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

Groups > sci.physics > #597109 > unrolled thread

Voltage replacing electric-field and replacing EMF, electromotive force TALK

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Voltage replacing electric-field and replacing EMF, electromotive force TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 19:12 -0700
    elimination of Electric Field, since it is voltage Re: Voltage replacing electric-field and replacing EMF, electromotive force TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 02:57 -0700
      proving evidence that Electric Field does not exist, and that the DNA molecule is a parallel plate capacitor of bases TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 10:46 -0700
        Re: proving evidence that Electric Field does not exist, and that the DNA molecule is a parallel plate capacitor of bases TALK Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-16 13:16 -0500
          jerk who thinks Electric Field is kg/A(velocity), with a constant velocity; how do you have static electricity?? TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 14:38 -0700
            Re: jerk who thinks Electric Field is kg/A(velocity), with a constant velocity; how do you have static electricity?? TALK moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-17 02:36 +0000
              Is Electric Field kg/A*s^2 times m^2/s or is it kg*/A*s^2 times m/s ;;TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 20:46 -0700
            Re: jerk who thinks Electric Field is kg/A(velocity), with a constant velocity; how do you have static electricity?? TALK Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-16 22:04 -0500
              Is Electric field  m/s times Magnetic Field or is it m^2/s times Magnetic Field?  TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 21:35 -0700
                Why no electric field exists, but Voltage takes its place Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 01:48 -0700
                Re: Is Electric field m/s times Magnetic Field or is it m^2/s times Magnetic Field? TALK Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-17 12:31 -0500
    Re: Voltage replacing electric-field and replacing EMF, electromotive force TALK Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-16 09:07 -0500
      Re: Voltage replacing electric-field and replacing EMF, electromotive force TALK Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-09-17 11:01 -0700

#597109 — Voltage replacing electric-field and replacing EMF, electromotive force TALK

Alright, let me recap or recall or summarize so far, how I come to this position. Months ago I noticed that the electric-field is fairy tale, nonexistent when you have the revised Maxwell Equations with a positive term in the Law of Magnetism.

1) No Electric Field exist because electricity is monopole, whereas magnetism is only dipole, meaning that a field exists to connect one pole with the other.

2) Since electricity is monopole, no field exists to connect, and that electricity is charge, Voltage, and current.

3) The electric component of a photon or light-wave has to be the endresult of destructive interference of the 4vectors of magnetic field of the Double Transverse Wave in destructive interference. This endresult is forward motion of the photon and is a voltage. Voltage is the electric field and is the electromotive force, emf.

Funny, strange and somewhat sick, that physicists have known the Maxwell Equations since 1860s and known of Voltage long before, since 1827 by Ohm's law V= iR, so the funny question is, how could James Clerk Maxwell miss inserting voltage or EMF into the Maxwell Equations.

Of course resistance or impedance was not known to Maxwell as being Lenz's law. So there was plenty missed in the Maxwell Equations of 1860s.

Old Maxwell Equations

div*E = r_E   Law of Electricity
div*B = 0     Law of Magnetism
- curlxE = dB      Faraday/Lenz law
curlxB = dE + J_E   Ampere/Maxwell law

The New Maxwell Equations:

div*B = r_B    Law of Magnetism 

V_J = J_E  Law of Electricity 

dB_1 = J_E + (rhr) B_2 + m_s  Faraday/Lenz/AP law of electromagnetic induction with a magnetic spin term m_s

J_E_1 = curlxB_1 + V_J  + m_s Ampere/Maxwell law with a spin rotation term m_s


Voltage replaces Electric Field, but does it also replace EMF, electromotive force?? Re: TALK

Now I do not know why no-one in the history of physics was ever bright enough to connect Voltage in Ohm's law of V= i*R or i = V/R or R = V/i, ever connect those, even that of Maxwell could not connect those by saying the Voltage is the Electric Field and that the Electric Field that Maxwell thought of , and used was none other than the voltage involved. 

Now of course, I do not expect Maxwell to have said-- there is no Electric Field because his equations required something to fill in for "electric field". It was I who, after finding changes to the Maxwell theory by 2016, realized no electric-field exists. But the trouble I have with that no electric field exists is that the photon, then, has no electric component to the photon and it being all a magnetic components. That will not do , not suffice. That the photon must have some electric properties. 

And that drew me to the idea that the forward motion of a photon is an electric component and it is Voltage: 


Alright, looking at a photon head-on it is 

__|__ 
    | 

4 vector waves, each a B field, all transverse at 90 degree angles. 

Looking at the Light Wave or photon from the side we have 

^^^^^ 
vvvvv. In xy plane 

And the same configuration in xz plane 

To compose a Double Transverse Wave of destructive interference. 

^^^^^ 
vvvvv  in xy plane 

and perpendicular 

^^^^^ 
vvvvv in xz plane the math of which is sine + offset cosine. 

So what is the E component? And since the only E components available are the 1) charge, the electric charge and 2) the electric charges in motion which is current. 

So, what is the end result of the destructive interference of the 4 Magnetic Field vectors? The endresult is a electric current of the destruction of the 4 vector B fields. it is the center of this head-on view of the photon. 


__|__ 
    | 

So, as the 4 vector B fields of magnetism cancel in destructive interference, it yields a electricity object at the center of that motion. That central motion forward is "electric pressure" or Voltage. 

This makes sense in that a Photon has photon pressure on whatever objects it hits upon, likewise, Voltage in electricity is pressure. 

So the photon has Magnetic properties-- 4 vector Magnetic Fields of Double Transverse Waves, and the photon has a Electric property-- the center of cancellation of the Magnetic Field vectors as the forward motion as Voltage. 

Surprise in all of this, is that no physicist before me, ever asked what is voltage compared to electric field. 

And, now, what is EMF compared to voltage? Is EMF another term that is identical to Voltage? Sad that these days, our common professor of physics asks more questions about mythical and fictitious nonsense of black holes than he/she asks whether voltage is electric field and is Electromotive Force. 
They cannot even entertain or answer the simple questions, rather than run out on a limb with science fiction nonsense of Big Bang, black holes, gravity waves and Higgs boson. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#597139 — elimination of Electric Field, since it is voltage Re: Voltage replacing electric-field and replacing EMF, electromotive force TALK

Alright, I am a bit rusty on my electrical units, but nothing that Halliday and Resnick cannot retune.

So the Voltage is the (1) Electric Potential, the (2) Potential Difference and (3) Electromotive Force and all with the Units of W/A = kg*m^2/A*s

The Magnetic Field is tesla and is  kg/ A*s^2

So the difference between Voltage and Magnetic Field is that of m^2/s, and, what is that? for velocity is meter per second, but what is meter squared per second? cross section frequency? So we take Magnetic Field times cross section frequency and we have Voltage. Sounds like Faraday's law derived simply from units, only where we have No Electric Field, just Voltage.

Now, I proposed that Electric Fields are nonexistent, and that Voltage takes the place of Electric Field.

So, what I need to do is find out how a light wave in motion has voltage and has magnetic field, rather than having a mythical E field.

So a photon or light wave has energy which is kg*m^2/s^2 and so, voltage as Electric Field is short of being energy by a factor of A/s which is charge acceleration, where we have kg*m^2/A*s* (A/s) = kg*m^2/s^2. What is charge acceleration in Maxwell theory? Is it magnetic flux?

So, can we completely eliminate Electric Field because it is Voltage?

AP

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

#597170 — proving evidence that Electric Field does not exist, and that the DNA molecule is a parallel plate capacitor of bases TALK

Halliday & Resnick, PHYSICS, 1986, extended version, part2, page A21 at the back of the book gives these:

velocity or speed = m/s

acceleration = m/s^2

frequency = 1/s

Force = kg*m/s^2

Pressure = kg / m*s^2

Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2 

Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = kg*m^2 / s^3

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

Voltage is the (1) Electric Potential, the (2) Potential Difference and (3) Electromotive Force and all with the Units of W/A = kg*m^2/A*s

Capacitance = farad = C/V = A^2*s^4 / kg*m^2

Electrical Resistance = ohm = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3

Conductance = A/V = A^2*s^3 / kg*m^2

Magnetic Flux = V*s = kg*m^2 /A*s^2

Magnetic Field = tesla = kg /A*s^2

Inductance =  kg*m^2 /A^2*s^2

Comments: there is a conspicuous absence and missing of Electric Field, and that is because non exists. And that Voltage comprises what Old Physics took as the Electric Field.

I never realized until now that there is a viable units of a fourth power in Capacitance with its seconds^4. And this comes in handy with my recent theory that First Life in the World, first life anywhere is a Capacitor which evolves biologically into a battery, eventually a living creator with DNA. DNA itself is a double helix wounded up capacitor where the base pairs are parallel plates of a capacitor.

Now Halliday & Resnick list Magnetic Field for it exists, unlike the Electric Field which does not exist, and is listed as kg/A*s^2. Now, that is somewhat confusing in that the Magnetic Field is not thought of as having rest mass, kg. So, what gives here?

AP

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

#597179 — Re: proving evidence that Electric Field does not exist, and that the DNA molecule is a parallel plate capacitor of bases TALK

On 9/16/2016 12:46 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Halliday & Resnick, PHYSICS, 1986, extended version, part2, page A21
> at the back of the book gives these:
>
> velocity or speed = m/s
>
> acceleration = m/s^2
>
> frequency = 1/s
>
> Force = kg*m/s^2
>
> Pressure = kg / m*s^2
>
> Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2
>
> Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = kg*m^2 / s^3
>
> Quantity of Electricity, charge, Coulomb = C = A*s
>
> Voltage is the (1) Electric Potential, the (2) Potential Difference
> and (3) Electromotive Force and all with the Units of W/A =
> kg*m^2/A*s
>
> Capacitance = farad = C/V = A^2*s^4 / kg*m^2
>
> Electrical Resistance = ohm = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3
>
> Conductance = A/V = A^2*s^3 / kg*m^2
>
> Magnetic Flux = V*s = kg*m^2 /A*s^2
>
> Magnetic Field = tesla = kg /A*s^2
>
> Inductance =  kg*m^2 /A^2*s^2
>
> Comments: there is a conspicuous absence and missing of Electric
> Field, and that is because non exists.

wrong

  Electric Fields = Volts/m


when you walk across a carpet in dry weather and you touch a metal 
doorknob and get a shock, you have just generated and dissipated an 
electric field on your body.

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

#597238 — jerk who thinks Electric Field is kg/A(velocity), with a constant velocity; how do you have static electricity?? TALK

On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 1:16:35 PM UTC-5, Serigo wrote:
> On 9/16/2016 12:46 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Halliday & Resnick, PHYSICS, 1986, extended version, part2, page A21
> > at the back of the book gives these:
> >
> > velocity or speed = m/s
> >
> > acceleration = m/s^2
> >
> > frequency = 1/s
> >
> > Force = kg*m/s^2
> >
> > Pressure = kg / m*s^2
> >
> > Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2
> >
> > Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = kg*m^2 / s^3
> >
> > Quantity of Electricity, charge, Coulomb = C = A*s
> >
> > Voltage is the (1) Electric Potential, the (2) Potential Difference
> > and (3) Electromotive Force and all with the Units of W/A =
> > kg*m^2/A*s
> >

Bozo, notice that this Voltage as Electric Field is not in motion, but is kg/A times m^2 cross section time frequency 1/s


> > Capacitance = farad = C/V = A^2*s^4 / kg*m^2
> >
> > Electrical Resistance = ohm = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3
> >
> > Conductance = A/V = A^2*s^3 / kg*m^2
> >
> > Magnetic Flux = V*s = kg*m^2 /A*s^2
> >
> > Magnetic Field = tesla = kg /A*s^2
> >
> > Inductance =  kg*m^2 /A^2*s^2
> >
> > Comments: there is a conspicuous absence and missing of Electric
> > Field, and that is because non exists.
> 
> wrong
> 

As you hide behind a fake name, the only thing wrong is you, bozo.

>   Electric Fields = Volts/m
> 

Examine that bozo, you have Electric Field = kg*m^2/A*s times 1/m which is kg/A times m/s velocity.

So, the bozo thinks that kg/A(velocity) is a electric field. How could there ever be static electricity if the field is constantly in motion, eh, bozo.


> 
> when you walk across a carpet in dry weather and you touch a metal 
> doorknob and get a shock, you have just generated and dissipated an 
> electric field on your body.

Failures of physics usually hide behind fake names and then resort to baby talk.

Get out of physics, it is too hard for you.

AP

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

#597272 — Re: jerk who thinks Electric Field is kg/A(velocity), with a constant velocity; how do you have static electricity?? TALK

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

>On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 1:16:35 PM UTC-5, Serigo wrote:
>> On 9/16/2016 12:46 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> > Halliday & Resnick, PHYSICS, 1986, extended version, part2, page A21
>> > at the back of the book gives these:
...
>> > Voltage is the (1) Electric Potential, the (2) Potential Difference
>> > and (3) Electromotive Force and all with the Units of W/A =
>> > kg*m^2/A*s
...
>> > Comments: there is a conspicuous absence and missing of Electric
>> > Field, and that is because non exists.
>> 
>> wrong
>> 
>>   Electric Fields = Volts/m

Serigo is correct, you know.  The electric field has the units of volts
per meter, or equivalently, newtons per coulomb.  Both work out as
kg*m/A*s^3 in base units.  It is defined as the force experienced by a
charge in the electric field.  Voltage is joules per coulomb.

>Examine that bozo, you have Electric Field = kg*m^2/A*s times 1/m which 
>is kg/A times m/s velocity.

BTW, you got the base units for voltage wrong.  It is kg*m^2/A*s^3.

>So, the bozo thinks that kg/A(velocity) is a electric field. How could 
>there ever be static electricity if the field is constantly in motion, 
>eh, bozo.

Ummm, "static" means stationary, you know.  And obviously, everybody who
has experienced the combination of a doorknob, carpet and dry air knows
that static electricity really does exist.

Also, because you got the units for voltage wrong, your argument about
velocity is totally bogus. (and trying to assign meaning to portions of
base units often doesn't work out anyway. What is the meaning of a square
ampere in the capacitance term?  What is the meaning of a cubic second in
the voltage term?)

>> when you walk across a carpet in dry weather and you touch a metal 
>> doorknob and get a shock, you have just generated and dissipated an 
>> electric field on your body.

>Failures of physics usually hide behind fake names and then resort to 
>baby talk.

>Get out of physics, it is too hard for you.

You do realize, of course, that resorting to insults on Usenet is
considered an admission of being wrong or an admission of defeat.

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

#597274 — Is Electric Field kg/A*s^2 times m^2/s or is it kg*/A*s^2 times m/s ;;TALK

On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 9:38:05 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 1:16:35 PM UTC-5, Serigo wrote:
> >> On 9/16/2016 12:46 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> > Halliday & Resnick, PHYSICS, 1986, extended version, part2, page A21
> >> > at the back of the book gives these:
> ...
> >> > Voltage is the (1) Electric Potential, the (2) Potential Difference
> >> > and (3) Electromotive Force and all with the Units of W/A =
> >> > kg*m^2/A*s
> ...

Sorry, I apologize, I made a mistake here, I was thinking faster than I was typing and when I typed in that formula, I just mangled it

Mistake of kg*m^2/A*s

when it was kg*m^2/A*s^3

So, I need to look at Electric Field whether V/m makes sense, whether that makes more sense than does my idea that the Voltage itself is the Electric Field and thus, the difference between Magnetic Field is m^2/s or the difference is m/s.

ALLEGED kg*m^2/A*s^3 times 1/m = kg*m/A*s^3 = Electric Field

where Magnetic Field is kg/A*s^2

So, let me look at that for a while

Voltage = kg*m^2/A*s^3

ALLEGED Electric Field = kg*m/A*s^3

Magnetic Field = kg/A*s^2

Is Electric field  m/s times Magnetic Field or is it m^2/s?

Does it make sense to have velocity on Magnetic Field giving Electric Field, or does it make sense to have m^2/s on Magnetic Field.

I say m^2/s makes sense becuase it is cross section frequency on a coil that makes Faraday law , and not a velocity m/s on the Magnetic Field that gives Faraday law.

So, here we have the decision to make, is it sensible to have the Magnetic Field as static, yet a velocity on the Magnetic Field is a Electric Field?

Does it make sense that Electric field is velocity on a Magnetic Field? or, as I suggest, it is m^2/s on Magnetic Field that delivers Electric field.

What I am pushing for, is Electric field that of simply Volts as kg*m^2/A*s^3 which means that it is a m^2/s a cross section frequency upon the Magnetic Field.

Is it better to have Electric Field as kg/A*s^2 times m^2/s or have Electric Field as kg/A*s^2 times m/s

Thanks for fixing my attention on this.


AP

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

#597273 — Re: jerk who thinks Electric Field is kg/A(velocity), with a constant velocity; how do you have static electricity?? TALK

On 9/16/2016 4:38 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 1:16:35 PM UTC-5, Serigo wrote:

>>> Comments: there is a conspicuous absence and missing of Electric
>>> Field, and that is because non exists.
>>
>> wrong
>>
>
> As you hide behind a fake name, the only thing wrong is you, bozo.

Ditto, "Archimedes Plutonium"

>
>> Electric Fields = Volts/m
>>
>
> Examine that bozo, you have Electric Field = kg*m^2/A*s times 1/m
> which is kg/A times m/s velocity.

try again, you gottum units wrong,
Physics is all about the Units, and Units matching.

that is why you make mistake,

and then you lost your E Field.

As your Teacher, I advise you to always check you units, every time, 
with the numbers on both sides.

>
> So, the bozo thinks that kg/A(velocity) is a electric field. How
> could there ever be static electricity if the field is constantly in
> motion, eh, bozo.
>

static electricity is just that, static. not moving,

Our atmosphere has about 100 V/m  to 300V/m

Your head is about 400 volts greater than your feet. (really, but 
current is very low 10^11 A or less)

google "field meters" they measure the E Field at earth surface, 10 to 
50 feet up.  you can buy one on eBay. all static. cost is high, or you 
could build one yourself, scientific american had a nice artical on how 
to build one, back in the old days when the mag was good.

When the static E Field in the atmosphere gets too high, what do you get 
?    Lightning..... B BAMB !!

>
>>
>> when you walk across a carpet in dry weather and you touch a metal
>>  doorknob and get a shock, you have just generated and dissipated
>> an electric field on your body.
>
> Failures of physics usually hide behind fake names and then resort to
> baby talk.

sure, "Archimedes Plutonium"

>
> Get out of physics, it is too hard for you.

I will help you over the hard parts, like Maxwells equations, E Fields, 
Tensors, etc no problem if you like.

But I dont to partical physics, nor astrophysics, they are too flipping 
hard, spooky at a distance

>
> AP
>

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

#597278 — Is Electric field m/s times Magnetic Field or is it m^2/s times Magnetic Field? TALK

On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 10:05:04 PM UTC-5, Serigo wrote:
(snipped)
> 
> I will help you over the hard parts, like Maxwells equations, E Fields, 
> Tensors, etc no problem if you like.

Alright, then, what is your opinion of which of these two should be the Electric Field:

Should the Electric Field be kg*m/A*s^3 which you believe in.

Or should the Electric Field be kg*m^2/A*s^3


Now I tell you why I believe it should be  kg*m^2/A*s^3, because when it is that, we have the Electric Field as equal to m^2/s times the Magnetic Field. If we chose your Electric Field, we have the Magnetic Field times m/s, a velocity upon the Magnetic Field.

So, if I am correct, the Electric Field should be m^2/s times Magnetic Field kg/A*s^2

If you are correct, then the Electric Field should be m/s times Magnetic Field kg/A*s^2

The reason I believe yours is wrong, is because it means that Electric Field is velocity of a Magnetic Field and that would mean no static electricity exists, and also, yours would not conform to Faraday's law since the Electric Field of yours is already in motion and the bar magnet is in motion.

The reason that mine is superior is because it allows for static electricity to exist because m^2 is cross section and 1/s is frequency, so the frequency of cross section allows static electricity and it also allows the thrusting bar magnet in Faraday Law to produce a electric current because the Electric Field is the Voltage. Where there really is no Electric Field because the Voltage is the electric field.

So, what do you think?

Is Electric field  m/s times Magnetic Field or is it m^2/s? 

AP

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

#597286 — Why no electric field exists, but Voltage takes its place

On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 11:35:19 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 10:05:04 PM UTC-5, Serigo wrote:
> (snipped)
> > 
> > I will help you over the hard parts, like Maxwells equations, E Fields, 
> > Tensors, etc no problem if you like.
> 
> Alright, then, what is your opinion of which of these two should be the Electric Field:
> 
> Should the Electric Field be kg*m/A*s^3 which you believe in.
> 
> Or should the Electric Field be kg*m^2/A*s^3
> 

So, here is a beautiful example, a prime example of how the Maxwell theory, the equations answers a question of What is the Electric Field, should an Electric Field exist. We need no-one who thinks physics is what someone defines Electric Field. What we need is a definition laid out by the Maxwell Equations themselves, that answers two questions--

1) Does the Maxwell Equations require a Voltage and separately a Electric Field
2) Or, does the Maxwell Equations need only a Voltage, wherein the Voltage is the Electric Field


> 
> Now I tell you why I believe it should be  kg*m^2/A*s^3, because when it is that, we have the Electric Field as equal to m^2/s times the Magnetic Field. If we chose your Electric Field, we have the Magnetic Field times m/s, a velocity upon the Magnetic Field.
> 
> So, if I am correct, the Electric Field should be m^2/s times Magnetic Field kg/A*s^2
> 
> If you are correct, then the Electric Field should be m/s times Magnetic Field kg/A*s^2
> 

So, looking at Faraday Law the Magnetic Field is kg/A*s^2 and it is a thrusting moving magnetic field, and it is kg/A*s^2 *(m/s), it is a velocity of Magnetic Field which is kg*m/A*s^3. So, what that means is the Faraday Law is a moving Electric Field, not a moving magnetic field that creates the current in the closed loop of wire.

On the other hand, we have the thrusting bar magnet as a moving Magnetic Field of kg*m/A*s^3 but also as a cutting of Lines of Force of m by m^2, so we have the Thrusting Bar Magnet in Faraday law as that of magnetic field kg/A*s^2 with moving bar magnet m/s times, and times m as cutting lines of force. Where we have Magnetic Field kg/A*s^2 times m^2/s, velocity of cutting lines of force.


> The reason I believe yours is wrong, is because it means that Electric Field is velocity of a Magnetic Field and that would mean no static electricity exists, and also, yours would not conform to Faraday's law since the Electric Field of yours is already in motion and the bar magnet is in motion.
> 
> The reason that mine is superior is because it allows for static electricity to exist because m^2 is cross section and 1/s is frequency, so the frequency of cross section allows static electricity and it also allows the thrusting bar magnet in Faraday Law to produce a electric current because the Electric Field is the Voltage. Where there really is no Electric Field because the Voltage is the electric field.
> 
> So, what do you think?
> 
> Is Electric field  m/s times Magnetic Field or is it m^2/s? 
> 
> 

So, what is Magnetic Field times m/s? It is not Electric Field, but just simply another Magnetic Field that is moving. A magnetic field moving is not a electric field, for Faraday's law requires more. Faraday's law requires that if a Current arises, means a Voltage has to exist to give rise to a current. And we simply do not get a voltage from multiplying Magnetic Field by m/s. We get Voltage by multiplying by m^2/s of the Magnetic Field.

You see, backing up to the first laws of Maxwell Equations, the Law of Electricity and Law of Magnetism, that the reason the Magnetism is dipole while electricity is monopole is that the magnetism requires a Field, whereas monopole ends up with charge, current and voltage, no field for electricity.

If Electricity were dipole only as is magnetism, then electricity requires a Field.

AP

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

#597306 — Re: Is Electric field m/s times Magnetic Field or is it m^2/s times Magnetic Field? TALK

On 9/16/2016 11:35 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 10:05:04 PM UTC-5, Serigo wrote:
> (snipped)
>>
>> I will help you over the hard parts, like Maxwells equations, E
>> Fields, Tensors, etc no problem if you like.
>
> Alright, then, what is your opinion of which of these two should be
> the Electric Field:
>
> Should the Electric Field be kg*m/A*s^3 which you believe in.
>
> Or should the Electric Field be kg*m^2/A*s^3
>
>
> Now I tell you why I believe it should be  kg*m^2/A*s^3, because when
> it is that, we have the Electric Field as equal to m^2/s times the
> Magnetic Field. If we chose your Electric Field, we have the Magnetic
> Field times m/s, a velocity upon the Magnetic Field.
>
> So, if I am correct, the Electric Field should be m^2/s times
> Magnetic Field kg/A*s^2
>
> If you are correct, then the Electric Field should be m/s times
> Magnetic Field kg/A*s^2
>
> The reason I believe yours is wrong, is because it means that
> Electric Field is velocity of a Magnetic Field and that would mean no
> static electricity exists, and also, yours would not conform to
> Faraday's law since the Electric Field of yours is already in motion
> and the bar magnet is in motion.
>
> The reason that mine is superior is because it allows for static
> electricity to exist because m^2 is cross section and 1/s is
> frequency, so the frequency of cross section allows static
> electricity and it also allows the thrusting bar magnet in Faraday
> Law to produce a electric current because the Electric Field is the
> Voltage. Where there really is no Electric Field because the Voltage
> is the electric field.
>
> So, what do you think?
>
> Is Electric field  m/s times Magnetic Field or is it m^2/s?
>
> AP
>

Halliday & Resnick, PHYSICS, 1986, extended version, part2, page A21 at 
the back of the book gives these:

velocity or speed = m/s

acceleration = m/s^2


Electric fields and Magnetic fields are vector Fields, therefor have 
directional component at each point, and you have to look at the dot 
product and cross product.  you are using scalars, but these are vector 
fields.

for our readers...

https://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/siderive.html

Derived Unit 	Measures 	Derivation 	Formal Definition
hertz (Hz) 	frequency 		/s 	s-1
newton (N) 	force 		kg·(m/s2) 	kg·m·s-2
pascal (Pa) 	pressure 		N/m2 	kg·m-1·s-2
joule (J) 	energy or work	 	N·m 	kg·m2·s-2
watt (W) 	power 			J/s 	kg·m2·s-3
coulomb (C) 	electric charge 	A·s 	A·s
volt (V) 	electric potential 	W/A 	kg·m2·s-3·A-1
farad (F) 	electric capacitance 	C/V 	kg-1·m-2·s4·A2
ohm (omega) 	electric resistance 	V/A 	kg·m2·s-3·A-2
siemens (S) 	electric conductance 	A/V 	kg-1·m-2·s3·A2
weber (Wb) 	magnetic flux 		V·s 	kg·m2·s-2·A-1
tesla (T) 	magnetic flux density 	Wb/m2 	kg·s-2·A-1
henry (H) 	inductance 		Wb/A 	kg·m2·s-2·A-2
degree Celsius (°C) 	temperature 	K - 273.15 	K
radian (rad) 	plane angle 		m·m-1
steradian (sr) 	solid angle 		m2·m-2
lumen (lm) 	luminous flux 		cd·sr 	cd·sr
lux (lx) 	illuminance 		lm/m2 	cd·sr·m-2
becquerel (Bq) 	activity 		/s 	s-1
gray (Gy) 	absorbed dose 		J/kg 	m2·s-2
sievert (Sv) 	dose equivalent 	Gy·(multiplier) 	m2·s-2
katal (kat) 	catalytic activity 	mol/s 	mol·s-1

The term derived unit covers any algebraic combination of the base 
units, but it is only the 22 combinations listed above that have 
approved special names. For example, the SI derived unit of momentum 
(mass times velocity) has no special name; momentum is stated in 
kilogram meters per second (kg·m/s) or in newton seconds (N·s). A few SI 
derived units do have special names that have been defined but not 
approved. Here are some examples:

Derived Unit 	Measures 		Derivation
stere (st) 	volume 			m3
diopter (dpt) 	refractive power 	m-1
thermal ohm 	thermal resistance 	K/W
poiseuille (Pl 	dynamic viscosity 	Pa·s
rayl 		sound impedance 	Pa·s/m
acoustic ohm 	sound resistance 	Pa·s/m3
daraf 		electric elastance 	F-1
talbot 		luminous energy 	lm·s
nit (nt) 	luminance 		cd/m2
molal 		chemical concentration 	mol/kg

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

#597155

On 9/15/2016 9:12 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, let me recap or recall or summarize so far, how I come to
> this position. Months ago I noticed that the electric-field is fairy
> tale,

wrong.


> nonexistent when you have the revised Maxwell Equations with a
> positive term in the Law of Magnetism.

wrong.

>
> 1) No Electric Field exist because electricity is monopole,

wrong,  batteries have a + terminal AND a - terminal, that is 2, TWO
not one.



please correct your theory, so AA cells are supported.

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

#597312

On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 7:07:32 AM UTC-7, Serigo wrote:
> On 9/15/2016 9:12 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Alright, let me recap or recall or summarize so far, how I come to
> > this position. Months ago I noticed that the electric-field is fairy
> > tale,
> 
> wrong.
> 
> 
> > nonexistent when you have the revised Maxwell Equations with a
> > positive term in the Law of Magnetism.
> 
> wrong.
> 
> >
> > 1) No Electric Field exist because electricity is monopole,
> 
> wrong,  batteries have a + terminal AND a - terminal, that is 2, TWO
> not one.
> 
> 
> 
> please correct your theory, so AA cells are supported.


Don't stop him now.  He's on a roll!

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web