Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?

From: JM Albuquerque (jm.aREM.OVE_at_sapo.pt)
Date: 02/28/05 

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:30:28 -0000

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> escreveu na
mensagem news:cvv2vl$85$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> JM Albuquerque wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> > Let's focus on the important.
> > So far you both fail to explain two main subjects which I cannot
> > neglect nor I will go away without knowing for sure if you do
> > know the answer, or not.
>
> You missed two important words above. The sentence should have
> started "So far you both failed to explain two main subjects *to me*
> ..." (correction of the spelling as a free service here)
>
>
>
>
> > 1 - If a spinning magnet radiates and radiation carries energy
> > that could be picked up at long distance, the question is:
> > What is the source for such energy? (Radiation)
> > So far all that you both could say was a single word, namely
> > "kinetic" energy.
>
> Indeed. And what on earth is your problem with that?

Kinetic energy is a potential like a mass on a top of a table has a gravitic
potential. Speed must change in order to energy be transmitted.

> > At first both of you discard the said energy requirements
>
> Either you have severe memory problems, or you are lying. None of
> us *ever* said that no energy is required.

You have refuted that torque must be present.

> > but I've insisted and you both spell "kinetic energy".
> > I've tried to explain that kinetic energy is nothing but a potential.
>
> Try to understand the difference between "explain" and "claim".
>
>
> > All that matters is torque,
>
> Nonsense.

In fact all that matter is power:
Power = torque x angular speed

Energy = power x time
Energy = torque x angular displacement

Since angular displacement has units of radians, torque is the physical
"force" that makes energy flow.
The radiated power is the torque times angular frequency.

> > or kinetic energy change.
>
> Indeed. The kinetic energy of the magnet decreases (unless there
> is a power source for the spinning).

Right.
We don't disagree, we don't understand each other because you don't care to
understand my point of view.

> > (Maybe I will try to address the problem again later).
>
> Please do.

See above.

> Your claims that "torque=energy" are a continuous source of amusement
> and show nicely again and again that you don't understand even
> classical mechanics, much less electrodynamics.

See above.

> > 2 - The difference between the stationary magnetic and the
> > stationary electric field.
>
> We have failed to explain this in your opinion? Why? We explained
> to you again and again what the similarities and differences between
> these two fields are.
>
> BTW, do you mean "static" or "stationary"?

Are there any difference between "static" and "stationary"?

The question was:
Pick a coil and a battery.
Feed the coil with DC from the battery.
Observe the magnetic field placing any iron piece nearby.

Bjoern Feuerbacher reply:
« That magnetic field is not *induced* by the electric field! It
comes from the *current* which runs through the coil, driven by
the electric field. This is *not* induction!!!»

Franz Heymann reply:
«An electric current is not a static electric field.»

Dan Bloomquist reply:
«There is nothing static about the E field in this experiment. You do
know that the charge in the wire is moving and that's what creates the
magnetic field. Maxwell's equations have been tested for over one
hundred years. They ain't broke.»

The point is that I cannot see any time dependent in DC current feeding a
solenoid and even so I do see a magnetic field.
On the contrary a stationary (or static, or stopped is all the same to
me)... a stationary magnetic field does not produce any current into a
solenoid. Only when the magnetic field changes current flows.

> [snip]
>
>
>
> > Actually if I have to name the Physicist that I will respect the most
> > around here I will say that I have two names: Bjoern Feuerbacher
> > and Tom Roberts.
>
> Wow. Thanks.
>
>
> > Nevertheless both do not perform well in the same fields.
>
> For years, I have considered electrodynamics to be one of the fields
> of physics I know most about. And, hint: lots of students agreed with
> that. In fact, a large part of my Master exam was about creation
> and propagation of electrodynamic radiation. Hint: I got an A.

Congratulations.

> > For instance,
> > Tom Roberts was there when I've discussed the gyroscopic motion
> > but Bjoern Feuerbacher never shown up.
>
> Apparently I missed that. I don't read every single thread.
>
>
> > On the contrary the actual
> > subjects is not the field for Tom Roberts.
> > (I can bring the right-hand rule problem here too, but I don't care)
>
> Please do. Probably this will again provide a good laugh.

Before you laugh you have to sweat.

> > You Franz Heymann, you do have a temper problem and soon the
> > discussion is ruined with you.
>
> Indeed - Franz loses his temper in the sight of willful stupidity.

The problem is that he doesn't try to understand.

And there is another rule to learn something around here.
First you have to make stupid claims that sound smart claims.
Otherwise no discussion, no learning.

> >>>Don't go away, I will be back soon with some more facts on the
> >>>matter.
> >>
> >>No. I will wait with bated breath for any facts you might produce.
> >>I will tell you which of them are correct.
> >>Oh, by the way, from the way you expressed yourself just now, you
> >>confirmed what I said about you earlier, when I characterised you as a
> >>rule-of-thumb engineer.
> >
> >
> > In fact I'm a mechanical engineer
>
>
> Suspicion confirmed.
>
>
> > from a third World country.
>
> That's irrelevant for the point.
>
>
> > So what? Is this a measure of credentials or a physics forum
> > to discuss ideas and learn something?
>
> No. But this nicely explains your inability to understand actual
> physics, and lots of the strange claims you keep making.
>
>
>
> >>ONe distinction between you and me is that instead of burdening my
> >>mind with a large number of facts, like an encyclopedia, I have learnt
> >>how to deduce such facts as I might need from a relatively small
> >>number of fundamental concepts.
> >
> >
> > My goal here is to enlarge your number of fundamental concepts.
>
> Why? The goal of physics is to have as few fundamental concepts
> as possible.

I agree, but you cannot neglect none that could be significative.

> > Namely:
> > 1 - The energy problem. Where is the source?
>
> The kinetic energy of the spinning magnet. Where on earth is
> your problem with that?

Torque.
Torque is the source for the said energy.
Read what Timo Nieminen wrote.

> > 2 - The basic difference from stationary magnetic and electric.
>
> That was explained to you ad nauseaum.

I don't agree.
All I got was reproduced above.

> > 3 - The angular speed of the magnet (to be addressed later).
>
> Please do. Probably this will again provide a good laugh.

Laugh is very good for health.
I'm improving your health them.