Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #466929 > unrolled thread

Rub Odd's nose in it.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 02:13 -0400
    Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.sd> - 2018-08-05 12:08 +0000
    Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 13:06 +0000
      Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 12:10 -0400
        Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 18:57 +0000
          Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:33 -0400
            Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 18:07 +0000
              Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 17:23 -0400
                Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 22:43 +0000
                  Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 04:39 -0400
                    Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 13:45 +0000
                      Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 12:50 -0400
    Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-05 08:27 -0500
      Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.sg> - 2018-08-05 14:13 +0000
        Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 12:23 -0400
          Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.sg> - 2018-08-05 17:47 +0000
            Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:32 -0400
              Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hp> - 2018-08-06 18:05 +0000
                Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 17:15 -0400
                  Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hn> - 2018-08-07 09:21 +0000
                    Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-08-07 08:36 -0400
      Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 12:17 -0400
        Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 18:57 +0000
          Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-05 13:20 -0700
          Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:39 -0400
            Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-06 19:22 -0500
        Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-05 18:41 -0500
      Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-05 22:50 -0500
        Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:51 -0400
          Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 13:08 -0500
    Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-07 11:40 +1000
      Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 01:49 +0000
      Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 04:53 -0400
        Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hn> - 2018-08-07 10:02 +0000
          Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-07 08:55 -0500
            Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 13:05 -0400
        Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-07 11:24 -0500
          Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 16:56 +0000
          Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 20:04 -0400
            Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-08 09:05 +0200
            Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-08 17:14 +1000
              Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 10:34 -0400
                Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-08 20:16 +0200
                Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-09 09:15 +1000
                  Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 19:57 -0400
                    Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-09 11:48 +1000
                      Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 11:02 -0400
            Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-08 11:08 -0500
              Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 13:23 -0400
                Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-08 20:26 +0200
                Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-09 10:15 -0500
                  Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 12:48 -0400
                    Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-11 23:37 -0500
                      Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenvhw.ho> - 2018-08-12 11:31 +0000
                        Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenvhw.ho> - 2018-08-12 11:34 +0000
                      Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-12 10:09 -0400
                        Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-12 21:29 -0500
                          Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-13 10:53 +0000
                            Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-13 04:08 -0700
                          Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 11:41 -0400
                            Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 10:02 -0700
                              Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 17:36 +0000
                                Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-13 10:45 -0700
                            Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-15 18:56 -0500
                              Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 06:29 -0700
            Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 23:55 +0000
              Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 10:58 -0400
                Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 15:26 +0000
                  Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 12:36 -0400
                    Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 17:53 +0000
                      Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-09 11:21 -0700
          Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hn> - 2018-08-08 11:12 +0000
    Rub Odd's nose in it. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-16 20:34 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#467198

On 8/7/2018 5:21 AM, the nymshifting troll, now trolling as Owen 
Scharff, wrote:
> I'm just popping in here, and what am I seeing. This place is a magnet
> attracting almost half-engineers in computer science.
> 

No, you are not "just popping in here", nymshifter. You just recently 
nynshifted to a new nym and are now (ab)using it.

Do you *really* think you are fooling anyone, nymshifter?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466966

On 8/5/2018 9:27 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/5/18 1:13 AM, benj wrote:
>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. 
>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that 
>> speed.
>> [... nonsense]
> 
> He is correct: fields do not "propagate", but changes in fields can and 
> do. To see this, all one has to do is examine a) what "field" means, and 
> b) the form of the Lienard-Wiechert potentials of classical 
> electrodynamics.
> 
> Your discussion violates basic conservation laws and is therefore 
> useless. Modifying it to obey the conservation of charge forces the two 
> charges to be introduced at the same point and then separated, and that 
> destroys what you think is an argument.
> 
> But it is true that if you have a charge present, and then wiggle it, 
> locations a distance L away won't observe the wiggling until a delay of 
> L/c.
> 
> Tom Roberts

So your argument is that all fields already exist throughout all space 
and then when a charge is created only the disturbances travel down 
these already existing fields at the speed of c?  You know that is 
nonsense.

Even if you introduce two charges and separate them, this still creates 
a dipole field traveling away at c. It will not be instantaneously 
sensed by a test charge somewhere.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466976

benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/5/2018 9:27 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 8/5/18 1:13 AM, benj wrote:
>>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. 
>>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that 
>>> speed.
>>> [... nonsense]
>> 
>> He is correct: fields do not "propagate", but changes in fields can and 
>> do. To see this, all one has to do is examine a) what "field" means, and 
>> b) the form of the Lienard-Wiechert potentials of classical 
>> electrodynamics.
>> 
>> Your discussion violates basic conservation laws and is therefore 
>> useless. Modifying it to obey the conservation of charge forces the two 
>> charges to be introduced at the same point and then separated, and that 
>> destroys what you think is an argument.
>> 
>> But it is true that if you have a charge present, and then wiggle it, 
>> locations a distance L away won't observe the wiggling until a delay of 
>> L/c.
>> 
>> Tom Roberts
> 
> So your argument is that all fields already exist throughout all space 
> and then when a charge is created only the disturbances travel down 
> these already existing fields at the speed of c?  You know that is 
> nonsense.

No, it’s absolutely right. 

> 
> Even if you introduce two charges and separate them, this still creates 
> a dipole field traveling away at c. It will not be instantaneously 
> sensed by a test charge somewhere.
> 


You’re not creating the dipole field. You’re changing the field to pick up
a dipole configuration. That configuration — that CHANGE — propagates at c.
So say the textbooks. 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466985

On Sunday, August 5, 2018 at 11:57:06 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/5/2018 9:27 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 8/5/18 1:13 AM, benj wrote:
> >>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. 
> >>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that 
> >>> speed.
> >>> [... nonsense]
> >> 
> >> He is correct: fields do not "propagate", but changes in fields can and 
> >> do. To see this, all one has to do is examine a) what "field" means, and 
> >> b) the form of the Lienard-Wiechert potentials of classical 
> >> electrodynamics.
> >> 
> >> Your discussion violates basic conservation laws and is therefore 
> >> useless. Modifying it to obey the conservation of charge forces the two 
> >> charges to be introduced at the same point and then separated, and that 
> >> destroys what you think is an argument.
> >> 
> >> But it is true that if you have a charge present, and then wiggle it, 
> >> locations a distance L away won't observe the wiggling until a delay of 
> >> L/c.
> >> 
> >> Tom Roberts
> > 
> > So your argument is that all fields already exist throughout all space 
> > and then when a charge is created only the disturbances travel down 
> > these already existing fields at the speed of c?  You know that is 
> > nonsense.
> 
> No, it’s absolutely right. 
> 
> > 
> > Even if you introduce two charges and separate them, this still creates 
> > a dipole field traveling away at c. It will not be instantaneously 
> > sensed by a test charge somewhere.
> > 
> 
> 
> You’re not creating the dipole field. You’re changing the field to pick up
> a dipole configuration. That configuration — that CHANGE — propagates at c.
> So say the textbooks. 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Where is your Nose Roy?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467093

On 8/5/2018 2:57 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/5/2018 9:27 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 8/5/18 1:13 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c.
>>>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that
>>>> speed.
>>>> [... nonsense]
>>>
>>> He is correct: fields do not "propagate", but changes in fields can and
>>> do. To see this, all one has to do is examine a) what "field" means, and
>>> b) the form of the Lienard-Wiechert potentials of classical
>>> electrodynamics.
>>>
>>> Your discussion violates basic conservation laws and is therefore
>>> useless. Modifying it to obey the conservation of charge forces the two
>>> charges to be introduced at the same point and then separated, and that
>>> destroys what you think is an argument.
>>>
>>> But it is true that if you have a charge present, and then wiggle it,
>>> locations a distance L away won't observe the wiggling until a delay of
>>> L/c.
>>>
>>> Tom Roberts
>>
>> So your argument is that all fields already exist throughout all space
>> and then when a charge is created only the disturbances travel down
>> these already existing fields at the speed of c?  You know that is
>> nonsense.
> 
> No, it’s absolutely right.

Obviously this is now a religious debate and no science can now be 
discussed. Take your arguments to sci.physics.religion.

>> Even if you introduce two charges and separate them, this still creates
>> a dipole field traveling away at c. It will not be instantaneously
>> sensed by a test charge somewhere.
>>
> 
> 
> You’re not creating the dipole field. You’re changing the field to pick up
> a dipole configuration. That configuration — that CHANGE — propagates at c.
> So say the textbooks.

How can there be a field when there are no charges present? Oh wait, I 
got it. A zero field is still a field and therefore exists! Do you 
realize how insane your arguments are? You seem ready to believe ANY 
sentence no matter how insane or contradictory without blinking an eye.
Sorry, a discussion of the beliefs of the asylum patients produces no 
relevant scientific discussion.

John is SO right about you!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467155

On 8/6/18 12:39 PM, benj wrote:
> How can there be a field when there are no charges present? 

You CLEARLY do not know what "field" actually means.

In this context, a field is a function on the manifold [#]. That is, the 
field assigns a value to every point of the manifold. The type of field 
determines the type of value, such as: scalar fields (temperature, 
pressure, ...), vector fields (electric and magnetic fields, wind, the 
EM 4-potential, ...), and tensor fields (the metric, the Maxwell 
two-form, stress and strain, ...).

	[#] Here the manifold is spacetime.

> Oh wait, I 
> got it. A zero field is still a field and therefore exists!

Of course -- see above. That is inherent in what "field" means. For each 
of my examples the value zero is still a value. To claim that a region 
in which the field has value 0 "has no field" would destroy the 
mathematical structure of any theory involving such nonsense [@].

	Colloquially we say "there is no wind" when its
	velocity is zero, but mathematically that is clearly
	a wind with zero velocity.

	[@] If there were no field in such a region, then
	Maxwell's equations could not possibly be valid.

The discovery of 0 as a valid number by the ancients is now an essential 
aspect of mathematics. You need to progress beyond Roman numerals....

> Do you 
> realize how insane your arguments are?

It is really your attempt to argue about fields without knowing what the 
word means that is insane.

> [... further nonsense omitted]

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467007

On 8/5/18 11:17 AM, benj wrote:
> On 8/5/2018 9:27 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 8/5/18 1:13 AM, benj wrote:
>>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. 
>>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that 
>>> speed.
>>> [... nonsense]
>>
>> He is correct: fields do not "propagate", but changes in fields can 
>> and do. To see this, all one has to do is examine a) what "field" 
>> means, and b) the form of the Lienard-Wiechert potentials of classical 
>> electrodynamics.
>>
>> Your discussion violates basic conservation laws and is therefore 
>> useless. Modifying it to obey the conservation of charge forces the 
>> two charges to be introduced at the same point and then separated, and 
>> that destroys what you think is an argument.
>>
>> But it is true that if you have a charge present, and then wiggle it, 
>> locations a distance L away won't observe the wiggling until a delay 
>> of L/c.
> 
> So your argument is that all fields already exist throughout all space 
> and then when a charge is created only the disturbances travel down 
> these already existing fields at the speed of c?  You know that is 
> nonsense.

The nonsense is YOURS, not mine. That is NOT my argument.

	Hint: charge cannot be "created".

My point is that your original discussion violated the conservation of 
charge, and is therefore useless. Fix that, and your "argument" 
disappears. That is, create a +/- pair of charges at one point, and then 
separate them -- as they separate each one continually and continuously 
"feels" the force from the other. Work out the details using the L-W 
potential and it is quite clear that the value of the field at one 
charge's location depends on the RETARDED position of the other (here 
"retarded" means the position a time L/c before the time of the 
measurement [#]).

	[#] One must use a single inertial frame for all
	measurements and the time coordinate.

> Even if you introduce two charges and separate them, this still creates 
> a dipole field traveling away at c. It will not be instantaneously 
> sensed by a test charge somewhere.

Hmmmm. That's basically what I said using different words AND SPEAKING 
LOOSELY. It is not the "dipole field" that is propagating, but rather 
changes to the field in the form of an outward-expanding dipole. The 
field itself has a value everywhere and everywhen throughout the 
universe; it may well have a value indistinguishable from 0 in many/most 
places.

	This is in classical electrodynamics. It is hopeless to
	attempt a discussion in the context of QED around here.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467024

On 8/5/2018 8:27 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/5/18 1:13 AM, benj wrote:
>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c.
>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that
>> speed.
>> [... nonsense]
> 
> He is correct: fields do not "propagate", but changes in fields can and
> do. To see this, all one has to do is examine a) what "field" means, and
> b) the form of the Lienard-Wiechert potentials of classical
> electrodynamics.
> 
> Your discussion violates basic conservation laws and is therefore
> useless. Modifying it to obey the conservation of charge forces the two
> charges to be introduced at the same point and then separated, and that
> destroys what you think is an argument.
> 
> But it is true that if you have a charge present, and then wiggle it,
> locations a distance L away won't observe the wiggling until a delay of
> L/c.
> 
> Tom Roberts


E field on a Cat;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cat_demonstrating_static_cling_with_styrofoam_peanuts.jpg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467096

On 8/5/2018 11:50 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 8/5/2018 8:27 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 8/5/18 1:13 AM, benj wrote:
>>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c.
>>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that
>>> speed.
>>> [... nonsense]
>>
>> He is correct: fields do not "propagate", but changes in fields can and
>> do. To see this, all one has to do is examine a) what "field" means, and
>> b) the form of the Lienard-Wiechert potentials of classical
>> electrodynamics.
>>
>> Your discussion violates basic conservation laws and is therefore
>> useless. Modifying it to obey the conservation of charge forces the two
>> charges to be introduced at the same point and then separated, and that
>> destroys what you think is an argument.
>>
>> But it is true that if you have a charge present, and then wiggle it,
>> locations a distance L away won't observe the wiggling until a delay of
>> L/c.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
> 
> 
> E field on a Cat;
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cat_demonstrating_static_cling_with_styrofoam_peanuts.jpg
> 
Save the Cat!

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Static-Guard-Spray-5-5-Ounces/21092566

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467103

On 8/6/2018 12:51 PM, benj wrote:
> On 8/5/2018 11:50 PM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 8/5/2018 8:27 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 8/5/18 1:13 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c.
>>>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that
>>>> speed.
>>>> [... nonsense]
>>>
>>> He is correct: fields do not "propagate", but changes in fields can and
>>> do. To see this, all one has to do is examine a) what "field" means, and
>>> b) the form of the Lienard-Wiechert potentials of classical
>>> electrodynamics.
>>>
>>> Your discussion violates basic conservation laws and is therefore
>>> useless. Modifying it to obey the conservation of charge forces the two
>>> charges to be introduced at the same point and then separated, and that
>>> destroys what you think is an argument.
>>>
>>> But it is true that if you have a charge present, and then wiggle it,
>>> locations a distance L away won't observe the wiggling until a delay of
>>> L/c.
>>>
>>> Tom Roberts
>>
>>
>> E field on a Cat;
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cat_demonstrating_static_cling_with_styrofoam_peanuts.jpg
>>
>>
> Save the Cat!
> 
> https://www.walmart.com/ip/Static-Guard-Spray-5-5-Ounces/21092566

Great find benj!

I got a few cans and I'm trying to spray the cats in the neighborhood
before they run into a static charged E field.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467156

On 5/08/2018 4:13 PM, benj wrote:
> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. 
> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that speed.
> 

What does it even mean to talk about the motion of a field?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467158

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> On 5/08/2018 4:13 PM, benj wrote:
>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. 
>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that speed.
>> 
> 
> What does it even mean to talk about the motion of a field?
> 
> Sylvia.
> 

Well maybe one of Ben’s books can explain that. We shall see. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467180

On 8/6/2018 9:40 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 5/08/2018 4:13 PM, benj wrote:
>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. 
>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that 
>> speed.
>>
> 
> What does it even mean to talk about the motion of a field?
> 
> Sylvia.

Are you talking mathematics or physics?
Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no charges 
and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of fields but 
actually is filled with an electric (an other types) of fields whose 
value is simply zero?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467189

benj wrote:

> On 8/6/2018 9:40 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 5/08/2018 4:13 PM, benj wrote:
>>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c.
>>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that
>>> speed.
>>
>> What does it even mean to talk about the motion of a field? Sylvia.
> 
> Are you talking mathematics or physics?
> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no charges
> and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of fields but
> actually is filled with an electric (an other types) of fields whose
> value is simply zero?

So you don't know that field induction is recursive redundant, mutual and 
reciprocal. Aan _almost half-engineer_ in computer science, I guess?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467209

On 8/7/2018 5:02 AM, Owen Scharff wrote:
> benj wrote:
> 
>> On 8/6/2018 9:40 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 5/08/2018 4:13 PM, benj wrote:
>>>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c.
>>>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that
>>>> speed.
>>>
>>> What does it even mean to talk about the motion of a field? Sylvia.
>>
>> Are you talking mathematics or physics?
>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no charges
>> and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of fields but
>> actually is filled with an electric (an other types) of fields whose
>> value is simply zero?
> 
> So you don't know that field induction is recursive redundant, mutual and 
> reciprocal. Aan _almost half-engineer_ in computer science, I guess?
> 

that is how the Army gets new people in, field induction.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467231

On 8/7/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 8/7/2018 5:02 AM, Owen Scharff wrote:
>> benj wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/6/2018 9:40 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 5/08/2018 4:13 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c.
>>>>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that
>>>>> speed.
>>>>
>>>> What does it even mean to talk about the motion of a field? Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Are you talking mathematics or physics?
>>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no charges
>>> and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of fields but
>>> actually is filled with an electric (an other types) of fields whose
>>> value is simply zero?
>>
>> So you don't know that field induction is recursive redundant, mutual and
>> reciprocal. Aan _almost half-engineer_ in computer science, I guess?
>>
> 
> that is how the Army gets new people in, field induction.
> 
<snort>

Hey how come this post of Sylvia's  didn't appear on my server yet?

Wait a minute, Sylvia, if fields can be "induced" that implies they are 
created rather than Odd's theory that space is always filled with 
immovable fields of zero magnitude that suddenly get modulated.

And it is understood by real physicists and engineers that fields are 
defined starting in a reciprocal manner but that the final field is 
determined by an abstract fantasy limiting process eliminating the 
reciprocity. Right? (See Jackson) My question about mathematics or 
physics was highly relevant.

I take it you are one of those minority females studying IT hoping to 
graduate and try to compete with men one day.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467219

On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote:
> Are you talking mathematics or physics?

Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and models.

> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no charges and 
> hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of fields but actually is 
> filled with an electric (an other types) of fields whose value is simply zero?

Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you believe that 
QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is a corresponding 
electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions in which it is zero (which 
really never happens).

	As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467225

Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote:
>> Are you talking mathematics or physics?
> 
> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and models.
> 
>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no charges and 
>> hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of fields but actually is 
>> filled with an electric (an other types) of fields whose value is simply zero?
> 
> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you believe that 
> QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is a corresponding 
> electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions in which it is zero (which 
> really never happens).
> 
> 	As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means.
> 
> Tom Roberts
> 

To which Ben might reply that he knowingly rejects his training on how
physicists define fields (which negates his frequent claim to status as a
“trained scientist”), and is instead using a concept that appeals to his
intuition and makes sense (to him). And that any scientist who does not
share his idea of fields is either insane or a philosopher. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467261

On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote:
>> Are you talking mathematics or physics?
> 
> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and models.
> 
>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no 
>> charges and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of 
>> fields but actually is filled with an electric (an other types) of 
>> fields whose value is simply zero?
> 
> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you believe 
> that QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is a 
> corresponding electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions in 
> which it is zero (which really never happens).
> 
>      As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means.
> 
> Tom Roberts

What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a vector 
field is, mathematically. (Note you must use the term vector field 
because otherwise the term can be confused with an algebraic field which 
is something else entirely, right?)

A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space and a 
vector quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of them)
in that subspace. Therefore, by definition the vector field exists 
(assuming I have chosen to define one) even though all vectors at every 
point are zero. You and Odd win, right? Of course if I choose NOT to 
define a field in that space (reality is determined by my imagination, 
right?) then there is no field in that subspace only a coordinate 
system, unless I choose not to define one of those either, in which case 
there is no subspace existing at all and I win, right?

Wrong. Mathematics is not more real than reality. In reality and in 
Maxwell theory in particular, the mathematics is only a model to 
describe what seems to be force field like phenomena produced by 
charges. People (Odd's textbooks) love to talk about "fields" as if they 
were real physical things. They are NOT. Forces are real, models are 
fantasy. Hence when charges are missing, there are no forces present in 
the subspace. People use the terminology that there are no "fields" 
there but as seen above that is mathematically wrong on several counts 
if someone has defined a null vector field there. And if a charge is 
suddenly placed in that subspace it is known that forces from it will 
NOT be measured immediately at a distance from it (unless we are talking 
ESP interactions) as the actions travel away from the source at velocity c.

I certainly can DEFINE my "field" to not be present until that force 
arrives. My model. My fantasy. Generally people do this. In fact it's 
worse than this because EM fields are NOT quite the mathematical ones. 
Because forces must be measured with a "test" charge. And means there 
are interactions on both charges. So how can one define a "force field"
from just a single charge? As Jackson points out, one must use a 
calculus-like limit operation to obtain that for the field values. And 
Lo, that means that all those values that you are using are in truth 
total fantasy and not reality at all because of that calculation!

So now it's little wonder that genius Odd (and you) have decided that in 
your lib fantasy worlds what only what you can imagine is the only thing 
that is real? Needless to say this is the polar opposite of real science.

Does this set you guys straight?  Yeah, I didn't really think it would.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467279

benj wrote:
> On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>> Are you talking mathematics or physics?
>> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and models.
>>
>>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no 
>>> charges and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of 
>>> fields but actually is filled with an electric (an other types) of 
>>> fields whose value is simply zero?
>>
>> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you believe 
>> that QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is a 
>> corresponding electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions in 
>> which it is zero (which really never happens).
>>
>>      As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means.
> 
> What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a vector 
> field is, mathematically.

No, there are also scalar fields.  For example, the temperature in a room at
a certain time can be modeled as a scalar field.  A vector has a magnitude
and a direction.  A temperature at a certain time in a certain place is not
a vector, it is a scalar; it is a number (with a unit), and has no
direction.  (You could make it a vector field if you consider how much the
temperature has changed instead or how much it differs from neighboring
points [gradient field].)

> (Note you must use the term vector field because otherwise the term
> can be confused with an algebraic field which is something else entirely,
> right?)

Wrong.  You have no clue what you are talking about.

> A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space

No, it starts with a COMPLETE mathematical space.  (You do not even know
what that is, do you?)

> and a vector quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of them)

… of the SPACE.  ONLY THEN the field is a vector field.  If the quantity is
NOT a vector (a rank-1 tensor), then the corresponding field is NOT a vector
field.

If the quantity is a scalar (a rank-0 tensor), then it is a SCALAR field.
If the quantity is a matrix (a rank-2 tensor), then it is a MATRIX field.
If the quantity is a tensor (a generalization that includes all of the
above), then it is a TENSOR field.

And so on.

> in that subspace.

No.  BY DEFINITION, a field is EVERYWHERE (in that mathematical space).
THEREFORE an INFINITE number of points (as you happened to state correctly).

> [ex falso quodlibet]
>
> Does this set you guys straight?  Yeah, I didn't really think it would.

Only because it is all NONSENSE.  You have only acquired decent HALF-WIT
knowledge about things.  When you get your knowledge only from Wikipedia
articles, and I know that you did because in the places where you were
correct you practically quoted Wikipedia, then you need to read those
articles more carefully, COMPREHENSIVELY, or you will forever be producing
only WORD SALAD.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web