Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge
From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 11/09/04
- Next message: Tom Roberts: "Re: Is Einstein's Principle of Equivalence true?"
- Previous message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Definition of A Field"
- In reply to: jahn: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Next in thread: jahn: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Reply: jahn: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:57:54 GMT
"jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2vaaruF2i158uU1@uni-berlin.de...
: [mould trimmed]
: > : > : 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?
: >
: > Get a space probe to slingshot its way out of the solar system,
: > I figure it will go on forever. On the other hand, if it hits the
: > centre
: > of a jovian sized watery world it'll kick up some ripples.
: > Make that world large enough and the ripples wont go all the way
: > around. Heck, I don't see ripples go all that far when I drop
rocks
: > in the river. Besides, my FM radio doesn't do much of a job
: > picking up European broadcasts, let alone Canadian, USA or
: > Australian signals.
: OK I see. Your Hubble Heresy might need a solution to
: Olbers.
: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/123/lecture-5/olbers.html
: I'm not sure I even agree with the calculations that support it
: because a mass can absorb a tremendous ammount of energy
: of energy before radiating visible light.
:
: Or there is this possibility:
:
: Q Why isn't the whole sky filled with light?
: A It is, CMBR
Olbers' paradox is only a paradox because of the assumption
that there is enough energy for the distant light to reach us
unscathed.
I accept the red shift. I do not accept the cause is expansion.
I EXPECT to see a distant star be red-shifted, simply from
Planck's E = hf.
At double distance, we have E/4 = hf/4.
The light is slowing down. The coupling you mentioned is pulling
sideways.
Blow up a soap bubble. The velocity of the skin slows down for a
constant
volume increase.
:
: > : >
: > : > 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.
: >
: > The power dissipation in a short circuit is mainly in the power
: > source.
: > The power dissipation in an open circuit is zero in the power
source.
: > I would NEVER call a short circuit an open circuit. I think that
might
: > be a tad confusing.
: NEVER? Absolutism must be contagious.
: Sigh... more kitchen table science :o)
:
: << The door seal on a microwave oven consists of a row of 1/4 wave
stubbs that reflect energy from the magnetron back into the
: cavity preventing their escape. It reflects an RF short from the
open end of the stub back to the gap between the door and the
: cavity. This reflected short connectes the door to the cavity making
a continious connection to that frequency. >>
:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=126655&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&tid=158&mode=thread&pid=10596988
:
:
: > : > : 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.
: >
: > In the far field, too, unless you turn the transmitter off.
: >
: > :
: > : But you haven't identified any storage mechanism
: > : in a vacuum. I have. Material impurites in the vacuum.
: >
: > I dont need to. E and B fields exist in a vacuum.
: > My TV tube says so.
:
: Look down near the bottom for a little grill. That is where the
sound is coming from.
: Every time I ask you to prove magnetism exist absent a charge in
motion, you start rambling about donuts and acid and now talking
: CRTs.
: I think I'm gonna check out alt.alt.astroglogy.alt in search of a
bit of sanity. :o)
When YOU can prove there is a charge in motion in the magnets
on my fridge (sans Brownian motion) I'm not going to assume
it is necessary. Moreover, the field is remote from whatever you
claim the motion part is. At the risk of employing a term normally
reserved for sci-fi, there is a force-field in motion. The existence
of a charged particle isn't necessary. Should one happen to be
deflected by the moving field, then the moving field exerted a force
on the particle, but that force was present whether the particle was
or not. Likewise a moving electric field produces a force that will
cause a magnet to move, whether the magnet is present of not.
We can use the particle with mass, be it electron or magnetized
iron filing, to DETECT the field, but these particles themselves,
because we observe them moving, are not the CAUSE of the
electric field being produced by the moving magentic field, and
vice versa.
You are asking me to prove a magnetic field exists absent a moving
mass.
In the neck of the TV tube there exists a B-field. I don't care what
made it happen. There is also an E-field. I don't care what made
that happen either. When I place an electron at that point, its
subsequent motion proves the existence of those fields, it doesn't
cause them.
If I then change the B -field, that changes the deflection of the
beam.
It also changes the E-field, because that is how generators work.
Using a permanent magnet on an armature, some bearings and
coils of wire, I can generate an E-field WITHOUT a current flow.
By moving an E-field, and still not permitting a current flow, does
that produce a magnetic field? Why not? Because I cannot "move"
(i.e change) an E-field without a current flow. But then, I cannot
change the bar magnets B-field at all, I have to reorient it. If I
use an electromagnet I can, though, but notice I am changing the
flux flow and that is producing the E-field.
So now prove an electric field can exist absent a magnetic flux in
motion to save my sanity.
:
: > : > 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.
: >
: > Can still see 'em from all directions.
:
: Sheesh! What kind of cheap equipment do you astronomers use?
Just a mirror and some lenses.. It's all I can afford. I may upgrade
to
CCD someday.
The atoms that appear dark even when it is their turn to flash are
: actually beaming CP light toward some astronomer in another galaxy.
If you expect to get all the flashes for yourself then you need
: to bribe some officials at The Federation where they allocate that
sort of entertainment.
That's the real question, though. Does a single flash represent a
photon,
and is a photon directional or does it spread as a wave?
Do the other surrounding atoms form a mirror?
: >
: >
: > : > 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...
: >
: > It is. The Earth's atmosphere is a moving box of air, and SOL
: > is constant relative to it. The rules change when the box isn't
there.
:
: Yes... That's a good illustration.
: but not to a degree attributable to the air. It *seems*.
: Ahhh IMHO.
: >
: > "It is pointed out that the extinction theorem of dispersion
theory,
: > for which the elementary derivation is given, shows that an
incident
: > light wave is extinguished at the surface of a dielectric." J.G,
Fox,
: > "Experimental Evidence for the Second Postulate of Special
: > Relativity". Am J. Phys. Vol 30 1962.
:
: Wow ... that's painting with a BROAD brush.
: << The equivalent tabulated value at 0 K is about 156 nm. Using the
Kelly and Allen methods, the extinction distance is found to be
: 162+/-6 nm. The improvement in precision is a direct consequence of
matching the intensity profile envelope, which contains
: information on the extinction distance. >>
:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11310541&dopt=Abstract
: Do ya think they mean 162 nm above or below the surface?
:
:
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=d86lthmtmk2tfqqyhnr2&referrer=parent&backto=issue,5,6;journal,3
: 26,493;linkingpublicationresults,1:100674,1
:
: Anyway, the purpose of discussing the E and B fields below 100 Mhz
is so we don't fly off on a tangent with atomic orbitals that
: just muddy the water. If empty space is truly emtpy space and not
some lattice like ether, then it shouldn't matter the size of our
: waves. X-ray crystalographers and VLF transmitter designers use
essentialy the same dipole equations don't they? Visible light is
: the worst case because the wave length is comparable to the atomic
orbitals that comprise all of our experimental apparatus. I
: suppose if you want to prove the Second Postulate then there is some
advantage to loosing track of the fields at the surface.
: Kind of like ionizing the air, sucking it all out so the train can
go fast and then blaming the ozone smell on a faulty clock. ;-)
: Sue...
: >
: >
: > Androcles.
: >
: >
: > : 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]
: > : > : > :>
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
:
:
- Next message: Tom Roberts: "Re: Is Einstein's Principle of Equivalence true?"
- Previous message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Definition of A Field"
- In reply to: jahn: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Next in thread: jahn: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Reply: jahn: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
