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

Groups > sci.physics > #602262

Re: why physicists screwed up on not realizing Voltage was the Electric Field

Show all headers | View raw

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 11:53:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >Now, take a few minutes and look at Ohm's law
>>
>> >V = current times resistance
>>
>> >Now, realize that current is A*seconds, charge times seconds
>>
>> No, A (amperes) is current. A*seconds is charge.  Current is equivalent
>> to charge/second.
>>

>Good that one of the two physics failures gets involved, because when 
>one gets involved, I can explain the physics better.

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself, calling yourself a "physics failure".
Who is the second one?

>It so happens that Halliday & Resnick, my source for units, in their 
>PHYSICS, Extended Version (yellow cover with green waves) 1986, page A21 
>uses the Electric Current symbol A, amperes.

Electrical engineers (of which I am one) use I (not "i") as the symbol for
current. But regardless, the symbol used doesn't matter. However, the
units do.  My point, which you deliberately avoided, was that you had
wrong definitions for current and charge. To wit:

>>>Now, take a few minutes and look at Ohm's law

>>>V = current times resistance

>>>Now, realize that current is A*seconds, charge times seconds

You didn't even know that A was already current!  You multiplied current
A times second and claimed that was current. You didn't even know that
A*s was charge, not current!!  Flunk!!!

I repeat my question:

>>How the hell can you claim to be "fixing" Maxwell's equations if you
>>don't even know what current or charge are?

Any answer?

>H&R do not use "i" but use A

Again, the symbol doesn't matter (and again EE's use "I" (not "i"))


>Quantity of Electricity, charge, Coulomb = C = A*s

So *now* you use the correct definition for charge and current, unlike 
your last post.

>So that a physics failure has a mind of concrete

Again, you shouldn't be so hard on yourself, calling yourself a failure
with a mind of concrete.  If you are willing to learn, you, too, can learn
physics.  It takes a lot of studying, but yes, if you are willing to 
expend the effort, you can learn physics.

>> >In Electricity/Magnetism we can easily and justifiably intermingle time
>> >with distance, almost in every situation.

>> >So now, V= A*s*(resistance)
>>
>> >then, V/s  = A*R
>>
>> >now, intermingling seconds with meters we finally have
>>
>> >V/m = A*R
>>
>> All based on a false assumption so all that is wrong.

>All of mine above is correct if you realize that current is measured in 
>Ampere which is A = dq/dt across a x*x cross section.

Again *now* you use the correct units, after I corrected you. But you
wrote "So now, V= A*s*(resistance)" which is completely wrong. The correct
definition of Ohms law is V=IR or V=AR if you want to use what H&R uses.
Your next several lines are based on your incorrect "So now, V= A*s*(resistance)"
definition, so are therefore wrong.

>What I am saying is that when we look at an equation of V= 
>current*resistance, that the current term has so many parameters of 
>distance length already built into it. And that V*s or V/m are the same 
>as V itself.

The units don't even match, so as any high school physics teacher will
tell you, that's automatically wrong.  Flunk.

It should be extremely obvious that V*s, V/m and V all have different
units even if you didn't know the units of V itself.

>> >What I am doing is showing and proving that the Electric Field is a
>> >nonexistent concept,
>>
>> "There is no electric field because I said so" is not proof.

>The physics failure says "abracadabra" and runs back into his mouse hole.

You failed to address the fact that claiming "There is no electric field
because I said so" is not a proof.

If you think there is no electic field, why not prove it? This time,
use logic, not "There is no electric field because I said so".

>> Now go ahead and call me a "physics failure" or something. You have
>> nothing else.

And I am correct, 1000 times over. All you can do is insult anyone who
challenges your made-up "proofs".  Because you have nothing. And you
know it.

>Ahh, still sore that I won the Juno bet.

Actually I won that bet. I bet that if there was any problem whatsoever
with Juno, spin related or not, you would be crowing about the failure
somehow being proof of your "spin out of control" claims. And I am 100%
correct. We have a sticky valve and a software reset.  You are crowing
"See I told you that Juno would fail!" Neither problem seems to be spin
related in any way. The latter sounds like radiation related (which I also
predicted, so did NASA, who stated several sensors would probably fail
after the first several orbits).  I also admitted my predictions weren't
much of a prediction since it was too easy to predict you'd claim success
for an unrelated failure.  Kind of like predicting a toad hopping across
a busy interstate highway would get squished by an 18 wheeler.

And yet again, you have no answer why Galileo was successful in its multi
year mission orbiting Jupiter, once you disregard its antenna failure and
experiments not done because of it.  Galileo worked for years and years.
Quite well. Explain that.

> That is why I am a physicist and you the failure.

No, it's why I am a successful engineer but you have failed, trying for
over 20 years to accomplish something here, with nothing to show for it.

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

AP/Maxwell theory & Atom Totality textbook COMMENTARY TALK: Experiment-- my multimeter reads voltage proving no electric field exists Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 13:28 -0700
  Re: AP/Maxwell theory & Atom Totality textbook COMMENTARY TALK: Experiment-- my multimeter reads voltage proving no electric field exists Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-21 15:41 -0500
    Re: AP/Maxwell theory & Atom Totality textbook COMMENTARY TALK: Experiment-- my multimeter reads voltage proving no electric field exists Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 14:44 -0700
      Reviewing voltage again// Experiment-- my multimeter reads voltage proving no electric field exists Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 00:53 -0700
        Re: Reviewing voltage again// Experiment-- my multimeter reads voltage proving no electric field exists Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-22 12:31 -0500
          when has anyone ever proved Voltage and Electric Field are independent concepts? my multimeter reads voltage proving no electric field exists Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 13:30 -0700
            Re: when has anyone ever proved Voltage and Electric Field are independent concepts? my multimeter reads voltage proving no electric field exists moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-23 04:53 +0000
              why physicists screwed up on not realizing Voltage was the Electric Field Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 22:48 -0700
                Re: why physicists screwed up on not realizing Voltage was the Electric Field moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-24 02:19 +0000
                Re: why physicists screwed up on not realizing Voltage was the Electric Field Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-24 11:29 -0500
        Re: Reviewing voltage again// Experiment-- my multimeter reads voltage proving no electric field exists Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 20:14 +0200
          failures of Physics can never seem to show an Experiment where Electric Field independent of Voltage exists, too much knuckleheads Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 13:51 -0700
            Re: failures of Physics can never seem to show an Experiment where Electric Field independent of Voltage exists, too much knuckleheads Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-22 17:07 -0500
              Re: failures of Physics can never seem to show an Experiment where Electric Field independent of Voltage exists, too much knuckleheads Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 19:51 -0700
                Re: failures of Physics can never seem to show an Experiment where Electric Field independent of Voltage exists, too much knuckleheads Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 09:15 +0200
              Re: failures of Physics can never seem to show an Experiment where Electric Field independent of Voltage exists, too much knuckleheads Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 08:26 +0200
            Re: failures of Physics can never seem to show an Experiment where Electric Field independent of Voltage exists, too much knuckleheads Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 08:32 +0200
              Re: failures of Physics can never seem to show an Experiment where Electric Field independent of Voltage exists, too much knuckleheads Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 00:19 -0700
                Re: failures of Physics can never seem to show an Experiment where Electric Field independent of Voltage exists, too much knuckleheads Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 09:47 +0200
                proving Voltage is the electric-field and that electric field is a fakery, nonexistent entity Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 02:13 -0700
                Re: proving Voltage is the electric-field and that electric field is a fakery, nonexistent entity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 11:30 +0200
                Re: Re: proving Voltage is the electric-field and that electric field is a fakery, nonexistent entity Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-10-25 00:52 -0400
                Re: proving Voltage is the electric-field and that electric field is a fakery, nonexistent entity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 09:30 -0500
                Re: proving Voltage is the electric-field and that electric field is a fakery, nonexistent entity Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-26 13:36 -0500
                Re: proving Voltage is the electric-field and that electric field is a fakery, nonexistent entity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 11:48 +0200
                Re: proving Voltage is the electric-field and that electric field is a fakery, nonexistent entity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 11:55 +0200
                testing out this Voltage as electric field Re: proving Voltage is the electric-field and that electric field is a fakery, nonexistent entity Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 14:15 -0700
                a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 20:08 -0700
                Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 09:22 -0500
                Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 17:27 +0200
                Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-24 18:12 +0000
                Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 11:20 -0700
                Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 11:27 -0700
                Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-24 18:43 +0000
                Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-24 14:05 -0500
                Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-24 14:19 -0500
                Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-10-25 00:14 -0400
                Re: Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-10-25 04:16 -0400
                Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-10-25 09:03 -0400
                Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-25 09:20 -0500
                Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-10-26 01:15 -0400
                Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-26 08:22 -0500
                Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-10-26 23:07 -0400
                Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 18:31 -0700
                Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:55 -0500
                Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-27 16:37 +0000
                Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-10-27 19:21 -0400
                Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 18:09 -0700
                Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 07:48 -0500
                Re: failures of Physics can never seem to show an Experiment where Electric Field independent of Voltage exists, too much knuckleheads Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 09:03 -0500
            Re: failures of Physics can never seem to show an Experiment where Electric Field independent of Voltage exists, too much knuckleheads Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:42 -0500
      Re: AP/Maxwell theory & Atom Totality textbook COMMENTARY TALK: Experiment-- my multimeter reads voltage proving no electric field exists noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 12:00 -0700
  Re: AP/Maxwell theory & Atom Totality textbook COMMENTARY TALK: Experiment-- my multimeter reads voltage proving no electric field exists Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-26 14:22 -0500

csiph-web