Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge

From: jahn (suzysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 11/08/04 

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:28:26 -0500

[snip green cheess... putrid]
> : > Ah, but there is a problem.
> : > Ripples on a pond have diminishing amplitude.
> : Approximately 1/r^2
> : > When that amplitude
> : > is less than the height of one molecule, we can't really call it a
> : > wave.
> : So we hire a mathematician and he will call it a probability wave
> : function for us and we don't have to use any bad words.
> : > It has become Brownian motion.The energy is shared over an area.
> : > For light from star, the energy is shared over the surface of an
> ever
> : > expanding sphere.
> : I am not sure very much sharing goes on after emission but what
> : you are saying is not that different from sum of all paths.
> : > And what do we observe of light from distant stars? Red shift.
> : I don't know much about Brownian motion but I do detect a hint of
> : Hubble heresy.
>
> Particles travel forever, but only go one way.
> Waves travel in all directions, but not forever.
Forever? Send me a post card when ya confrim it.

Seriously... (arrragh) I am not following. Is that the same as my
phrase that matter hates EM energy but loves other matter?

>
>
> Let me tie up one more loose end on Doppler,
> : below and then I'll try to grasp what Brownian has to do with
> : redshifts.
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Hmm... You seem to have caught my cold. That would confirm viruses
> are
> : > transmitted by computers.
> : Bad Joke! I am gettin a daily visit from that CWS trojan and can't
> find where it's reloader is hiding.
> : > Androcles.
> : I ran across this from the same author, Straus.
> : http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
> : From:
> : http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
>
>
> "Hence wave impedance isn't of interest here either - it would be
> zero. In fact, for both the electrostatic and magnetostatic cases,
> wave impedance is meaningless, because there are no waves-nothing is
> changing, and field information doesn't propagate."
>
> I knew there was somehing weird about that guy. If it won't let a
> wave through the impedance is infinite, not zero.

The power dissipation in a zero ohm resistor is exactly the
same as the power dissipation in a gazillion ohm resistor.
So his statement is correct.
>
>
> : It say's a lot about what we need to consider in calculating
> wavelength/frequency for relative moving dipoles and loops. There is a
> : profund implcation for Einstein's trick of moving a box of Maxwell's
> ether along with the antenna(s)(ae) which you'll recall is why
> : he felt compelled to fiddle the clocks.
> :
> : Your own experience with induction fields will confirm the near
> field predominance of E or H for loops or dipoles. I'll hazzard a
> : guess you're familiar with path reciprocity, where swapping
> transmitter and receiver indoor units, affect only the direction, not
> : the loss of a path. It is well tested and the preferred method of
> testing expensive hi power UHF arrays on a test range.
> :
> : Now... Look at
> : http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif again but imagine
> a *receving* antenna. There is no ether to affect the incoming
> : EM wave but you can clearly see from the diagram that the antenna
> structure dominates the space fully a wavelength out from a
> : structure of significant (1/2 wave ?) size.
>
> : Androcles wrote: "The energy is shared over an area"
> : How about a volume?
>
> Not really. There'll be another bus coming along behind.
In the near field... for sure.

But you haven't identified any storage mechanism
in a vacuum. I have. Material impurites in the vacuum.
>
> The spherical shell of expanding energy moving away from the source
> obeys the
> inverse SQUARE law. At one parsec the same quantity of radiation
> falling
> on one square eyeball will fall on four square eyeballs at two
> parsecs.
No argument from me.
>
> We need to be careful here, though. Dipoles don't radiate much
> straight up. No market for it. Stellar radiation (and candlelight) is
> spherical. Radio towers radiate disks of energy. That's more a 1/r
> law.
Stars aren't coherrent sources.
>
>
>
> The business of balancing incoming E and H fields, consistant with the
> dipole or loop characteristics doesn't
> : involve energy or mass transfer so there is no speed limit for these
> transactions in the near field region.
> :
> : As you pointed out the dipole has signifacant Q so I am tending to
> the notion that it's length will predominate in determining the
> : wavelength irrespective of the doppler shifted frequency. It's as
> tho Maxwells box of ether moves with the antenna, but only
> : because the structure has some influence on the E H ratios in it's
> neighborhood.
> :
> : So... with a little different view of Doppler shift, are you still
> interested in using pollen grains to explain the Hubble curve?
>
> In the sense that the energy goes somewhere, yes. We don't use wooden
> dipoles
> or look for brownian motion in solids.
>
> : I'll wager you haven't even checked to see which planets have the
> best soil and climate for growing ornamentals?

Anyway... I think the point is we probably didn't lay a sufficent foundation
to deduce how frequency and wavelength are doppler shifted with and
without media and for loops and dipoles. The curves in Straus's paper,
and the principle of Faraday rotation, leads me to believe it is not a
"one size fits all" type of relation.

I AM tickled pink to learn that Einstien's moving box of ether might
actually be a viable model... tho not in the sense Maxwell described.
Maxwell had a lot of notions we consider absurb today but because
he choose the ones that agreed with experiment, they work out anyway.
I.E you could write a lot of electronic equations fully believing invisible
fluid was flowing in a pipe. ;-)

I'll have to ruminate over this a few more days before I hazzard another
guess about doppler shifted frequency and wavelength.

Kind regards,
Sue...

>
> I know some that won't. :)
> Androcles.

[snip]
> : > :>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Two-slit experiment
    ... We are talking size in meters here, not energy. ... MBR emitting atom as an example see below. ... As a wave the size will clearly depend on any boxes it gets ... Er, yes, but such an object has a very short wavelength so is inherently ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge
    ... :> look like for circular polarization from crossed dipoles. ... :> shift. ... Potential energy changing to kinetic. ... :> Travel alongside the type I wave and the height doesn't change. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Light
    ... While a traveling wave electro-magnetic wave does contain both an electric ... As Mr. Russel indicated light is only one form of EM energy. ... The wavelength is inversely proportional to the ... energy does not have to be driven by electron orbitals. ...
    (sci.engr.color)
  • Re: Simple question about wave energy
    ... additional energy going, if not into the wave itself? ... deriving the kinetic energy in a single wavelength. ... but the energy in a string will depend on ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Light as a particle in a wave? zerro wavelenth
    ... people don't see that the wavelength of light depends on the speed and ... Its energy isn't kinetic. ... but rather in its wave. ... they all have the exact same speed. ...
    (sci.physics)