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

Groups > sci.physics > #592630 > unrolled thread

proof that light waves are 4 B fields, no E-field /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality with Maxwell theory as axioms of Physics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  proof that light waves are 4 B fields, no E-field /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality with Maxwell theory as axioms of Physics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 21:27 -0700
    Re: proof that light waves are 4 B fields, no E-field /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality with Maxwell theory as axioms of Physics LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 21:41 -0700
      but, one has to actually read that stuff noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 17:53 -0700
    proof that light waves are 4 B fields, no E-field /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality with Maxwell theory as axioms of Physics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 02:30 -0700
      Gouy and now Faraday Effect Re: proof that light waves are 4 B fields, no E-field /TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 13:11 -0700
        Re: Gouy and now Faraday Effect Re: proof that light waves are 4 B fields, no E-field /TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 13:20 -0700
    Re: proof that light waves are 4 B fields, no E-field /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality with Maxwell theory as axioms of Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 07:57 -0500
      Re: proof that light waves are 4 B fields, no E-field /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality with Maxwell theory as axioms of Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 07:04 -0700
    area of waveform at a moment in time noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 10:58 -0700
    Re: proof that light waves are 4 B fields, no E-field /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality with Maxwell theory as axioms of Physics Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 21:03 -0400
      Re: proof that light waves are 4 B fields, no E-field /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality with Maxwell theory as axioms of Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-10 22:23 -0400
      Greenhorn wanting information on why Electric Field is science-fiction Re: proof that light waves are 4 B fields, no E-field /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 21:48 -0700
        Re: Greenhorn wanting information on why Electric Field is science-fiction Re: proof that light waves are 4 B fields, no E-field /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 22:23 -0700
        geometry of Light Wave Re: proof that light waves are 4 B fields, no E-field /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 00:34 -0700
          what light waves and photons look like in New Physics /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 11:27 -0700
            Re: what light waves and photons look like in New Physics /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 11:08 -0700
              Re: what light waves and photons look like in New Physics /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 12:17 -0700
              can you have magnetism in Space that has no rest mass nearby? /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 21:25 -0700
                two more new Maxwell Equations? /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 12:26 -0700
                  huffenpuffen, timennspacenn noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 17:58 -0700
        Re: Greenhorn wanting information on why Electric Field is science-fiction Re: proof that light waves are 4 B fields, no E-field /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-11 06:21 -0400
          Re: Greenhorn wanting information on why Electric Field is science-fiction Re: proof that light waves are 4 B fields, no E-field /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-11 13:39 +0000
            Re: Greenhorn wanting information on why Electric Field is science-fiction Re: proof that light waves are 4 B fields, no E-field /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:51 -0700
            Re: Re: Greenhorn wanting information on why Electric Field is science-fiction Re: proof that light waves are 4 B fields, no E-field /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-12 05:24 -0400
              Re: Greenhorn wanting information on why Electric Field is science-fiction Re: proof that light waves are 4 B fields, no E-field /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-12 15:32 +0000
                two-sided dice noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 10:50 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#592748 — Re: Greenhorn wanting information on why Electric Field is science-fiction Re: proof that light waves are 4 B fields, no E-field /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality

On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 21:48:45 -0700 (PDT), Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 8:03:23 PM UTC-5, Michael Strickland wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 21:27:20 -0700 (PDT), Archimedes Plutonium
>> <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >What stopped the 6th edition of this textbook is that I needed a total overhaul of the Maxwell Equations, where E field is fiction.
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> Do you have some sort of objection to an Electric Field?
>> 
>> Wouldn't modeling the magnetic field as some sort of reaction (by an
>> aether? or a virtual photonic flux?) to the electric field be simpler.
>> 
>> Mike
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>Shame that you never studied Logic so that you can think straight and clear, rather than diving into physics, never knowing what hodge podge mess you end up cobbling together.

Actually I have studied logic and its mathematical representation
(Boolean Algebra) extensively. How about you?

>
>Not too late in life for you to study Logic more than physics.
>
>Look at the Maxwell Equations and define the difference between electric field and electric current? 

I've actually read both volumes of Maxwell's "A Treatise on
Electricity and Magnetism (I have the third edition, 1891). Have you
yet?

... snipped questions.

>So, how old are you? Too old and calcified to open your mind to learning logic and thinking straight and clear, or are young, and open to cracking the books on Logic instead of physics, until you have enough logic under your belt to do physics, properly.
>
>AP

I'm 58 years old. How about you?

I'm also exactly who I say I am. I don't post garbage so I don't need
a pseudonym like you.

Btw, I'm an electrical engineer specialized in computer structures
which is dependent on logic. I see little of it in your posts which is
why I usually have to "killfile" you.

Are we done here?

I'll give you one reply to this post before you get relegated to the
bit-bucket(killfile) so make it a good one - lol.


Mike
---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

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

#592761 — Re: Greenhorn wanting information on why Electric Field is science-fiction Re: proof that light waves are 4 B fields, no E-field /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality

Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> writes:

>On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 21:48:45 -0700 (PDT), Archimedes Plutonium
><plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote:

>>So, how old are you? Too old and calcified to open your mind to 
>>learning logic and thinking straight and clear, or are young, and open 
>>to cracking the books on Logic instead of physics, until you have enough 
>>logic under your belt to do physics, properly.

>I'm 58 years old. How about you?

>I'm also exactly who I say I am. I don't post garbage so I don't need
>a pseudonym like you.

>Btw, I'm an electrical engineer specialized in computer structures
>which is dependent on logic. I see little of it in your posts which is
>why I usually have to "killfile" you.

>Are we done here?

>I'll give you one reply to this post before you get relegated to the
>bit-bucket(killfile) so make it a good one - lol.

You must be new here. :-)

Archie Pu has been posting his crap here for decades. He always responds
to anyone who questions him with personal attacks, saying the person is
not logical like he is or not a person of science.  Which is funny since
none of his "proofs" follow logic, he jumps to conclusions that all his
hunches are 100% true (because he thought them up).  Even when those
conclusions go contrary to observation (such as no such thing as
repulsive electromagnetic force or no such thing as an electric field).

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

#592818 — Re: Greenhorn wanting information on why Electric Field is science-fiction Re: proof that light waves are 4 B fields, no E-field /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality

a.p is his actual name, of course, alhtough
his birthname is somewhat different

> hunches are 100% true (because he thought them up).  Even when those
> conclusions go contrary to observation (such as no such thing as
> repulsive electromagnetic force or no such thing as an electric field).

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

#592884 — Re: Re: Greenhorn wanting information on why Electric Field is science-fiction Re: proof that light waves are 4 B fields, no E-field /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 13:39:26 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:

>Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> writes:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 21:48:45 -0700 (PDT), Archimedes Plutonium
>><plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>So, how old are you? Too old and calcified to open your mind to 
>>>learning logic and thinking straight and clear, or are young, and open 
>>>to cracking the books on Logic instead of physics, until you have enough 
>>>logic under your belt to do physics, properly.
>
>>I'm 58 years old. How about you?
>
>>I'm also exactly who I say I am. I don't post garbage so I don't need
>>a pseudonym like you.
>
>>Btw, I'm an electrical engineer specialized in computer structures
>>which is dependent on logic. I see little of it in your posts which is
>>why I usually have to "killfile" you.
>
>>Are we done here?
>
>>I'll give you one reply to this post before you get relegated to the
>>bit-bucket(killfile) so make it a good one - lol.
>
>You must be new here. :-)

Actually, I've been reading and writing in sci.physics (and a few
other sci.* groups) since first getting on the Internet in about
1995-96. I remember Archie from back then too.

Its been my experience that after about 3-4 levels of replies, many
threads in this group drift off topic and degenerate to personal
sniping. I've always been mindful that these posts are archived for
posterity and tried to keep personal insults and denigrations out of
my posts. I don't claim to be perfect on that. I have limits to what I
will put up with before responding in kind but I really try to stay on
topic and be polite as I can. I don't expect everyone to agree with my
posts or theories just as I don't agree with everyone else's. I'm
aware that most people in this group (as opposed to social media) are
actually trained in science and are qualified to speak on these
subjects being discussed.

...

---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

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

#592912 — Re: Greenhorn wanting information on why Electric Field is science-fiction Re: proof that light waves are 4 B fields, no E-field /TALK: 7th ed. Atom Totality

Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> writes:

>On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 13:39:26 +0000 (UTC),
>moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:

>>You must be new here. :-)

>Actually, I've been reading and writing in sci.physics (and a few
>other sci.* groups) since first getting on the Internet in about
>1995-96. I remember Archie from back then too.

>Its been my experience that after about 3-4 levels of replies, many
>threads in this group drift off topic and degenerate to personal
>sniping. I've always been mindful that these posts are archived for
>posterity and tried to keep personal insults and denigrations out of
>my posts. I don't claim to be perfect on that. I have limits to what I
>will put up with before responding in kind but I really try to stay on
>topic and be polite as I can.

Do note that Mr. Plutonium started insulting you right away for simply
disagreeing with him, not after multiple levels of replies.  Most people
ignore or killfile him because of his lack of respect and inability to
follow logic, so he mostly talks to himself here and he seems to be fine
with that.

>I'm
>aware that most people in this group (as opposed to social media) are
>actually trained in science and are qualified to speak on these
>subjects being discussed.

Not any more.  This group is mostly full of kooks, and kookwatchers like
myself, most of the real science people have been driven away. I'm mostly
here watching the kooks kook, although I do like actual science the rare
times some actually shows up.

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

#593035 — two-sided dice

show that two differnt coins can be weighted
to give the result of throwing three coins

> here watching the kooks kook, although I do like actual science the rare
> times some actually shows up.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web