Re: O'Barr 27 Nov 2004: Reasons for an ether.
From: jahn (susysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 11/30/04
- Next message: Sam Wormley: "Re: How to Measure OWLS Equal to c Experimentally."
- Previous message: Patrick Reany: "Re: The single hardest thing for cranks to get"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: O'Barr 27 Nov 2004: Reasons for an ether."
- Next in thread: jahn: "Re: O'Barr 27 Nov 2004: Reasons for an ether."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:41:33 -0500
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:mL3rd.57545$38.11157@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:313mvjF37cv5oU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
> > news:E_Zqd.53949$38.31336@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>
> >> "jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> >> news:3124cpF366t1oU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >> >
> >> > "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:kXEqd.44601$F7.25905@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >> >>
> >> >> "jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> >> >> news:30vjsoF3647uoU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >> >>
> >> >> > I am claiming that what is commonly known as magnetism is
> >> >> > simply a perturbation of the electric field or a modulation of
> >> >> > the Coulomb force. The flux lines are closed in the near field
> >> >> > and don't in anyway contribute to far-field radiation. It is a
> >> >> > plausible explanation for why QM won't work for mirrors
> >> >> > but QED will.
> >> >> > Sue...
> >> >>
> >> >> Whether we use an electromagnet or a permanent bar magnet,
> >> >> the generator or motor still functions. The field is real.
> >> >
> >> > As real as any field can be, I suppose.
> >> >
> >> >> Why do you have this hangup about its cause?
> >> >> Try to understand.
> >> >> Magnetic fields exist.
> >> >> Electric fields exist.
> >> >> Gravitational fields exist.
> >> >
> >> > Two out of three isn't bad ;-)
> >>
> >> Pass mark is 70%. Must try harder.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> A perturbation in an electric field is a change in an electric
> >> >> field over time, dE/dt = B.
> >> >
> >> > Is that this weeks definition of B or last weeks.
> >> > (cgs SI )
> >> >
> >> >> So yes, what is commonly known as magnetism is a result
> >> >> of a perturbation in an electric field.
> >> >> HOWEVER, what is commonly known as electrostatics is
> >> >> SIMPLY a result of a perturbation of the magnetic field,
> >> >> and you can't have electrostatics without matter.
> >> >
> >> > A pair of charges or a pair of masses
> >> > will experience a force diminishing with the
> >> > square of the distance. Not so with a pair of magnets.
> >> > The force diminshes with the cube of the distance.
> >> > http://www.nlreg.com/magnet.htm
> >> >
> >> > Do you have a "tired flux" theory to explain this?
>
> NO :-)
> I'm not in the theory business. It's observation, investigation and
> explanation for me.
>
> >> Do you know what a beam is, and why the radiation is not
> >> in all directions?
> > Most fundamentally it is a simple half wavelength dipole.
>
> I doubt a beam is a dipole of any kind.
> I'm talking about the kind of light that a ruby laser emits,
> and I don't see any near or far behaviour that differs in it.
Of course ya don't. Nano scale business is too small to see
with the necked aye. You need a mikeroscope or sumsuch.
... or a big envelope to scribble on see:
<< Actually, the existence of fluctuating near-fields
(FNFs) {E1(t); E2(t)} localized in
immediate proximity to the surface of a solid
body is responsible for several original near-field
effects (see figure 4). For instance, the atom-surface
dispersion force (Maclachlan et al 1963),
the long-range polarization induced by adsorption
(Antoniewicz 1974), and the dispersion
surface energy effect (Mahanty and Ninham 1973)
belong to this family. In each case, the
relevant effect is governed by a same correlation function
E built from the mean square of the
fluctuating electric field E2(r, r
, ?) occurring in the vacuum side. It may be defined by >>
'The physics of the near-field'
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~phys534/readings/girard_rpp00_nf.pdf
> Again:
> Do you know what a beam is?
This is what is in your aluminum garnet laser:
http://www.sc.ehu.es/powgep99/dcytp/teoricos/txema/tesia/fig3.jpg
From:
http://www.sc.ehu.es/powgep99/dcytp/teoricos/txema/tesia/node25.html
I sure looks like a dipole to me.
>
>
> > A positve charge moving west cancels a negative charge
> > moving east creating nulls on the E/W axis. Further
> > directivivity is acheved by increasing the aperture and
> > controlling the phase.
> >
> > Directional antenna don't alter the near/far E/H ratio
> > The electric field still dimininishes by the square of
> > the distance, the magnetic field by the cube.
> >
> > Again:
> > Do you have a "tired flux" theory to explain this?
> No. Why should I?
Because when nobody is LQQKing you try sneak in
an inverse square law where an inverse cube law
belongs.
So far the only authority you've cited is Obe Wan Kenobi
say's so 'cause he has a light saber. I know, I know I
saw with my own eyes too but it was never peer
reviewed. ;-)
Sue...
> >> >> By your reasoning, if there are spinning electrons needed
> >> >> to produce a permanent magnet, there must be spinning
> >> >> magnets to cause a static electric field.
> >> >> Where are the spinning magnets?
> >> >
> >> > -2 points... ask "where are the spinning charges" to
> >> > be constant with your former statements.
> >>
> >> They are your invention, not mine.
> >> > All matter is comprised of spinning entities.
> >>
> >> Another invention of yours.
> > Aparently so... I got a pretty low google hit on it. ;-)
http://www.physicstalk.com/Maxwells_Displacement_Current-6448402-4395-a.
html>
> >
> > Surely it isn't an original notion:
> > http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online/sciences/physics/magnetism.html
> >
> > Oh well. All charges are entities but not all entities are charges.
> > Neutons have a magnetic moment but no charge because what
> > may be fractional or integer charges move to comprise them.
> >
> > The neutrino might be the exceptional entity with no charge or spin.
> > http://nmm.cwru.edu/
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > Some granular
> >> > and crystaline metals will hold the aligment of these domains
> >> > once even after an orienting force is remove. Permanent magnets.
> >> >
http://rigel.phys.ualberta.ca/demos/Electromag/f77curriepoint.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Ok, so you plagiarised someone else's invention.
> > Oh? Where are my ill gotten gains for inventing permanent magnets.
> > My Lawyer will be in touch. :o) Harump! Cheated again.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> What is commonly known as gravity I have no answer for,
> >> >> all I can do is describe its behaviour. Galileo and Newton have
> >> >> already done that for me so I'll refer you to them.
> >> >
> >> > In a vacuum it is the same behavior as unlike charges, only
> >> > smaller.
> >> What unlike charges?
> >> Androcles
> >
> > Pick any one you like and you'll still have half a universe full of
> > matter to pick through to try and find a mate. Much easier than
> > finding a complete pair of shoes at a thrift shop.
> > Sue...
> >
> >
>
>
- Next message: Sam Wormley: "Re: How to Measure OWLS Equal to c Experimentally."
- Previous message: Patrick Reany: "Re: The single hardest thing for cranks to get"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: O'Barr 27 Nov 2004: Reasons for an ether."
- Next in thread: jahn: "Re: O'Barr 27 Nov 2004: Reasons for an ether."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
