Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 02/22/05
- Next message: Måns Rullgård: "Re: Microsoft patents 'isnot' operator"
- Previous message: habshi: "Re: Terraforming the Moon"
- In reply to: JM Albuquerque: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Next in thread: Uncle Al: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:07:18 +0100
JM Albuquerque wrote:
> "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> escreveu na mensagem
> news:C7lSd.177193$K7.35869@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> (snip)
>
>
>>I didn't know the modern ones disobeyed Gauss and Faraday's
>>laws, though.
>
>
> I meant that they only obey those Laws by a short period of time.
Horsedung.
> I meant they are not continuous.
Horsedung.
> They don't produce sine waves.
Horsedung.
>>The electic motor guild paid a lot of money to Maxwell to add aether
>>into his equations and publish them, secrets are best kept if you tell a
>>half-truth and lie about the rest. :-)
>
>
> The subject is so complex that nobody really knows everything.
Horsedung.
> There is no good picture of the electromagnetic mechanism.
Horsedung.
> All the pictures have strong arguments against them and that's
> what keeps us here trying to figure out the best picture.
What pictures? Electromagnetism is described by equations, not
by pictures.
> Most of the people gets satisfied with equations
Indeed, since that's all that's important in physics: having equations
which describe observed phenomena correctly.
> and give up to figure a picture.
Good. Essentially verytime someone tries to come up with nice fancy
pictures in order to "explain" an aspect of physics, the outcome
is invariably horsedung, not physics.
> They are not engineers
Indeed. Hint: that's an advantage.
> and they never
> disassemble machines just for the fun and try to understand them.
Wrong. I did that several times in my life already. In fact, the
desire to know how all of that arounds me works was a large reason
for me studying physics.
In contrast to you, I merely realized that describing the world
with nice fancy pictures won't work, that you need equations if you
want to achieve a correct description.
> They claim there is no forces
Wrong. Where on earth did you get that nonsense from?
> but they always use the safety belt when they drive a car.
Indeed.
> Magnetism is a force that acts at distance.
Indeed. Try reading up on virtual photons. As a first step, you
could try to find out what physicists mean when they talk about
virtual photons, instead of merely making up your own definition
for that term.
> In the case of sinusoidal AC machines (synchronous or induction)
> it is a matter of poles repelling similar poles (N-N or S-S), not
> poles attracting poles (N-S or S-N). Energy is stored during
> half cycle time and given the other half. There is a delay on the
> process. There is real power (equal to mechanical energy)
Power is not equal to energy.
You *really* have no clue of even the most basic physics!
> plus apparent power that is current flowing out of phase with no work
> done, etc., etc.
Hey, you got that approximately right, congratulations.
> What magnetism is a puzzle.
Horsedung.
> Lines of force?
A certain type of virtual photons. Open a book on electrodynamics,
and after you have understood it, Mr. "there is no current density",
go on with QED.
> For sure it is a force even without knowing how a force can be
> transmitted at distance.
Virtual photons.
> For sure is not radiation
No one claimed it is. When will you finally stop attacking straw men
and try to understand what we actually say?
> because a 300
> MW (megawatt) generator translated into radiation will be a power station
> that will emanate so much radiation that it will be seen light-years away.
Non sequitur. Why on earth should *all* of the power which is generated
be radiated off?
Bye,
Bjoern
- Next message: Måns Rullgård: "Re: Microsoft patents 'isnot' operator"
- Previous message: habshi: "Re: Terraforming the Moon"
- In reply to: JM Albuquerque: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Next in thread: Uncle Al: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
