Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 02/28/05
- Next message: Morituri-|-Max: "Re: About the "Mars in two weeks" nuclear rocket."
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- In reply to: JM Albuquerque: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Next in thread: JM Albuquerque: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Reply: JM Albuquerque: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:28:45 +0100
JM Albuquerque wrote:
> "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> escreveu na
> mensagem news:cvv2vl$85$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
>
>>JM Albuquerque wrote:
[snip]
>>>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
Please define "potential".
> like a mass on a top of a table has a gravitic potential.
So you talk about potential energy? You *do* know that this
is defined as the line integral over a force field, don't you?
> Speed must change in order to energy be transmitted.
Speed must change in order for kinetic energy to change. Did you
mean that? If yes, please note that we are saying exactly that:
the spinning magnet will slow down with time due to the emitted
radiation (if there is no power source for the spinning).
>>>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.
Indeed. Hint: torque is not energy.
>>>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
You keep using equations which are only valid in certain situations
as if they were valid in general. Hint: that's not a good idea.
> Since angular displacement has units of radians, torque is the physical
> "force" that makes energy flow.
What a nonsense.
If a capacitor is charged, energy flows into it. Nevertheless, no
torque is involved.
> The radiated power is the torque times angular frequency.
Nonsense.
>>>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.
Your point of view is that torque is energy, or change in energy.
And that is simply nonsense.
[snip]
>>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.
Yes, you showed that again 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"?
Yes.
static: no changes at all (e.g. no time-dependent fields, no movement
etc.)
stationary: no change in the general situation (e.g. no change in speeds
etc.)
Thanks for showing yet again that you don't even understand classical
mechanics.
> 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.»
And all of that is right.
> 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.
Yes. Your point? No one ever denied that a current produces a magnetic
field, that magnetic fields can exist even in stationary situations
(not static, since there is a current flowing!). The point was only
that the magnetic field is not produced by the static electric field,
and that this is *not* an example where a magnetic field is *induced*.
> 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.
Indeed. Your point?
>>>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.
Why don't you try some sweating for a change? Several good sources
where already suggested to you where you could read up and learn
something. Apparently you prefer to ignore them.
>>>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.
There is nothing to understand when someone keeps repeating
the nonsensical claim "torque = energy".
[snip]
>>>>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.
OTOH, we can savely neglect rules-of-thumb used in engineering,
because we know fairly well that they are merely *approximations*,
and that using Maxwell's equations instead will give the right
answer.
>>>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.
Do you mean that the magnet spins only because torque was
used to make it spinning? If yes, then you express yourself
rather strange - yet again.
> Read what Timo Nieminen wrote.
He said nowhere that "torque is the source for energy".
>>>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.
Indeed. And you showed nicely that you did not understand the
arguments. I summarized them again for your convenience.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
- Next message: Morituri-|-Max: "Re: About the "Mars in two weeks" nuclear rocket."
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- In reply to: JM Albuquerque: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Next in thread: JM Albuquerque: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Reply: JM Albuquerque: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
