Re: I need to understand the Lorentz force

From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 02/14/05 

Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:42:39 GMT

 forever:
>"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrnd0rsph.608.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> forever:
>>
>> (Followups set to sci.physics.electromag)
>>
>> [...]
>> >substantive point worth debating intelligently. But to my knowledge, no
>> >one
>> >on the planet knows what a magnetic field is made of, so anyone claiming
>> >that a theory is *not so* based on things we don't understand would
>> >strike
>> >me as questionable.
>>
>> Magnetic fields are just electric fields observed in frames which
>> are moving relative to an observer who sees a purely electric field.
>
>Some frame of reality is moving even though it doesn't appear to be? Truth
>or theory? If you really believe that, can you elaborate a little bit more?
>If the electric field in the permanent magnet sitting there is actually
>static, and I merely experience a magnetic field because that frame is
>moving relative to me, may I ask, where is that frame going, and why?
 
  It's not possible to explain a permanent magnet using maxwell's equa-
tions. For that one must use both relativity _and_ quantum mechanics.
I can elaborate in gory detail, but from the rest of your post it
appears you are just trolling, so I won't bother elaborating at all.
Go look up the dirac equation.

>The composition of both magnetic fields and electric fields remain unknown,
>whether we name them and describe their effects, or not.

  That is a non-sequiter. The reason we have words for anything is because
the words represent something. When we find something that cannot be
described in terms of the existing words, we invent a new word for it. If
your argument is that it's not possible to describe an electromagnetic
field in terms of little marbles, then you're right. If you're opposed to
discovering that you can't describe the electromagnetic field in terms of
any common objects, then you can't do science. The words ``electric
charge'' were invented to describe electric charge because words like
``gears'' didn't seem applicable.

>What's the difference between theories and roosters?

  Hard to say. Why don't you try explaining what a rooster is in terms of
nuts, bolts and *** metal or I won't believe you.

>Well, the roosters' lives actually depend on it.
 
  So far, you haven't proved roosters are made of nuts, bolts and
*** metal, so I don't know what a rooster is any more than you
know what an electromagnetic field is.

>I didn't want to tag you too badly, you who tend to gripe bitterly, but
 
  Then don't and you might learn something. Why did you post an article
asking about the lorentz force if you weren't interested in the lorentz
force?

[...]
>> It takes no more intelligence to doubt everything you are told than it
>> does to blindly accept everything you are told.
>
>Can't remember saying I doubt everything I'm told, but frankly, one might
>reasonably argue that historically the accomplishments of the most
>celebrated scientists were directly proportional to the degree they did so.

  Just because you didn't say it doesn't mean it isn't true. You appear
to be opposed to discovering that there is anything that can't be described
in terms of something with which you aren't already familiar.

Quantcast