Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 1 of 67 [993 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic Goto page:  1, 2, 3, ..., 65, 66, 67 Next
Author Message
Ka-In Yen

Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 79

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Flaws wanted

Franz Heymann wrote:
 Quote: "Ka-In Yen" wrote in message news:1109117846.253238.230040@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [snip] When you do math, you must not neglect material. Force can not exist alone, force is a result of material structure. Force is vector, material structure is vector too. No. You are drivelling

Dear Franz,

Before the mass of a spring reaches you, you can not
feel the force of the spring. When you interact with
the force of a spring, the mass of the spring interacts
with you; both the force and the mass are vector.

--
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
ring_theory
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 164

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: R*volume*raduis2 c3po "Theroy of everything" This is the on Formula his a** dumb

"zetasum" <zetasum@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Bah!!
the only key is "= 0" unity. A.I has nothing to do with it.
I invented the device. Mankind is on the brink of discovery.
I think you'll be proven wrong.
Royce
science forum beginner

Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 2

Paul Victor Birke
science forum beginner

Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 10

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: experimental verification of electromagnetic mass

the famous one is by Graham and Lahoz U of Toronto some time ago
M.Graham, D.G.Lahoz. Nature, 285, 154, 1980.

http://www.tts.lt/~nara/introduc/introduc.htm

Paul

Satya Das wrote:

 Quote: Does any one have a result of experimental verification of electromagnetic mass? Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero size of all charged particles, then it must give the radius of charged particles. So what is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?
Guest

 Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism In a nutshell, aren't all EM waves 'transverse'? See for example: "Introduction to Electromagnetic Fields and Waves", by Corson & Lorrain "Classical Electrodynamics" by J.D. Jackson See, I have this little problem with EM theories that don't correspond with Maxwell's Equations, and "scalar waves" don't. Harry C.
Uncle Al
science forum Guru

Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1226

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism

Bohl wrote:
 Quote: To those studying the exotic forms electromagnetisms can take or its hidden richness. Which of the following do you think is possible and which is just plain impossible and why. "What I call "scalar waves" [snip crap]

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Ceriel Nosforit
science forum beginner

Joined: 18 Mar 2005
Posts: 18

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:36:54 -0800, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote:

 Quote: Bohl wrote: To those studying the exotic forms electromagnetisms can take or its hidden richness. Which of the following do you think is possible and which is just plain impossible and why. "What I call "scalar waves" [snip crap] Dead on Arrival.

An autopsy, kind sir?

What Bohl is probably trying to figure out is what all the strange
things over at http://jnaudin.free.fr/ are about. While the usual
champion of this subject, Tom Bearden, is the subject of many a heated
and emotional debate, these people are apparently doing _something_.
In order to understand the nature of what they are doing, research is
required. Unfortunately, despite att these strange and _working_
applications, they are usually the subject of prejudice and simply
dismissed, as if reality would go away by doing so.

--
Over on the mountain
Thunder magic spoke,
"Let the people know my wisdom,
Fill the land with smoke."
Fergus
science forum beginner

Joined: 10 May 2005
Posts: 6

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism

On 18 Mar 2005 16:33:20 -0800, hhc314@yahoo.com wrote:

 Quote: In a nutshell, aren't all EM waves 'transverse'?

Only at distances far from the source. And in homogeneous media.

Fergus
Franz Heymann
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 282

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Flaws wanted

"Ka-In Yen" <yenkain@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message

[snip]

 Quote: When you do math, you must not neglect material. Force can not exist alone, force is a result of material structure. Force is vector, material structure is vector too.

No.
You are drivelling

--
Franz
"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact."
T.H. Huxley
Bohl
science forum beginner

Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 7

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism

hhc314@yahoo.com wrote:
 Quote: In a nutshell, aren't all EM waves 'transverse'? Harry C.

Beats me. Well in medieval times, people don't know electromagnetic
waves (light) fill the air... so who knows.. perhaps other waves
fill the air too that is not EM transverse waves but its cousins
not yet detectable by present instruments.

Anyway. Let me just focus on the first paragraph. Can you show
what this means "whenever an EM wave starts to
form, both the transverse and longitudinal waves start to form.
However, the transverse wave has a function, which cancels the
longitudinal wave. So if that function persists, we get the
familiar EM wave. Now when we cancel the normal wave, we cancel
the component that had cancelled the LW (scalar wave). So we get
out a LW (scalar wave)".

What function is he talking about available in transverse wave
that cancel the longitudinal wave?

Bohl
Ka-In Yen

Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 79

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Flaws wanted

Eric Gisse wrote:
 Quote: You rewrote it? Not surprising, you probably dropped some vector information when you did because you don't know what the difference between a vector and a scalar is.

Dear Eric,

When you do math, you must not neglect material. Force can
not exist alone, force is a result of material structure.
Force is vector, material structure is vector too.

--
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
Lee Pugh
science forum beginner

Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 14

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: I need to understand the Lorentz force

Ah Bilge, It sure is nice to hear this from you.
You and I think alike on this one point, but in different thematic
processes, but I still recoginize granite being the firm foundation of your
discipline.
Kind regards, Lee Pugh
 Quote: forever: (Followups set to sci.physics.electromag) [...] substantive point worth debating intelligently. But to my knowledge, no one on the planet knows what a magnetic field is made of, so anyone claiming that a theory is *not so* based on things we don't understand would strike me as questionable. Magnetic fields are just electric fields observed in frames which are moving relative to an observer who sees a purely electric field. The transformations are: E' = \gamma (E + \beta x B) - (\gamma^2/(\gamma + 1)) \beta (\beta.E) B' = \gamma (E - \beta x B) - (\gamma^2/(\gamma + 1)) \beta (\beta.B) \beta = v/c, \gamma = 1/sqrt(1-\beta^2) So, if an observer in one frame sees an only an electric field, E, an observer in a different frame moving at some relative velocity, \beta will see the fields, E' = \gamma E - (\gamma^2/(\gamma + 1)) \beta (\beta . E) B' = \gamma\beta x E I might agree with them, you might disagree. I think what you meant to say is that you happen to agree or disagree with a particular theory, because, as anyone grounded in truth would acknowledge, theories are just theories, and when it comes to pure theoretical science, "proven" is best left outside of the vocablulary. Questioning things supposedly proven, that's where we make our best progress. We'' make our best progress by first studying what we already know in order to avoid re-inventing the wheel. It's not possible to make an informed decision about what is worth investigating without knowing the extent to which something has already been investigated and understanding the work that has already been done. QED, which is the theory of electro- magnetism is the most thoroughly tested and best understood theory that has ever existed. There is literally no experiment with which it disagrees. Want to avoid the type of mentality of Charles H. Duell, the U.S. Commissioner of Patents, who said in 1899, "Everything that can be invented has been invented." If you'll look at what goes through the patent office, you'll discover the same sort of mentality at the other extreme. Nothing is too stupid or obvious to be denied a patent. Same stupidity, different implementation. But, your analogy is false. The patent office has as much to do with what physicists decide to study as football coaches have to do with what physicists study. A better approach might be, 'Considered reasonable or likely because of tests done by xyz labs in 200x, and I am one vote in favor of their conclusions'. It takes no more intelligence to doubt everything you are told than it does to blindly accept everything you are told. Only by studying something can you know what to accept. On the other hand, doubting the consensus of the vast majority of physicists without knowing what those physicists know is rather illogical, since it doesn't make any sense for vast numbers of physicists to conspire against discovering something that would make them instantly famous enough to choose the terms of their employment.
Ka-In Yen

Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 79

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Flaws wanted

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
 Quote: Ka-In Yen wrote: Ka-In Yen wrote: Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: Two physical errors right at the start: neither potential energy nor mass are vectors. Thank you for your information. It is a high probability that a flawless derivation has some physical meaning. Do you have any strong reason that mass can not be vector? Not strong enough. F=-kx (Hook's law) Try again, and please try harder. :) Read: "I can't answer your argument, so I'll simply ridicule it."

Dear Bjoern,
There is another equation for your reference:

tau=v^2 * mu (the equation of waves on string)

tau is the tension on string, and mu is linear mass
density of string; v is vector, but v^2 is scalar.

Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Flaws wanted

Ka-In Yen wrote:
 Quote: Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: Ka-In Yen wrote: Ka-In Yen wrote: Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: Two physical errors right at the start: neither potential energy nor mass are vectors. Thank you for your information. It is a high probability that a flawless derivation has some physical meaning. Do you have any strong reason that mass can not be vector? Not strong enough. F=-kx (Hook's law) Try again, and please try harder. :) Read: "I can't answer your argument, so I'll simply ridicule it." Dear Bjoern, There is another equation for your reference: tau=v^2 * mu (the equation of waves on string) tau is the tension on string, and mu is linear mass density of string; v is vector, but v^2 is scalar.

Your using the wrong wave equation. See:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/waveq.html
http://www.uoxray.uoregon.edu/ph351/waves.pdf

 Quote: Ka-In Yen Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
Ka-In Yen

Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 79

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Flaws wanted

Eric Gisse wrote:
 Quote: Ka-In Yen wrote: Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: Read: "I can't answer your argument, so I'll simply ridicule it." Dear Bjoern, There is another equation for your reference: tau=v^2 * mu (the equation of waves on string) tau is the tension on string, and mu is linear mass density of string; v is vector, but v^2 is scalar. Your using the wrong wave equation. See: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/waveq.html http://www.uoxray.uoregon.edu/ph351/waves.pdf

Dear Eric,
"Fundamentals of Physics", chapter 17-6, waves on a string.
It is the equation of waves on a string, but I rewrite it.

--
/ Ka-In Yen
/ Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
/ http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
/ http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 1 of 67 [993 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3, ..., 65, 66, 67 Next View previous topic :: View next topic
 The time now is Tue Mar 19, 2019 5:32 pm | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics Some general Hidden Markov questions kox Prediction 0 Wed Feb 22, 2006 3:51 pm Karl Hess (hidden variables) Pieter Kuiper Research 4 Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:33 pm Any hidden variables ? contra@tdcspace.dk New Theories 1 Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:32 am Electromagnetism and str - what's wrong in my formulas? Ken S. Tucker Electromagnetics 11 Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:54 am Some Electromagnetism questions EMy Electromagnetics 4 Sat Jun 11, 2005 10:50 pm