Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?
From: Franz Heymann (notfranz.heymann_at_btopenworld.com)
Date: 03/01/05
- Next message: Franz Heymann: "Re: Attraction vs repulsion - why does it depend on spin?"
- Previous message: Franz Heymann: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- In reply to: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Next in thread: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Reply: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 20:47:56 +0000 (UTC)
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1109679825.893876.17420@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Franz Heymann wrote:
> > "JM Albuquerque" <jm.aREM.OVE@sapo.pt> wrote in message
> > news:38hq00F5n299jU1@individual.net...
>
> [...]
>
> > > The fact is that I want to learn why it radiates and not
induces,
> > and so on,
> > > and so on.
> >
> > There are an induction field as well as a radiation field
associated
> > with a rotating or oscillating dipole in free space. 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. It dominates at small distances from
the
> > oscillator. The latter is the radiated field. It dominates at
large
> > distances, and it has components which are at right angles to each
> > other and to the direction of propagation
>
> Well ain't that pretty.
> Franz with the blessing of Bjeorn and Crieghton
> have decided a rotating electostatic dipole
> radiates just like a rotating bar magnetic.
With E,D and H,B interchanged, and the occasional c stuffed in to
retain dimensional homogeneity.
> Well that old theory about the ground state of
> da Hydrogen atom not radiating, you know, details
> like that pesky Quantum Theory, aren't needed
> acording to the 3 wise men. They've pronounced
> otherwise.
At the moment we are talking classical physics, just in case your
meagre intellect has failed to notice it.
> They say rotating dipoles radiate no matter what.
Yes.
> So far the've managed to eliminate Maxwell's EM,
> SR, GR and QT,
No.
> damn my TEEVEE just blinked off,
> they must be right.
They were and are.
> You'all better stop shaving
> and wrap a towel around you head to fit in.
> Me thinks JM may be absorbed by "the body".
Tucker, everybody on the ng already knows you are a moron, so stop
bragging about it.
-- Franz "The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." T.H. Huxley
- Next message: Franz Heymann: "Re: Attraction vs repulsion - why does it depend on spin?"
- Previous message: Franz Heymann: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- In reply to: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Next in thread: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Reply: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
