Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 2 of 67 [993 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 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

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
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: Eric Gisse wrote: 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, Thank you for your information. Please refer to Halliday's "Fundamentals of Physics", chapter 17-6, waves on a string. It is the equation of waves on a string, but I rewrite it.

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.

If you ask an educated physicist/mathematician what the wave equation
is, you will be pointed to the PDE.

 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: Eric Gisse wrote: 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, Thank you for your information. Please refer to Halliday's "Fundamentals of Physics", chapter 17-6, waves on a string. It is the equation of waves on a string, but I rewrite it. 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. If you ask an educated physicist/mathematician what the wave equation is, you will be pointed to the PDE.

Dear Eric,
I agree with you that the equation you pointed out is a
complete wave equation. The equation I got from Halliday's
book is a equation of wave's velocity. Most time It is

v=sqrt(tau/mu)

And I rewrote it

tau = v^2 * mu

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

 Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?! don't think our dave has lifted a page of that classic text.
Ka-In Yen

Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 79

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

Mike wrote:
 Quote: Ka-In Yen wrote: [snip] Not strong enough. F=-kx (Hook's law) Try again, and please try harder. :) What does Hooke's law have to do with all these? F= -kx is just an approximation and F and x are still vectors anyway.

Dear Mike,

Thank you for your information. As you said: F and x are vectors.
What about the linear mass density of spring? The force and the
mass of spring blend together; there is no way to separate the
force from the mass of spring. The force can not exist independently.
The force is a result of material structure of spring. From
microscopic view point, electric force push/pull atoms of spring;
to macroscopic level, the mass of spring push/pull external object.
The force is a description of spring's material structure. The
force is vector, because the material structure is vector.

--
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
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 Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:27:01 +0000 (UTC),
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

 Quote: In article <1111196174.457106.322890@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Bohl wrote: hhc314@yahoo.com wrote: In a nutshell, aren't all EM waves 'transverse'?

<snippeth>

 Quote: But I suppose he must mean scalar waves. The only analogy to scalar waves that I can think of is sound waves. I don't think there's any scalar analogy to, e.g., the photon or W bosons, so I can't say much about it off the top of my head.

Two years ago I annoyed the people at alt.sci.physics.acoustics about
this. The result:

--
Over on the mountain
Thunder magic spoke,
"Let the people know my wisdom,
Fill the land with smoke."
Gregory L. Hansen
science forum Guru

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 771

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

Bohl <aharanovbohm@yahoo.com> wrote:
 Quote: hhc314@yahoo.com wrote: 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.

And perhaps invisible muffins fill the air. Ignorance is no reason to
prefer one particular unproven theory over another.

 Quote: 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?

It would be something novel. In free space, electromagnetic waves are
non-interacting and follow a simple superposition rule. E.g. a vertically
polarized wave can't turn a horizontally polarized wave into a vertically
polarized wave; they basically proceed independently as if the other
didn't exist. What he's talking about is an interaction term between the
transverse and longitudinal waves, one that has no theoretical or
experimental justification that I know of.

I'm not quite sure what he means by "longitudinal". If I didn't know he
has a thing for scalar waves, I'd assumed the longitudinal waves are
vector waves polarized longitudinally rather than transversely, which
is something that can happen only if the wave has mass. Which would imply
dispersion even in free space.

But I suppose he must mean scalar waves. The only analogy to scalar waves
that I can think of is sound waves. I don't think there's any scalar
analogy to, e.g., the photon or W bosons, so I can't say much about it off

--
"Not that there's anything wrong with just lying around on your back. In
its way, rotting is interesing too... It's just that there are other ways
to spend your time as a cadaver." -- Mary Roach, "Stiff", 2003.
Guest

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

Prescott, there is no effect to be ovserved.

The people promoting the concept of 'scalar waves' have long been
demonstrated to be flim-flam artists selling baseless pseudo-scientific
fecal matter.

Isn't it obvioius to you that if their theories and claims had any
merit whatsoever, they would have been embraced by the world years ago?

My take on the subject is that Tom Bearden (just to focuse on one
person perpetrating a scam) has been actively involved in selling his
'Snake Oil' for well over 10-years. Evidently there are enough ignorant
suckers around to keep him in business.

The fact that in 2005 there are still people remaining who are so
naive/ignorant in science to make the scam profitable absolutely amazes
me. Then too, scams based on pseudo-science have been around
throughout recorded history. Like most con-games, their success is
built upon preying on personal greed. (Evidence, for example, the car
that could run on water as fuel.)

It's as simple as that.

Harry C.
Guest

 Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism ROFL Sucker! Harry C.
Bjoern Feuerbacher
science forum Guru

Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 395

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.

The stuff below are the rantings of a crank.

 Quote: "What I call "scalar waves" are pure longitudinal EM waves (LW).

Impossible if our current theory of electromagnetism (described
by Maxwell's equations) is right. I.e. almost certainly impossible,
since that theory has been tested and used for 140 years now.

 Quote: Per a nice paper by R. Ziolkowski, 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.

What on earth is this supposed to mean? What do you mean with
"function" here?

 Quote: So if that function persists, we get the familiar EM wave.

Huh??? What do you mean with "the function persists"?

 Quote: Now when we cancel the normal wave, we cancel the component that had cancelled the LW. So we get out a LW.

And how is this cancelling supposed to work?

 Quote: A normal old EM wave is comprised of photons (or so we can consider it, if we wish). Now a photon is a piece of angular momentum.

No, it isn't. It *has* angular moment.

 Quote: So it's a piece of energy welded to a piece of time,

What is "a piece of time" supposed to mean?

 Quote: with no seam in the middle, so to speak.

That would be a rather strange way of speaking.

 Quote: What the "pieces of energy" represents, in the dynamic oscillating wave, is a dynamic oscillation of the energy density of 3-space.

No, photons are not "dynamic oscillations of the energy density
of 3-space".

 Quote: Now here physics does an odd thing. It just ignores the dynamics of all those "time pieces".

Again: what on earth is "time piece" supposed to mean?

 Quote: In other words, not only is the spatial energy

What is *spatial* energy?

 Quote: structured and dynamic, but so is the flow of time

Unsupported assertion.

 Quote: (I discovered the mechanism that generates the flow of time when I was at grad school at Georgia Tech).

Rrrriiigggghhhht.

 Quote: Physicists just visualize the "observer time" flowing smoothly, and ignore the fact that the EM wave carries time dynamics as well as energy dynamics.

What on earth are "time dynamics" and "energy dynamics" supposed
to mean?

 Quote: When you make what is CALLED a transverse wave you ignore (or have a component that cancels) that time-density variation.

Plain wrong. Transverse waves *have* a time-dependent energy density.

And there is no "component" there which would cancel that!

 Quote: That is a normal transverse wave; considered as an oscillation of the energy density of three-dimensional space, with a structureless, free-flowing time stream.

That's one of the strangest descriptions of a transverse wave
I've ever seen.

 Quote: When you make a longitudinal wave, by definition it cannot vary the energy density in 3-space. That is fixed.

Plain nonsense. For longitudinal waves, the energy density at every
single point varies periodically, just as for transverse waves.

 Quote: So it can only vary the time-density dynamics.

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

[snip a *lot* more of that nonsense]

Bye,
Bjoern

P.S.: Cinquirer/Landle/Qion, is that you again?
Bjoern Feuerbacher
science forum Guru

Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 395

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

Ceriel Nosforit wrote:
 Quote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:37:47 +0100, Bjoern Feuerbacher feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote: Ceriel Nosforit wrote:

[snip]

 Quote: Having briefly looked at Whittaker's 1903 paper, What paper do you mean? Google.

"Whittaker 1903" gives 37 300 hits. Adding "scalar waves"
reduces that to 129.

Why don't you simply provide a link?

[snip]

 Quote: I'd still like to quickly add that Maxwell was also pre-Relativity, so his equations are no holy cow either. Non sequitur, since Maxwell's equations are automatically Lorentz invariant, and SR was even developed based on that Lorentz invariance! So saying that Maxwell's equations could be wrong due to a possible conflict with SR (that's what you were saying, right?) makes no sense at all. They do not disagree whith current observations. Current observations are based on them.

Err, how do you base observations on a theory?

[snip]

 Quote: They should probably not be treated as such. Err, I don't treat them as "holy cow". I said "almost certainly impossible", not "clearly", "certainly", "absolutely" etc. impossible. Then you say one thing and do the other.

Please point out where I treated Maxwell's equations as a "holy cow".

 Quote: And I pointed out *why* I am so sure about that: because they had been tested and used for 140 years now. How long had Newton's been tested?

Longer. And they are still perfectly valid *within their range of
application*. Hint: I say the same about Maxwell's equations.

Saying that scalar electromagnetic waves exist would be like
saying that gravity obeys a 1/r law instead of an 1/r^2 law.

[snip]

 Quote: Beware! Musings: Maybe if every other field was revised when one advances we could see a more rapid progression of our major fields. Say EM _was_ revised after Relativity, Why on earth should it have been, in light of the fact that the development of SR was *based* on Maxwell's theory? All of it?

All of what? Of the development? No.

 Quote: You're leavig out important info.

No.

 Quote: And, if you did not notice: Maxwell's theory *was* reconsidered in a sense after the development of SR. Nothing was changed in its main statements (since, as already said, SR is essentially *based* on these statements), but a new way was found to *write* the equations. You could try reading up on "field strength tensor" or "four-potential", for starters. Not sure how I was supposed to notice that...

I don't know what education you have. I simply assumed that before
someone starts spouting about "Maxwell's theory should have
been reconsidered after SR was developed!", he would have done
some research if that hasn't been already done.

Good. Try any textbook on electrodynamics, e.g. Greiner or Jackson.

[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
science forum Guru

Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 395

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

Bohl wrote:
 Quote: hhc314@yahoo.com wrote: 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.

Yes, maybe. So what? Idle speculations are not physics.

 Quote: 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?

How are we supposed to know what the words of a crank are supposed
to mean?

Bye,
Bjoern
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 Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:37:47 +0100, Bjoern Feuerbacher
<feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:

 Quote: Ceriel Nosforit wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:02:00 +0100, Bjoern Feuerbacher feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote: 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. The stuff below are the rantings of a crank. "What I call "scalar waves" are pure longitudinal EM waves (LW). Impossible if our current theory of electromagnetism (described by Maxwell's equations) is right. I.e. almost certainly impossible, since that theory has been tested and used for 140 years now. Having briefly looked at Whittaker's 1903 paper, What paper do you mean?

 Quote: it appears to me that the problem is that his results are correct; for Newtonian Law. However, Newtonian Law is probably not applicable in this particular case. - A unified theory of gravity and EM would be required for it. Why?

Says so in the paper.

 Quote: I'd still like to quickly add that Maxwell was also pre-Relativity, so his equations are no holy cow either. Non sequitur, since Maxwell's equations are automatically Lorentz invariant, and SR was even developed based on that Lorentz invariance! So saying that Maxwell's equations could be wrong due to a possible conflict with SR (that's what you were saying, right?) makes no sense at all.

They do not disagree whith current observations. Current observations
are based on them. Wonder why they agree with observations?

What are the impliactions of this?
How does it stand in relation to Newtonian vs. Relativistic physics?

These are rethoric questions.

 Quote: They should probably not be treated as such. Err, I don't treat them as "holy cow". I said "almost certainly impossible", not "clearly", "certainly", "absolutely" etc. impossible.

Then you say one thing and do the other.

 Quote: And I pointed out *why* I am so sure about that: because they had been tested and used for 140 years now.

How long had Newton's been tested?

This is both a straight and a rethoric question.

 Quote: Beware! Musings: Maybe if every other field was revised when one advances we could see a more rapid progression of our major fields. Say EM _was_ revised after Relativity, Why on earth should it have been, in light of the fact that the development of SR was *based* on Maxwell's theory?

All of it?
You're leaving out important info.

 Quote: And, if you did not notice: Maxwell's theory *was* reconsidered in a sense after the development of SR. Nothing was changed in its main statements (since, as already said, SR is essentially *based* on these statements), but a new way was found to *write* the equations. You could try reading up on "field strength tensor" or "four-potential", for starters.

Not sure how I was supposed to notice that...

 Quote: the revision would require QM to be revised into accordance. Err, why?

It follows the logic of the argument.

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

Dan Bloomquist wrote:

http://www.cheniere.org/books/efv/Chapter_1.pdf

There is a hidden richness in electromagnetism. The problem is
what it is.

About Bearden. I was hoping he would learn from his past mistakes
and learned. Currently. He has written a 977 page book called
"Energy from the Vacuum" that is becoming bestseller
worldwide with many participants from Europe. He shares Chapter 1

http://www.cheniere.org/books/efv/Chapter_1.pdf

If he is 90% wrong. Then we have to restart from scratch to
dig this hidden richness in electromagnetism.

This holy week and holidays, let us read the 74 pages and analyze
where he got it wrong and avoid repeating the same mistakes in
the years ahead when we are going to derive the hidden richness
in electromagnetism.

Bohl
J_O_S_E79
science forum beginner

Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: What Electricity is really made of

Go Stone2!!

stone2 wrote:

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 2 of 67 [993 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 65, 66, 67 Next View previous topic :: View next topic
 The time now is Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:49 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