? Illustrations of a pattern. Either you're
> incredibly stooopid or deliberately self blinded. Let's see what
> Simpson has to say about this,
>
[...]
Gee, Paul, if you want to quote Simpson then I wonder why, of all
the quotes you could have chosen, you left out the one quote most
directly relevant to the issue.
"As we shall see, Maxwell indulges in the invention of
wheels and gears to fill the vacuum and do his bidding
in a way that Rube Goldberg might envy. The reader
must be the judge, but I submit that Maxwell has tongue
in cheek here and does not seriously intend that the
devices he conjures up would in fact be found to exist
in the form he is describing."
So Simpson believes that the wheels and gears are tongue in
cheek, but he lacks certainty to the extent that he leaves the
issue open for the reader to judge this himself. Bob made such a
judgment, as suggested by Simpson, yet you call Bob a "Sleazy
pathetic liar."
Now, again, I wonder why Paul Stowe made such a big deal about
presenting several other quotes from Simpson, but chose to leave
out this one?
p.s. to Paul: I hope this time you will not put on that big red
nose and those floppy shoes worn by greywoofie, and do the clown
dance skirting around the issue. The typical greywoofie response
is to display a phony air of indignity, and bury the issue under
a ton of irrelevant verbiage. Lately, there were two instances
where you ceased trying to defend the indefensible, and I must
say such an honest attitude stands you in good stead. How will
you act now, towards Bob?
Stephen Speicher
No, but ol' greywoofie has taken over the job, with updates. It
is said that on dark nights in the desert greywoofie can be seen
with his superfluid detector, sniffing out vortices wherever he
can.
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
I guess you have choosen to be Bozo the Clown. Only a Bozo would
see the above as anything OTHER than what it is, namely telling
the readers that Maxwell used 'analogies' to explain mechanisms
that, in the micro-world remained unseen. An this is any different
from virtual particles popping in & out of existence, how?
A-na-lo-gies Stephen ... That is what I've been saying that
Maxwell used. I HAVE been saying that Maxwell no more 'believed'
that 'idler wheels', gears, pullies, belts, ...etc underlied the
processes he was attempting to quantify than you do. He WAS
attempting to convery 'ideas' to OTHERS of how the processes
interacted, thus the a-na-lo-gies...
> Now, again, I wonder why Paul Stowe made such a big deal about
> presenting several other quotes from Simpson, but chose to leave
> out this one?
Because I forget about it. Believe it or not, I've both referenced
this book, and recommended it, on numerous occasions.
> p.s. to Paul: I hope this time you will not put on that big
> red nose and those floppy shoes worn by greywoofie, and do
> the clown dance skirting around the issue. ...
I take this issue head on. It has NOTHING to do with whether
ether exist or not, whether one should consider it or not, but
only about what Maxwell was thinking about when he worked out
his theory, period.
> The typical greywoofie response is to display a phony air of
> indignity, and bury the issue under a ton of irrelevant
> verbiage. Lately, there were two instances where you ceased
> trying to defend the indefensible, and I must say such an
> honest attitude stands you in good stead. How will you act now,
> towards Bob?
If Bob is honest enough to,
1. Acknowledge the fact that Maxwell never seriously proposed
or had 'Hex Nuts' or actual 'Idler Wheels' in mind when
presenting his ideas in mind and quit insulting Maxwell and
his intelligence, and
2. Agree to stop promulgating this myth (which IS an overt insult
to Maxwell)
I'll be quite glad (really) to call it square and 'let it go'.
Paul Stowe
Stephen Speicher
But, you are ignoring the facts which I identified. If Simpson
_unequivocally_ thought that the gears were analogies, he would
say so, don't you think? Instead of only saying something like
"The wheels and gears are only analogies ..." he actually says
the "The reader must be the judge." I do not doubt -- since he
said so clearly -- that he himself believes the gears are not
intended seriously, _but_ he leaves the issue open enough for
"The reader ... [to] be the judge."
>
> A-na-lo-gies Stephen ... That is what I've been saying that
> Maxwell used. I HAVE been saying that Maxwell no more 'believed'
> that 'idler wheels', gears, pullies, belts, ...etc underlied the
> processes he was attempting to quantify than you do.
What you believe and what I believe is not the relevant issue
here; what is at issue is what Bob believes, and whether or not
Simpson leaves the door open wide enough to validate Bob's
choice. I say Simpson's words, "The reader must be the judge,"
leaves a crack in that door, and since you chose to use Simpson
in your response to Bob, you should acknowledge what Simpson
says.
But, of course, if you do, you can no longer maintain your
judgment of Bob as being a "Sleazy pathetic liar." Is that why
you are having difficulty acknowledging Simpson's own words?
David Evens
<ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>"David Evens" <dev...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>news:3e969f8...@news.falls.igs.net...
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 23:14:54 +0100, "keith stein"
>> <ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> >"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3E95E81A...@mchsi.com...
>> >> keith stein wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > You had better include Maxwell in your list of cranks, Mr Wormley,
>> >because
>> >> > Maxwell most certainly believed that medium IS necessary for
>propagation
>> >of
>> >> > electromagnetic waves, and he said so very clearly.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> A medium is not required for propagation of electomagnetic waves
>> >
>> >You have no evidence for that statement whatsoever, and i believe Maxwell
>> >not you Mr. Wormley.
>>
>> Continueing to pretend that observations do not exist will not make
>> them stop existing.
>
> And continuing to pretend that observation do exist will not make
>them exist eh!
>
>keith stein
>
>Maxwell commences his mathematical treatment with this clear definition of
>his frame of reference :-
> "Let us next determine the conditions of the propagation of an
>electromagnetic disturbance through a uniform medium, which we shall
>suppose to be at rest, that is, to have no motion except that which may
>be involved in electromagnetic disturbances."
>
>The speed of "anything" relative to "nothing" is nonsense,of course!
>Maxwell's theory gives the speed relative to the 'medium', and that's
>why from first to last Maxwell insisted on the necessity of a 'medium':-
Until he realised that not only do his equations not need a medium,
neither does mechanics.
> "In several parts of this treatise an attempt has been made to
>explain electromagnetic phenomena by means of mechanical action
>transmitted from one body to another my means of a medium occupying the
>space between them. The undulatory theory of light also assumes the
>existence of a medium. We have now to shew that the properties of the
>electromagnetic medium are identical with those of the luminiferous
>medium. ......if the study of two different branches of science has
>independently suggested the idea of a medium .... the evidence for the
>physical existence of the medium will be considerable strengthened.
>...... and the combination of the optical with the electrical evidence
>will produce a conviction of the reality of the medium ...
> According to the theory of undulation, there is a material
>medium which fills the space between the two bodies, and it is by the
>action of contiguous parts of this medium that the energy is passed
>on... We must therefore regard the medium as having a finite density."
>
> Clearly Maxwell knew that light travels across interstellar
>space, so i can only think that he must have correctly guessed that
>there was some finite density gas out there, or was the Hydrogen in
>space actually discovered much earlier than i thought? Certainly the
>examples Maxwell gives of what he meant by a medium are real substances e.g.
>Air, or paraffin, and he doesn't mention 'ether' anywhere.
He developed the assumption of ether after he found out that the
astronomers of the time were quite certain that interstellar space was
a perfect vacuum. It was not realised until much later that there is
a very thin gas in interstellar space.
>and Maxwell concludes:-
> "In fact,whenever energy is transmitted from one body to another
>in time, there must be a medium or substance in which the energy exists
>after it leasves one body and before it reaches the other,for energy,as
>Torricelli remarked,'is a quintessence of so subtile a nature that it
>cannot be contained in any vessel except the inmost substance of
>material things.' Hence all these theories lead to the conception of a
>medium in which the propagation takes place..."
Perhaps if you had learned some physics of the last century instead of
stopping at the century before, you wouldn't make so many delusional
mistakes.
>keith stein's errors
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=keith+stein&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&site=groups
David Evens
wrote:
>Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:3E96C630...@attbi.com...
>> keith stein wrote:
>> > No. No "aether", Mr.Kolker, BUT Maxwell's medium is "matter",
>> > and "matter" is detected everywhere.
>>
>> Matter you say? Then why doesn't this matter slow the planets down and
>> cause them to spiral into the sun. It it is matter than Newton's third
>> law applies to the interaction between planets and the aether. The
>> planets push the aether aside and the aether pushes back in a direction
>> opposite to that of the planet in its course. This should slow the
>> planets down. Any evidence of this?
>>
>> Now you know why the aether hypothesis was dumped a hundred years ago.
>> Because it raises problems like this.
>
>
>Yep. It's because of liars like Bob Kolker. For about the dozenth time,
>Bob. See "Einstein Plus Two" by Beckmann for the derivation of the stable
>planetary orbits .... Bode's Law.
What does thbe liar Barry Mingst think Bode's Coincidence has to do
with physics?
>The short answer is that the resistance in the medium (Pioneer drag)
You mean the drag that is making it speed up?
>is
>counteracted by the aberration due to the speed of gravity. But only for
>certain orbits (which happens to be Bode's Law).
What does the moron Barry Mingst think Bode's Coincidence has to do
with physics?
David Evens
wrote:
>Steve Harris <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
>news:b75pq2$la0$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...>> news:3E961291...@attbi.com...
>> > greywolf42 wrote:
>> > >
>> > > And another repeat of the Big Lie by Kolker. Pathetic,
>> when you see how
>> > > many times he's been directed to Maxwell's derivation
>> ("On Physical Lines of
>> > > Force", 1861).
>> >
>> > Give a verbetim quote that shows that I am in error.
>> >
>> > What observation or laboratory experiment forced Maxwell
>> to add the
>> > displacement current term to Faraday's law.
>> >
>>
>> Maxwell postulated it, but didn't dare publish until he'd
>> done the experiment to measure displacement current himself.
>> plates, and charged her up. Needle was deflected.
>
Indeed you are, Barry. Too bad it doesn't work if you cannot control
the media.
Robert Kolker
pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> If Bob is honest enough to,
>
> 1. Acknowledge the fact that Maxwell never seriously proposed
> or had 'Hex Nuts' or actual 'Idler Wheels' in mind when
> presenting his ideas in mind and quit insulting Maxwell and
> his intelligence, and
Maxwell was the greatest British physicist since Newton. If he had lived
another 20 years (he died young) he may have well been what H.A. Lorentz
became, the crowning glory of classical physics. He also anticipated
quantum physics. He sounded warnings that the calculations of specific
heat might not be well founded
As to his "hex nuts" he was presenting a mechanical analogy which could
not have been taken literally by anyone. When he came out with his opus
-The Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field- in 1895, he demoted
his aetheric fluid from an ontological necessity to an aid to
understanding his equations. In short, he was letting his equations be
his theory.
I am dead certain that Maxwell believed aether exists, but chose not to
make his theory stand on some detailed theory of aether as a substance.
He let his equations do the talking. It turns out that his equations do
not require the existence of aether to be true, as subsequent
developments of physics has shown.
One can only wonder how he might have regarded the MMX had he lived to
see it (he would have been around 55 years old or so). My guess is that
he would bave made some ad hoc assumptions to maintain the possibility
of aether, as Lorentz did.
Bob Kolker
greywolf42
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030411...@localhost.localdomain...
> >
> > Stephen Speicher wrote:
> > > In a 19 October 1861 letter, Maxwell tells Faraday about an
> > > instrument he had built, one whose purpose was to detect
> > > molecular vortices!
> >
> > Did he find any?
> >
>
> No, but ol' greywoofie has taken over the job, with updates. It
> is said that on dark nights in the desert greywoofie can be seen
> with his superfluid detector, sniffing out vortices wherever he
> can.
>
Note the cowardly segue, snipping the actual subject. Then passing into
pure insult.
You'll note the issue was (as usual) Kolker's constant Big Lie:
"He also believed that the medium consisted of hex nuts separated by roller
bearings."
There are no hex nuts or roller bearings in the figure quoted by Kolker (See
"On Physical Lines of Force" Plate VIII Figure 2.)
Another bold-faced lie.
And Stephen (though he has the original) backs up the coward.
What pathetic priests.
Robert Kolker
greywolf42 wrote:
>
> "He also believed that the medium consisted of hex nuts separated by roller
> bearings."
>
> There are no hex nuts or roller bearings in the figure quoted by Kolker (See
> "On Physical Lines of Force" Plate VIII Figure 2.)
Yes there are. They are plane to see. Hexagonals separated by idler
wheels. I have the book right in front of me.
Of course he didn't mean hexagonals literally. You can search space from
hither to yon and you wont find a single hexagonal. Ever.
Bob Kolker
keith stein
"keith stein" <ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BtGla.386$AF1...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
greywolf42
>
>
> greywolf42 wrote:
> >
> > "He also believed that the medium consisted of hex nuts separated by
roller
> > bearings."
> >
> > There are no hex nuts or roller bearings in the figure quoted by Kolker
(See
> > "On Physical Lines of Force" Plate VIII Figure 2.)
>
> Yes there are. They are plane to see. Hexagonals separated by idler
> wheels. I have the book right in front of me.
As I said. The bold-faced lie.
> Of course he didn't mean hexagonals literally. You can search space from
> hither to yon and you wont find a single hexagonal. Ever.
Nor even un-literally. That lie of yours is only the "free creation" of
your mind.
Enough of Kolker in this thread.
greywolf42
>
>
> greywolf42 wrote:
> >
> > And another repeat of the Big Lie by Kolker. Pathetic, when you see how
Lines of
> > Force", 1861).
>
> Give a verbetim quote that shows that I am in error.
No. I've given you the excerpt at least a dozen times. I won't waste more
bandwidth on a lie.
>
> What observation or laboratory experiment forced Maxwell to add the
> displacement current term to Faraday's law.
None -- for the 52nd time. Maxwell's equations were the result of his
physical derivation. See "On Physical Lines of Force."
greywolf42
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 07:49:02 -0700, "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com>
> wrote:
> >Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> >news:3E96C630...@attbi.com...
> >> keith stein wrote:
> >> > No. No "aether", Mr.Kolker, BUT Maxwell's medium is "matter",
> >> > and "matter" is detected everywhere.
> >>
> >> Matter you say? Then why doesn't this matter slow the planets down and
> >> cause them to spiral into the sun. It it is matter than Newton's third
> >> law applies to the interaction between planets and the aether. The
> >> planets push the aether aside and the aether pushes back in a direction
> >> opposite to that of the planet in its course. This should slow the
> >> planets down. Any evidence of this?
> >>
> >> Now you know why the aether hypothesis was dumped a hundred years ago.
> >> Because it raises problems like this.
> >
> >
> >Yep. It's because of liars like Bob Kolker. For about the dozenth time,
> >Bob. See "Einstein Plus Two" by Beckmann for the derivation of the
stable
> >planetary orbits .... Bode's Law.
>
> What does thbe liar Barry Mingst think Bode's Coincidence has to do
> with physics?
LOL! Right, just because *all* of the major planetary systems that we know
(Solar, Jupiter's moons, Saturn's moons....) ALL have the exact same
"coincidental" result -- complete to 3 decimal places.
Of course, you could have just looked at the reference. But that would
eliminate the ability to insult without physics.
> >The short answer is that the resistance in the medium (Pioneer drag)
>
> You mean the drag that is making it speed up?
Learn to read the entire sentence before shooting off your mouth.
Resistance slows it down.
>
> >is
> >counteracted by the aberration due to the speed of gravity. But only for
> >certain orbits (which happens to be Bode's Law).
Aberration tends to "increase" the orbit. "Pioneer drag" makes them slow
down.
> What does the moron Barry Mingst think Bode's Coincidence has to do
> with physics?
Because it's not a coincidence, except to GRists and pure Newtonians.
Physical processes usually have points of stability.
David Evens
wrote:
You mean the coincidence that actually DOESN'T apply to the Solar
system planets to more than 1 decimal place with the exception of
Earth (which doesn't count because we're defining that to be the same)
and Jupiter?
>Of course, you could have just looked at the reference. But that would
>eliminate the ability to insult without physics.
Of course, you could haver found a reference, but that would have
required you to not just lie.
>> >The short answer is that the resistance in the medium (Pioneer drag)
>>
>> You mean the drag that is making it speed up?
>
>Learn to read the entire sentence before shooting off your mouth.
>Resistance slows it down.
Yes, that's the problem: It's moving to FAST, not too SLOW.
>> >is
>> >counteracted by the aberration due to the speed of gravity. But only for
>> >certain orbits (which happens to be Bode's Law).
>
>Aberration tends to "increase" the orbit. "Pioneer drag" makes them slow
>down.
Wrong again, of course.
>> What does the moron Barry Mingst think Bode's Coincidence has to do
>> with physics?
>
>Because it's not a coincidence, except to GRists and pure Newtonians.
>Physical processes usually have points of stability.
In reality, of course, this is not the case. Gravitational
interactions can only have resonances, which are not present in Bode's
Coincidencem, and the liar Barry Mingst would know that if he knew
anything about the Coincidence.
David Evens
wrote:
>Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:3E988EBB...@attbi.com...
>> greywolf42 wrote:
>> >
>> > "He also believed that the medium consisted of hex nuts separated by
>roller
>> > bearings."
>> >
>> > There are no hex nuts or roller bearings in the figure quoted by Kolker
>(See
>> > "On Physical Lines of Force" Plate VIII Figure 2.)
>>
>> Yes there are. They are plane to see. Hexagonals separated by idler
>> wheels. I have the book right in front of me.
>
>As I said. The bold-faced lie.
Yes, indeed you did say a bold-faced lie.
>> Of course he didn't mean hexagonals literally. You can search space from
>> hither to yon and you wont find a single hexagonal. Ever.
>
>Nor even un-literally. That lie of yours is only the "free creation" of
>your mind.
You mean like when you pretend that the last 30 years of his life
didn't happen?
>Enough of Kolker in this thread.
Snipping what you don't understand and running away in terror, then.
I believe you like to call that the 'Bilge school of cowardice' when
you halucinate that people are doing it to you.
pst...@ix.netcom.com
dev...@technologist.com (David Evens) wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 17:04:40 -0700, "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com>
> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes there are. They are plane to see. Hexagonals separated by idler
>>> wheels. I have the book right in front of me.
>>
>> As I said. The bold-faced lie.
>
> Yes, indeed you did say a bold-faced lie.
Which, of course, it was...
>>> Of course he didn't mean hexagonals literally. You can search
>>> space from hither to yon and you wont find a single hexagonal.
>>> Ever.
>>
>> Nor even un-literally. That lie of yours is only the "free
>> creation" of your mind.
>
> You mean like when you pretend that the last 30 years of his life
> didn't happen?
Thirty years? What the hell are you talking about? I think
you're blowing it out your ass...
[Snip of rest...]
Paul Stowe
greywolf42
LOL! You really should have bothered to read the references.
> >Of course, you could have just looked at the reference. But that would
> >eliminate the ability to insult without physics.
>
> Of course, you could haver found a reference, but that would have
> required you to not just lie.
LOL! Pathetic. I GAVE you the reference. But you couldn't be bothered.
The Titius Law (Bode was not the originator, just the popularizer) is
formulated (since 1913, Mary Adela Blagg) as:
r_n = A (1.73)^n [B + f(alpha + n beta)]
where A, B, alpha and beta are constants (see Nieto, 1972). This is
essentially a geometric progression.
"The regularity of the Tit\ius series rules out coincidence; but what is
even more striking is that the other three planetary systems against which
(it) can be checked, namely the moons of Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus, not
only again exhibit a gfeometric progression, but the same common ratio 1.73"
"Einstein Plus Two", p 176
Beckmann then goes on to derive a dynamic explanation (rather than massive
cosmogenic "coincidence").
> >> >The short answer is that the resistance in the medium (Pioneer drag)
> >>
> >> You mean the drag that is making it speed up?
> >
> >Learn to read the entire sentence before shooting off your mouth.
> >Resistance slows it down.
>
> Yes, that's the problem: It's moving to FAST, not too SLOW.
?? Too fast for what?
> >> >is
> >> >counteracted by the aberration due to the speed of gravity. But only
for
> >> >certain orbits (which happens to be Bode's Law).
> >
> >Aberration tends to "increase" the orbit. "Pioneer drag" makes them slow
> >down.
>
> Wrong again, of course.
LOL! Wrong in what way? Specifics please. Are you saying that:
1) Aberration does NOT tend to increase an orbit?
2) Drag does NOT tend to decrease an orbit?
3) They never -- ever -- under any circumstances can cancel each other out?
> >> What does the moron Barry Mingst think Bode's Coincidence has to do
> >> with physics?
> >
> >Because it's not a coincidence, except to GRists and pure Newtonians.
> >Physical processes usually have points of stability.
>
> In reality, of course, this is not the case. Gravitational
> interactions can only have resonances, which are not present in Bode's
> Coincidencem, and the liar Barry Mingst would know that if he knew
> anything about the Coincidence.
But it's only considered a coincidence if we have no explanation. And
Newton and GR have no explanation. 9 planets and a couple dozen moons ...
all having the same structure and sequence to three significant figures.
That's a pretty amazing coincidence. What's the odds? 2^30 to 1?
David Evens
There was a references to a book that was written in the 1890's
containing a derivation of Maxwell's Equations, with the overall
author being indicated as Maxwell. The liar Barry Mingst then
pretended that the correct source of the derivation is a work from the
1860's. This is obvioulsy an attempt to pretend that the later 30
years of the work (and hence the life) of Maxwell did not occur.
David Evens
I am familiar with Bode's coincidence. You are obviously not.
>> >Of course, you could have just looked at the reference. But that would
>> >eliminate the ability to insult without physics.
>>
>> Of course, you could haver found a reference, but that would have
>> required you to not just lie.
>
>LOL! Pathetic. I GAVE you the reference. But you couldn't be bothered.
>
>The Titius Law (Bode was not the originator, just the popularizer) is
>formulated (since 1913, Mary Adela Blagg) as:
>
>r_n = A (1.73)^n [B + f(alpha + n beta)]
>
>where A, B, alpha and beta are constants (see Nieto, 1972). This is
>essentially a geometric progression.
>
>"The regularity of the Tit\ius series rules out coincidence; but what is
>even more striking is that the other three planetary systems against which
>(it) can be checked, namely the moons of Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus, not
>only again exhibit a gfeometric progression, but the same common ratio 1.73"
>
>"Einstein Plus Two", p 176
>
>Beckmann then goes on to derive a dynamic explanation (rather than massive
>cosmogenic "coincidence").
Too bad that your reference isn't talking about Bode's Coincidence.
Here is the actual value of the sequence in Bode's Coincidence,
compared to the real values:
Bode's Progression Planet Actual Distance (AU)
------------------ ------ --------------------
(0+4)/10= 0.4 Mercury 0.39
(3+4)/10= 0.7 Venus 0.72
(6+4)/10= 1.0 Earth 1.00
(12+4)/10= 1.6 Mars 1.52
(24+4)/10= 2.8 ? --
(48+4)/10= 5.2 Jupiter 5.20
(96+4)/10=10.0 Saturn 9.54
(192+4)/10=19.6 Uranus 19.18
(384+4)/10=38.8 Neptune 30.06
(768+4)/10=77.2 Pluto 39.44
>> >> >The short answer is that the resistance in the medium (Pioneer drag)
>> >>
>> >> You mean the drag that is making it speed up?
>> >
>> >Learn to read the entire sentence before shooting off your mouth.
>> >Resistance slows it down.
>>
>> Yes, that's the problem: It's moving to FAST, not too SLOW.
>
>?? Too fast for what?
Too fast for gravity to have accelerated it the ammount predicted.
>> >> >is
>> >> >counteracted by the aberration due to the speed of gravity. But only
>for
>> >> >certain orbits (which happens to be Bode's Law).
>> >
>> >Aberration tends to "increase" the orbit. "Pioneer drag" makes them slow
>> >down.
>>
>> Wrong again, of course.
>
>LOL! Wrong in what way? Specifics please. Are you saying that:
>
>1) Aberration does NOT tend to increase an orbit?
>2) Drag does NOT tend to decrease an orbit?
>3) They never -- ever -- under any circumstances can cancel each other out?
Pioneer is not moving SLOWER than predicted, but FASTER.
>> >> What does the moron Barry Mingst think Bode's Coincidence has to do
>> >> with physics?
>> >
>> >Because it's not a coincidence, except to GRists and pure Newtonians.
>> >Physical processes usually have points of stability.
>>
>> In reality, of course, this is not the case. Gravitational
>> interactions can only have resonances, which are not present in Bode's
>> Coincidencem, and the liar Barry Mingst would know that if he knew
>> anything about the Coincidence.
>
>But it's only considered a coincidence if we have no explanation. And
>Newton and GR have no explanation. 9 planets and a couple dozen moons ...
>all having the same structure and sequence to three significant figures.
>That's a pretty amazing coincidence. What's the odds? 2^30 to 1?
Or it would be, if it was true, which, as I demonstrated above, it is
not.
pst...@ix.netcom.com
dev...@technologist.com (David Evens) wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 17:23:28 GMT, <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <3e992253...@news.falls.igs.net>,
>> dev...@technologist.com (David Evens) wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 17:04:40 -0700, "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes there are. They are plane to see. Hexagonals separated by idler
>>>>> wheels. I have the book right in front of me.
>>>>
>>>> As I said. The bold-faced lie.
>>>
>>> Yes, indeed you did say a bold-faced lie.
>>
>> Which, of course, it was...
>>
>>>>> Of course he didn't mean hexagonals literally. You can search
>>>>> space from hither to yon and you wont find a single hexagonal.
>>>>> Ever.
>>>>
>>>> Nor even un-literally. That lie of yours is only the "free
>>>> creation" of your mind.
>>>
>>> You mean like when you pretend that the last 30 years of his life
>>> didn't happen?
>>
>> Thirty years? What the hell are you talking about? I think
>> you're blowing it out your ass...
>
> There was a references to a book that was written in the 1890's
> containing a derivation of Maxwell's Equations, with the overall
> author being indicated as Maxwell. The liar Barry Mingst then
> pretended that the correct source of the derivation is a work from the
> 1860's. This is obviously an attempt to pretend that the later 30
> years of the work (and hence the life) of Maxwell did not occur.
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) graduated Cambridge in 1854 submitted
his first work in EM in December 1855 & Febuary 1856 in two parts (On
Faraday's Lines of Force). In 1861-62 published his seminal followup
work (On the Physical Lines of Force). In Oct 1864 he submitted
his work treating EM at the field level only titled (A Dynamical Theory
of the Electromagnetic Field). In 1873 he published the first edition
of "A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" known commonly as "The
Treatises". If we take thirty years from the year he died (1879) we
have 1849 and he was only 18. He had done NO significant work at all at
this juncture. As I said, you're exposed as "blowing it out your ass"
since it is very clear that you are clueless as to the lifes work of
Maxwell...
As late as the publication of the Treatises, as can be found therein,
Maxwell had NOT abandoned the earlier concepts that lead to his famous
equations, but, as he pointed out clearly in 1864 paper, if all one
wishes to do is quantify aetherial fields, the underlying model of
how & what is specifically happening to constitute these fields isn't
a necessary element. To get to that juncture however, especially the
displacement current, the model is crucial! Once you're there, you can
alternately justify it by more generalized methods. But with hindsight
that is almost always the case.
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
pst...@ix.netcom.com
dev...@technologist.com (David Evens) wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 12:02:39 -0700, "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com>
> wrote:
[Snip...]
>> LOL! You really should have bothered to read the references.
>
> I am familiar with Bode's coincidence. You are obviously not.
You're such a wimpy lightweight. Hell, I even provided the reference.
>>>> Of course, you could have just looked at the reference. But that would
>>>> eliminate the ability to insult without physics.
>>>
>>> Of course, you could haver found a reference, but that would have
>>> required you to not just lie.
>>
>> LOL! Pathetic. I GAVE you the reference. But you couldn't be bothered.
>>
>> The Titius Law (Bode was not the originator, just the popularizer) is
>> formulated (since 1913, Mary Adela Blagg) as:
>>
>> r_n = A (1.73)^n [B + f(alpha + n beta)]
>>
>> where A, B, alpha and beta are constants (see Nieto, 1972). This is
>> essentially a geometric progression.
>>
>> "The regularity of the Tit\ius series rules out coincidence; but what is
>> even more striking is that the other three planetary systems against which
>> (it) can be checked, namely the moons of Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus, not
>> only again exhibit a gfeometric progression, but the same common ratio 1.73"
>>
>> "Einstein Plus Two", p 176
>>
>> Beckmann then goes on to derive a dynamic explanation (rather than massive
>> cosmogenic "coincidence").
>
> Too bad that your reference isn't talking about Bode's Coincidence.
Really? What IS Dr. Beckmann talking about then?
> Here is the actual value of the sequence in Bode's Coincidence,
> compared to the real values:
>
> Bode's Progression Planet Actual Distance (AU)
> ------------------ ------ --------------------
> (0+4)/10= 0.4 Mercury 0.39
> (3+4)/10= 0.7 Venus 0.72
> (6+4)/10= 1.0 Earth 1.00
> (12+4)/10= 1.6 Mars 1.52
> (24+4)/10= 2.8 ? --
> (48+4)/10= 5.2 Jupiter 5.20
> (96+4)/10=10.0 Saturn 9.54
> (192+4)/10=19.6 Uranus 19.18
> (384+4)/10=38.8 Neptune 30.06
> (768+4)/10=77.2 Pluto 39.44
>
[Snip ...]
>>> Yes, that's the problem: It's moving to FAST, not too SLOW.
>>
>>?? Too fast for what?
>
> Too fast for gravity to have accelerated it the ammount predicted.
Really? The Pioneer are decelerating (that is, experencing an anomalous
acceleration TOWARDS THE SUN!) in opposition to their outbound motion.
{Snip...}
>> LOL! Wrong in what way? Specifics please. Are you saying that:
>>
>> 1) Aberration does NOT tend to increase an orbit?
>> 2) Drag does NOT tend to decrease an orbit?
>> 3) They never -- ever -- under any circumstances can cancel each other out?
>
> Pioneer is not moving SLOWER than predicted, but FASTER.
Prove it, Reference(s) please.
>>>>> What does the moron Barry Mingst think Bode's Coincidence has to do
>>>>> with physics?
>>>>
>>>> Because it's not a coincidence, except to GRists and pure Newtonians.
>>>> Physical processes usually have points of stability.
>>>
>>> In reality, of course, this is not the case. Gravitational
>>> interactions can only have resonances, which are not present in Bode's
>>> Coincidencem, and the liar Barry Mingst would know that if he knew
>>> anything about the Coincidence.
>>
>> But it's only considered a coincidence if we have no explanation. And
>> Newton and GR have no explanation. 9 planets and a couple dozen moons ...
>> all having the same structure and sequence to three significant figures.
>> That's a pretty amazing coincidence. What's the odds? 2^30 to 1?
>
> Or it would be, if it was true, which, as I demonstrated above, it is
> not.
What you have demonstrated most clearly, is your ignorance...
Paul Stowe
Robert Kolker
pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> As late as the publication of the Treatises, as can be found therein,
> Maxwell had NOT abandoned the earlier concepts that lead to his famous
> equations, but, as he pointed out clearly in 1864 paper, if all one
> wishes to do is quantify aetherial fields, the underlying model of
> how & what is specifically happening to constitute these fields isn't
> a necessary element. To get to that juncture however, especially the
> displacement current, the model is crucial! Once you're there, you can
> alternately justify it by more generalized methods. But with hindsight
> that is almost always the case.
Read -Collective Electrodynamics- by Carver Mead (a student of Richard
Feynman). He gives an alternative development of non-quantum
electrodynamics based entirely on vector potential, scalar potential and
Lorentz invariance. The displacement current is not needed at all.
It turns out that the displacment current, based on the idea of the
aether carrying the current, was a brilliant guess by Maxwell and leads
to a theory of how electromagnetic waves could propagate through space.
But it was not a necessary guess. There are other ways of getting to the
wave equations as Mead showed. None of which involves aether in the
slightest.
Bob Kolker
>
> Paul Stowe
>
>
> Paul Stowe
>
>
Sergey Karavashkin
> After reading somewhat on Maxwell's equations, they seem to be based
> of several assumptions.
>
> 1. Symmetry of Faraday's law
>
> That a changing E Field produces an M Field as a changing M field
> produces an E Field with perfect symmetry is a fairly optimistic
> assumption isn't it?
>
> If A then B doesn't mean If B then A, so why would the reverse of
> Faraday's law be true? It's only true if one assumes it to be true, or
> am I wrong?
>
> 2. Continuous magnetic field lines (since no magnetic monopoles
> exist).
>
> What would be the effect on the equations if magnetic monopoles exist?
> Would invariant light speed c remain true?
>
> 3. Superposition principle
>
> This is a very fundamental assumption. There is no reason to assume
> that fields add linearly other than that of the crude empirical
> evidence given long ago.
>
> I heard somewhere (in engineering circles) that very strong E fields
> are inconsistent with the superposition principle. Is there much
> evidence of this principle or is it another assumption?
>
> JS
If you actually want to know the development of Maxwell theory, please
look through the papers
TRANSFORMATION OF DIVERGENCE THEOREM IN DYNAMICAL FIELDS
http://www.angelfire.com/la3/selftrans/archive/archive.html#div
THEOREM OF CURL OF A POTENTIAL VECTOR IN DYNAMICAL FIELDS
http://www.angelfire.com/la3/selftrans/v2_2/contents.html#curl
ON LONGITUDINAL ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES. CHAPTER 1. LIFTING THE BANS
http://www.angelfire.com/la3/selftrans/archive/archive.html#long
Sergey
Robert Kolker
Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> ON LONGITUDINAL ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES. CHAPTER 1. LIFTING THE BANS
Electromagnetic waves are transverse.
Bob Kolker
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
What Bob, does a 'Vector Potential' physically represent? IOW, what known
(as in actually observed phenomena) can be described by this particular
mathematics (other than the EM under discussion of course)?
I await with 'baited breath' your answer... :)
Paul Stowe
Sam Wormley
>
> ON LONGITUDINAL ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES. CHAPTER 1. LIFTING THE BANS
>
Transverse Wave
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/TransverseWave.html
Electromagnetic Wave
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectromagneticWave.html
Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AKaravashkin