Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?
From: Franz Heymann (notfranz.heymann_at_btopenworld.com)
Date: 03/01/05
- Next message: Franz Heymann: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Previous message: George Dishman: "Re: Expanding Space"
- In reply to: JM Albuquerque: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 20:48:01 +0000 (UTC)
"JM Albuquerque" <jm.aREM.OVE@sapo.pt> wrote in message
news:38jdh4F5ltqdjU1@individual.net...
>
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> escreveu na mensagem
> news:1109679825.893876.17420@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> (snip)
>
> > Me thinks JM may be absorbed by "the body".
>
> I believe that a clear conclusion won't be possible.
> Light, radiation and induction are subjects far away to
> be clear enough.
Classical Electromagnetism is fully understood. There are no
oputstanding questions in it at the classical level.
> My problem here is that I have no help from nobody.
> First I have to analyse and think deep before I say something.
> Then I have to reply at least twice, several post each day.
> I'm tired and about to give up.
>
> Nevertheless I can't give up because I love to learn and
> I can't stop reasoning about the subject.
>
> Now they bring up a new picture of radiation, with E and B
> in phase, contrary to all that I've learn and understand so far
> (curl E = - dB/dt). I have to digest that before I give a reply.
You have been shown quite specifiaclly that the very equation you
repeat here is the onr which leads to the conclusion that E and B are
in phase in a wave propagated in free space.
Who is the arsehole who taught you otherwise?
> They also say:
> «The field has one term which decreases as r^-2 and a second
> term which decreases as r^-1. The former is the induction field.
> It has a component in the direction of propagation (a longitudinal
> wave). It dominates at small distances from the oscillator.
> The latter is the radiated field (a transverse wave). It dominates
> at large distances, and it has components which are at right
> angles to each other and to the direction of propagation.»
That statement is correct in exquisite detail, as you may verify for
yourself from any textbook in which the radiation from a dipole is
derived fully.
Quit wittering
>
> My guess is that they start with Maxwell's equation
> Curl E = -dB/dt decreasing as r^-2, and soon Maxwell's goes
> to heavens and bring up new equations (???) where the
> field decreases as r^-1 and a longitudinal wave turns out to
> be a transverse wave without any justification.
Your parents gave you an arsehole as well as an elbow or two. Learn
to distinguish them from one another.
>
> There are so many underlying subjects that a little help will be
> very appreciated.
I suggets that for starters you go and borrow some money with which to
puschase a few neurons.
-- Franz "The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." T.H. Huxley
- Next message: Franz Heymann: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Previous message: George Dishman: "Re: Expanding Space"
- In reply to: JM Albuquerque: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
