Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #364857 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-21 18:05 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-10-24 00:03 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 292 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-21 18:05 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 19:00 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-22 03:04 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-21 21:24 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-22 04:42 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-21 21:48 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-22 09:03 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-22 07:11 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2015-09-22 19:08 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-21 21:53 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-22 05:02 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-21 22:21 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-21 23:54 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-22 05:28 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 17:37 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-28 12:24 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-09-29 07:47 +1000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-28 22:06 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-03 08:26 +1000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 17:47 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Henry Wilson <HW@.....> - 2015-10-05 04:47 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 18:00 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-05 09:46 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 11:48 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-05 20:19 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 13:28 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-05 21:16 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Henry Wilson <HW@.....> - 2015-10-05 20:01 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 11:52 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Henry Wilson <HW@.....> - 2015-10-06 04:55 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 07:59 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-06 20:55 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-07 07:50 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-07 11:15 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-06 14:52 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 19:15 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-09 07:36 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 07:39 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Henry Wilson <HW@.....> - 2015-10-06 05:03 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 14:20 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-06 15:02 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 07:48 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-06 06:05 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-07 07:40 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 17:59 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 19:17 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-09 07:34 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 14:56 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-09 11:32 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-06 01:44 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-08 10:42 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-09 08:14 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 14:28 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-09 11:35 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-08 17:36 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 22:24 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-29 11:00 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-28 16:29 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 14:29 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Katarina Bulakova <katabu@transmatric.org> - 2015-10-06 21:36 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 14:55 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Katarina Bulakova <katabu@transmatric.org> - 2015-10-06 22:02 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-06 23:20 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 13:45 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-07 22:50 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-08 10:26 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-08 18:38 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-08 12:59 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-08 22:43 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 14:26 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-08 23:55 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 15:15 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-08 23:29 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-09 10:09 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-09 17:33 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-09 16:10 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-17 21:37 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-17 21:24 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-08 16:39 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-09 07:50 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-08 20:48 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-09 14:19 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-09 00:10 -0400
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 21:11 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-09 00:18 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 22:59 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 07:54 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-09 10:13 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 09:06 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 12:55 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Henry Wilson <HW@.....> - 2015-10-09 19:52 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-09 03:37 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 07:51 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-09 10:17 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-09 17:22 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-10 08:21 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 17:07 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-09 15:22 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 15:41 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-11 08:15 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-10 14:50 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-12 07:37 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-11 19:27 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-12 07:36 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 16:25 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-12 12:23 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-12 00:09 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 16:20 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-12 10:05 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 20:28 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 16:21 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-12 00:17 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-12 10:08 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 20:29 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-12 20:13 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 10:38 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-12 13:25 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-13 07:53 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 15:00 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-13 06:24 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 07:44 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-13 11:20 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <HG@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 21:51 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 10:05 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-16 06:17 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 13:18 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-16 08:14 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 18:19 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-15 16:18 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-16 10:54 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 15:33 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-16 08:14 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 16:49 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-16 12:37 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 19:24 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 06:53 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-17 19:05 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-17 03:47 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-18 09:00 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-17 15:39 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-18 11:20 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-17 20:29 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-19 20:20 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-19 04:31 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 08:55 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 06:55 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 13:11 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-16 22:15 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 14:25 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-17 09:59 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 15:33 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 14:38 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 16:42 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-19 13:20 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 09:36 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-20 22:09 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-22 16:34 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 00:16 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-21 22:48 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-22 16:40 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-22 13:38 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-23 03:01 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-22 09:29 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-24 11:48 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-25 04:20 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-24 11:13 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-24 13:38 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-24 11:51 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-25 06:00 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-24 12:31 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity James Sinclair Jr <jamis@portalbnova.org> - 2015-10-24 19:45 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-24 14:10 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity James Sinclair Jr <jamis@portalbnova.org> - 2015-10-24 21:42 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-26 03:31 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-26 00:22 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-24 21:34 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 21:44 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 18:54 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 17:51 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 07:45 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 08:56 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 17:07 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 16:07 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 11:40 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-27 18:26 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 20:10 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 04:51 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-29 04:28 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 10:42 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-29 09:08 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 18:26 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Jack Weidner <jackwd@webportal.au> - 2015-10-31 11:48 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Jack Weidner <jackwd@webportal.au> - 2015-10-31 12:16 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-01 03:53 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> - 2015-11-01 16:28 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-25 09:54 +0100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-26 03:30 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-26 09:58 +0100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 08:41 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-26 15:27 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-26 15:44 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 17:52 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-27 04:32 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-27 20:30 +0100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 09:02 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-28 09:23 +0100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 20:33 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-28 21:16 +0100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-30 04:46 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-29 20:02 +0100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-31 04:58 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-31 11:41 +0100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-01 04:03 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-11-01 01:14 +0100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-01 21:11 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-22 11:29 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-22 18:46 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-22 12:50 -0400
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-22 19:05 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-22 10:14 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 10:18 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Scott Finnegan <scofi@NNTPSwitch.org> - 2015-10-22 17:26 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-22 16:14 -0400
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Erebus Xanthopoulos <elefxa@spacepark.au> - 2015-10-23 11:28 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-23 05:03 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-22 12:04 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-23 04:59 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-22 11:54 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-22 14:58 -0400
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-22 12:27 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-23 08:03 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-22 14:27 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-22 23:32 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 15:26 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-22 23:44 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-23 20:40 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-23 05:03 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-23 05:15 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-23 06:05 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-23 06:27 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 07:46 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-23 16:59 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Erebus Xanthopoulos <elefxa@spacepark.au> - 2015-10-23 12:17 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 09:47 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 08:42 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-26 15:18 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 17:39 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 17:53 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 07:45 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-22 16:03 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 09:16 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-21 23:58 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 00:41 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-22 13:21 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 09:23 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 09:42 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 12:17 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 13:41 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 17:36 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 09:13 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 12:18 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-27 12:23 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 22:28 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 11:44 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 10:35 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 23:06 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 11:47 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 22:32 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 03:48 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 10:53 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 16:52 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 22:59 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 10:01 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 09:48 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 12:21 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 21:48 -0800
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-29 10:51 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 11:27 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 21:52 -0800
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-23 03:52 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-26 14:16 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Günther Huldiberaht <gunhu@allrportos.org> - 2015-10-26 19:48 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-08 23:55 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 10:58 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-09 22:59 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 14:16 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-10 09:57 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 23:29 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 22:27 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 11:01 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-10 08:15 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-10-24 00:03 +1100
Page 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 15:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <babbe735-c434-4ee3-b978-94de85b70c03@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368211 |
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 3:41:33 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > Paul, your funny little equations showed that two similarly charged metal > conductors would ATTRACT each other. The whole idea of the gold leaf > electrometer is that the two conducting plates will repel each other. You are > clearly wrong...so why are you still trying to wriggle out.? Apparently, Ralphie-boy has never taken a course in electrostatics where the method of images demonstrate quite clearly that an electric charge is ATTRACTED to a large, conductive plate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_image_charges#Point_charges In Paul's scenario, where there is are positive charges located a distance away from each side of a conductive plate of thickness d, it is apparent that if d = 0, the charges will be repelled; but if d is large, the charges will be attracted. It's funny that someone with a "DSc" doesn't know this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 17:52 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mo7u2bdd76ap06oe9788j1fe5saddm54cl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #368235 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:44:55 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 3:41:33 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >> >> Paul, your funny little equations showed that two similarly charged metal >> conductors would ATTRACT each other. The whole idea of the gold leaf >> electrometer is that the two conducting plates will repel each other. You are >> clearly wrong...so why are you still trying to wriggle out.? > >Apparently, Ralphie-boy has never taken a course in electrostatics where >the method of images demonstrate quite clearly that an electric charge is >ATTRACTED to a large, conductive plate: > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_image_charges#Point_charges > >In Paul's scenario, where there is are positive charges located a distance >away from each side of a conductive plate of thickness d, it is apparent >that if d = 0, the charges will be repelled; but if d is large, the charges >will be attracted. It's funny that someone with a "DSc" doesn't know this. Nobody needs a doctorate to know you are a raving lunatic..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 04:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e0f35cae-340a-47e6-9a66-2c5b58975703@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368252 |
On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 12:52:40 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:44:55 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 3:41:33 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > > > > > Paul, your funny little equations showed that two similarly charged > > > metal conductors would ATTRACT each other. The whole idea of the gold > > > leaf electrometer is that the two conducting plates will repel each > > > other. You are clearly wrong...so why are you still trying to wriggle > > > out.? > > > > Apparently, Ralphie-boy has never taken a course in electrostatics where > > the method of images demonstrate quite clearly that an electric charge is > > ATTRACTED to a large, conductive plate: > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_image_charges#Point_charges > > > > In Paul's scenario, where there is are positive charges located a distance > > away from each side of a conductive plate of thickness d, it is apparent > > that if d = 0, the charges will be repelled; but if d is large, the charges > > will be attracted. It's funny that someone with a "DSc" doesn't know this. > > Nobody needs a doctorate to know you are a raving lunatic.. So Ralphie-boy demonstrates that he doesn't understand electrostatics, which implies that he never took a college course in it, which implies that his vaunted "DSc" is a blatant lie. :-)) So, Ralphie-boy, do an experiment since you are incapable of understanding the theory: Make an electrometer with some large leaves, put a charge on them, and then place a conductive plate between them (but not touching either leaf). What do you think will happen? What DID happen? Who's the raving lunatic?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 20:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n0ojd0$enf$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #368211 |
On 26.10.2015 22:41, HGW wrote: > > Paul, your funny little equations showed that two similarly charged metal > conductors would ATTRACT each other. The whole idea of the gold leaf > electrometer is that the two conducting plates will repel each other. You are > clearly wrong...so why are you still trying to wriggle out.? > Are you going to demonstrate your superior knowledge of electrostatics by meeting the challenge in my posting: "A challenge to Henry Wilson" ? Or will you flee the challenge? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 09:02 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <9qsv2bt0hc40picc5qbb3rnduvpcs4ertn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #368303 |
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 20:30:36 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >On 26.10.2015 22:41, HGW wrote: >> >> Paul, your funny little equations showed that two similarly charged metal >> conductors would ATTRACT each other. The whole idea of the gold leaf >> electrometer is that the two conducting plates will repel each other. You are >> clearly wrong...so why are you still trying to wriggle out.? >> > >Are you going to demonstrate your superior knowledge >of electrostatics by meeting the challenge in my posting: > "A challenge to Henry Wilson" ? > >Or will you flee the challenge? Your posting was a hilarious joke. You are obviously not even aware that charge on a thin conducting plate resides almost entirely around its edges...or why that happens. In the case of the gold leaf, the charge is again concentrated on the edges and there is no opposite charge in the flat areas unless the two are forced into near contact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 09:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n0q0la$19e$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #368311 |
On 27.10.2015 23:02, HGW wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 20:30:36 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>>
>> Are you going to demonstrate your superior knowledge
>> of electrostatics by meeting the challenge in my posting:
>> "A challenge to Henry Wilson" ?
>>
>> Or will you flee the challenge?
>
> Your posting was a hilarious joke. You are obviously not even aware that charge
> on a thin conducting plate resides almost entirely around its edges...or why
> that happens.
> In the case of the gold leaf, the charge is again concentrated on the edges and
> there is no opposite charge in the flat areas unless the two are forced into
> near contact.
Does this mean that you are fleeing the challenge below?
A challenge to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson
------------------------------------------------------
On 25.10.2015 Ralph Malcom Rabbidge wrote:
| "... why should the forces between individual charges
| not be transmitted through the [conducting] plates?
| There is nothing in Coulomb's law that says they are not."
On 26.10.2015 Ralph Malcom Rabbidge wrote:
| "The force due to a charge on the outside surface of a hollow
conducting sphere
| still acts on every charge INSIDE that sphere. Gauss's law is
derived from the
| integration of all forces due to all the charges on the outside
surface. The
| resultant is always zero at any point."
Ralph, here is an opportunity to demonstrate your superior knowledge
of electrostatics by demonstrating how Coulomb's law should be applied:
Two positively charged small (r << L) metallic balls are
suspended on each side of a very large (diameter >> L)
metallic plate with no excess charge.
The thickness of the plate is d.
---
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
L | d | L
|<-------------->|<->|<-------------->|
Q | | Q
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
---
The challenge is to answer the following questions:
#1: Which forces will act on the charges?
(magnitude and direction)
#2: Which forces will act on the metallic plate?
(magnitude and direction)
Please give a concrete answer, no hand waving.
Or will you rather flee the challenge?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 20:33 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ec413b9rjd5kbsgr3b8nj4cqba8o34q8el@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #368341 |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 09:23:02 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >On 27.10.2015 23:02, HGW wrote: >>> Or will you flee the challenge? >> >> Your posting was a hilarious joke. You are obviously not even aware that charge >> on a thin conducting plate resides almost entirely around its edges...or why >> that happens. >> In the case of the gold leaf, the charge is again concentrated on the edges and >> there is no opposite charge in the flat areas unless the two are forced into >> near contact. > >Does this mean that you are fleeing the challenge below? I see. You know you have goofed so you are now changing the subject.... >A challenge to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson >------------------------------------------------------ > >On 26.10.2015 Henry George Wilson wrote: > | "The force due to a charge on the outside surface of a hollow >conducting sphere > | still acts on every charge INSIDE that sphere. Gauss's law is >derived from the > | integration of all forces due to all the charges on the outside >surface. The > | resultant is always zero at any point." > > >Henry, here is an opportunity to demonstrate your superior knowledge >of electrostatics by demonstrating how Coulomb's law should be applied: > > Two positively charged small (r << L) metallic balls are > suspended on each side of a very large (diameter >> L) > metallic plate with no excess charge. > The thickness of the plate is d. > > --- > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > L | d | L > |<-------------->|<->|<-------------->| > Q | | Q > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > --- > The challenge is to answer the following questions: > >#1: Which forces will act on the charges? > (magnitude and direction) > >#2: Which forces will act on the metallic plate? > (magnitude and direction) You have not given enough data but at first sight one would think the presence of the plate has no effect on the repulsion between the two balls. However I suspect this might be an instability problem.and one c=ball will end up swing in towards the plate and the other will be pushed further away. >Please give a concrete answer, no hand waving. >Or will you rather flee the challenge? ....Says the micro who goofed......
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 21:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n0rafm$hch$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #368343 |
On 28.10.2015 10:33, HGW wrote: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 09:23:02 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> > wrote: > >> On 27.10.2015 23:02, HGW wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 20:30:36 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: >>>> >>>> Are you going to demonstrate your superior knowledge >>>> of electrostatics by meeting the challenge in my posting: >>>> "A challenge to Henry Wilson" ? >>>> >>>> Or will you flee the challenge? >>> >>> Your posting was a hilarious joke. You are obviously not even aware that charge >>> on a thin conducting plate resides almost entirely around its edges...or why >>> that happens. >>> In the case of the gold leaf, the charge is again concentrated on the edges and >>> there is no opposite charge in the flat areas unless the two are forced into >>> near contact. >> >> Does this mean that you are fleeing the challenge below? > > I see. You know you have goofed so you are now changing the subject.... The subject is still Coulomb's law. It's all about forces between charges in the presence conducting metal. Which _you_ brought up in these remarkable statements: On 25.10.2015 Ralph Malcom Rabbidge wrote: | "... why should the forces between individual charges | not be transmitted through the [conducting] plates? | There is nothing in Coulomb's law that says they are not." On 26.10.2015 Ralph Malcom Rabbidge wrote: | "The force due to a charge on the outside surface of a hollow conducting sphere | still acts on every charge INSIDE that sphere. Gauss's law is derived from the | integration of all forces due to all the charges on the outside surface. The | resultant is always zero at any point." But let us keep the discussion in the thread: "A challenge to Henry Wilson" -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 04:46 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ddm43b12616unl3gc4nlpot4hqhpree83r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #368393 |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:16:49 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >On 28.10.2015 10:33, HGW wrote: >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 09:23:02 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> >>>>> >>>>> Or will you flee the challenge? >>>> >>>> Your posting was a hilarious joke. You are obviously not even aware that charge >>>> on a thin conducting plate resides almost entirely around its edges...or why >>>> that happens. >>>> In the case of the gold leaf, the charge is again concentrated on the edges and >>>> there is no opposite charge in the flat areas unless the two are forced into >>>> near contact. >>> >>> Does this mean that you are fleeing the challenge below? >> >> I see. You know you have goofed so you are now changing the subject.... > >The subject is still Coulomb's law. >It's all about forces between charges in the presence conducting metal. > >Which _you_ brought up in these remarkable statements: > >On 25.10.2015 Henry George Wilson wrote: > | "... why should the forces between individual charges > | not be transmitted through the [conducting] plates? > | There is nothing in Coulomb's law that says they are not." > > On 26.10.2015 Henry George Wilson wrote: > | "The force due to a charge on the outside surface of a hollow >conducting sphere > | still acts on every charge INSIDE that sphere. Gauss's law is >derived from the > | integration of all forces due to all the charges on the outside >surface. The > | resultant is always zero at any point." Just read this and stop whining: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem >But let us keep the discussion in the thread: >"A challenge to Henry Wilson"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 20:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n0tqgc$ckh$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #368477 |
On 29.10.2015 18:46, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:16:49 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: >> >> On 25.10.2015 Ralph Malcom Rabbidge wrote: >> | "... why should the forces between individual charges >> | not be transmitted through the [conducting] plates? >> | There is nothing in Coulomb's law that says they are not." >> >> On 26.10.2015 Ralph Malcom Rabbidge wrote: >> | "The force due to a charge on the outside surface of >> | a hollow conducting sphere >> | still acts on every charge INSIDE that sphere. >> | Gauss's law is derived from the >> | integration of all forces due to all the charges >> | on the outside surface. >> | The resultant is always zero at any point." > > Just read this and stop whining:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem You are desperate now, are you? :-D Was the link an accident, or do you really think it is relevant to your quoted statements above? :-D The claims in your statements quoted above are unbelievable stupid, and could only be uttered by a person who is utter ignorant of electrostatics. > >> But let us keep the discussion in the thread: >> "A challenge to Henry Wilson" > Where you now have admitted that your claims in the quoted statements above are wrong. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 04:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <rob73b9n57fvbt7m5na0es7489b7kooic2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #368486 |
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:02:36 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >On 29.10.2015 18:46, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >> Just read this and stop whining:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem > >You are desperate now, are you? :-D Can't read either , eh? >Was the link an accident, or do you really think it is >relevant to your quoted statements above? :-D > >The claims in your statements quoted above are unbelievable >stupid, and could only be uttered by a person who is utter >ignorant of electrostatics. Everything I have said so far has been correct. Everything YOU have said so far has been so incorrect you have to keep changing your experiment. >>> But let us keep the discussion in the thread: >>> "A challenge to Henry Wilson" >> > >Where you now have admitted that your claims in the quoted >statements above are wrong. They were not wrong Paul. You goofed well and truly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 11:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n125t2$fsv$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #368584 |
On 30.10.2015 18:58, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:02:36 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> > wrote: > >> On 29.10.2015 18:46, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > >>> Just read this and stop whining:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem >> >> You are desperate now, are you? :-D > > Can't read either , eh? > >> Was the link an accident, or do you really think it is >> relevant to your quoted statements above? :-D >> >> The claims in your statements quoted above are unbelievable >> stupid, and could only be uttered by a person who is utter >> ignorant of electrostatics. > > Everything I have said so far has been correct. > Everything YOU have said so far has been so incorrect you have to keep changing > your experiment. > >>>> But let us keep the discussion in the thread: >>>> "A challenge to Henry Wilson" >>> >> >> Where you now have admitted that your claims in the quoted >> statements above are wrong. > > They were not wrong Paul. You goofed well and truly. > Give it up, Ralph. You are only making an even bigger fool by yourself. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 04:03 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ohs93b1r32fi0enftg4hrjuh2iup9ph4hu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #368667 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:41:37 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >On 30.10.2015 18:58, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >>> >>> The claims in your statements quoted above are unbelievable >>> stupid, and could only be uttered by a person who is utter >>> ignorant of electrostatics. >> >> Everything I have said so far has been correct. >> Everything YOU have said so far has been so incorrect you have to keep changing >> your experiment. >> >>>>> But let us keep the discussion in the thread: >>>>> "A challenge to Henry Wilson" >>>> >>> >>> Where you now have admitted that your claims in the quoted >>> statements above are wrong. >> >> They were not wrong Paul. You goofed well and truly. >> > >Give it up, Henry. >You are only making an even bigger fool by yourself. Readers note: This is a typical Andersen tactic. When he knows he has made a terrible mistake, he immediately jumps into ridicule mode. He has no other defence. One only has to read anything on Paul Andersen's web site to realise that he is always wrong. His light clock animation is a classic example of dingleberry stupidity. The microprofessor from Norway, king of circular logic, is most famous his ability to create curved light beams, frame dependent energy and now, leaf electrometers that do not work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 01:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n13lge$bfd$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #368717 |
On 31.10.2015 18:03, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:41:37 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>>
>> Give it up, Ralph.
>> You are only making an even bigger fool by yourself.
>
> Readers note: This is a typical Andersen tactic. When he knows he has made a
> terrible mistake, he immediately jumps into ridicule mode. He has no other
> defence.
And the best way to ridicule Ralph Malcom Rabbidge
is to let him do it himself:
On 25.10.2015 Ralph Malcom Rabbidge wrote:
| "... why should the forces between individual charges
| not be transmitted through the [conducting] plates?
| There is nothing in Coulomb's law that says they are not."
On 26.10.2015 Ralph Malcom Rabbidge wrote:
| "The force due to a charge on the outside
| surface of a hollow conducting sphere
| still acts on every charge INSIDE that sphere.
| Gauss's law is derived from the
| integration of all forces due to all
| the charges on the outside surface.
| The resultant is always zero at any point."
On 19.10.2015 Ralph Malcom Rabbidge wrote:
| Oh dear....What you have drawn still produces a repulsion.
| The outside charges still act on each other.(through the plates)
On 22.10.2015 Ralph Malcom Rabbidge wrote:
| You have made certain assumptions about the charge
| distribution on the plates
| that are not clear. Why, for instance, is the charge
| only on the distributed
| surfaces of a conducting material and why should
| the forces between individual
| charges not be transmitted through the plates?
| There is nothing in Coulomb's
| law that says they are not. Also, if you were correct,
| a gold leaf electrometer
| would not work.
Ralph Malcom Rabbidge has kept claiming over and over
that two positive charges would repel each other even
"through metallic plates".
He has even claimed that if that wasn't the case,
gold leaf electroscopes wouldn't work!
But to this problem:
|
|
+Q | +Q charged balls
|
|
grounded metallic plate
On 30.10.2015 Ralph Malcom Rabbidge wrote:
| "Both balls will be attracted to it [the metallic plate]
| since it has [induced] opposite charge relative to them.
And thus admitted that all his incredibly stupid claims
quoted above were wrong.
>> On 30.10.2015 18:58, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> Everything I have said so far has been correct.
Thus confirming my words:
Ralph Malcom Rabbidge can admit that he was wrong
in one posting and then furiously deny that he ever
was wrong in all his next postings.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 21:11 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <q8pb3blhocf058qqs5f3eqokm33b6b8iha@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #368753 |
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 01:14:04 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >On 31.10.2015 18:03, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: .....repetitive wriggling snipped
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 11:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <L7adnRiLG41yk7TLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #367757 |
On 10/22/15 10/22/15 - 12:40 AM, HGW wrote: > It has always been > impossible to measure any difference between the predictions of Einstein and > Newton and that is the sole reason the former has not been shot down already. Nonsense. You live in a fantasy world of your own making, unrelated to the real world. In the world we actually inhabit, there are ZILLIONS of measurements that show the difference between Newtonian and relativistic physics. For instance the GPS. Also the thousands of particle accelerators in operation around the world. Let's consider those accelerators: In Newtonian physics, the kinetic energy of their particles is 0.5*m*v^2, so as energy is pumped into the beam it necessarily goes faster and faster, without bound. In relativity, the kinetic energy of the beam is m*gamma(v)-m, so as energy is pumped into the beam it does go faster, but asymptotically approaching c. For modern accelerators this is an ENORMOUS difference, and designs based on the Newtonian formula simply would not work; those based on SR do work. For a 100 GeV proton beam, Newton predicts it should travel with speed ~ 10*c; SR predicts it travels 0.9995*c. These are EASY to distinguish, and the latter value is what is observed. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 18:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <n0b3u5$2c2$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #367798 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:L7adnRiLG41yk7TLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... On 10/22/15 10/22/15 - 12:40 AM, HGW wrote: > It has always been > impossible to measure any difference between the predictions of Einstein > and > Newton and that is the sole reason the former has not been shot down > already. |Nonsense. You live in a fantasy world of your own making, unrelated to the real |world. Nonsense. You live in a fantasy world of your own making, unrelated to the real world. |In the world we actually inhabit, there are ZILLIONS of measurements that show An imagination of insane moron. |the difference between Newtonian and relativistic physics. For instance the GPS. GPS shows precisely, that time (as definedby Great Guru himself) is galilean. |Let's consider those accelerators: In Newtonian physics, the kinetic energy of |their particles is 0.5*m*v^2, so as energy is pumped into the beam it |necessarily goes faster and faster, without bound. No, poor idiot. Not necessarily. Where, exactly, Newtonian physics said, that mass is constant? |ENORMOUS difference, and designs based on the Newtonian formula simply would not |work; Imagination of a insane moron. |those based on SR do work. No, it doesn't, and even hardest morons of you wouldn't try to apply your insane "proper clocks" standard on GPS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 12:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <gq4i2bd4uf29699ti4deug8inkedip3cot@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #367798 |
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:29:34 -0500, Tom Roberts
<tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 10/22/15 10/22/15 - 12:40 AM, HGW wrote:
>> It has always been
>> impossible to measure any difference between the predictions of Einstein and
>> Newton and that is the sole reason the former has not been shot down already.
>
>Nonsense. You live in a fantasy world of your own making, unrelated to the real
>world.
>
>In the world we actually inhabit, there are ZILLIONS of measurements that show
>the difference between Newtonian and relativistic physics. For instance the GPS.
>Also the thousands of particle accelerators in operation around the world.
I thought "thousands" was an exaggeration,
so I checked, and to my surprise;
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/april-2014/ten-things-you-might-not-know-about-particle-accelerators
30,000?????????
>Let's consider those accelerators: In Newtonian physics, the kinetic energy of
>their particles is 0.5*m*v^2, so as energy is pumped into the beam it
>necessarily goes faster and faster, without bound. In relativity, the kinetic
>energy of the beam is m*gamma(v)-m, so as energy is pumped into the beam it does
>go faster, but asymptotically approaching c. For modern accelerators this is an
>ENORMOUS difference, and designs based on the Newtonian formula simply would not
>work; those based on SR do work.
>
> For a 100 GeV proton beam, Newton predicts it should travel
> with speed ~ 10*c; SR predicts it travels 0.9995*c. These are
> EASY to distinguish, and the latter value is what is observed.
>
>
>Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 19:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <n0b51r$3ig$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #367801 |
Użytkownik "kefischer" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:gq4i2bd4uf29699ti4deug8inkedip3cot@4ax.com... | 30,000????????? Mo ,atter, how many of them, their support of The Shit is nothing but imagination of a relativistic moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 10:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <43834877-d7d1-470c-86c7-b9321c1a96a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367801 |
On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 10:51:27 AM UTC-6, kefischer wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:29:34 -0500, Tom Roberts > <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > In the world we actually inhabit, there are ZILLIONS of measurements > > that show the difference between Newtonian and relativistic physics. > > For instance the GPS. Also the thousands of particle accelerators in > > operation around the world. > > I thought "thousands" was an exaggeration, > so I checked, and to my surprise; > > http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/april-2014/ten-things-you-might-not-know-about-particle-accelerators > > 30,000????????? Yep. There used to be a LOT more than that, but flat-screen TVs have replaced most of the CRT-type sets.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web