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

Groups > sci.physics > #601961 > unrolled thread

AP/Maxwell theory & Atom Totality textbook COMMENTARY TALK: Experiment-- my multimeter reads voltage proving no electric field exists

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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

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

#602151 — Re: proving Voltage is the electric-field and that electric field is a fakery, nonexistent entity

Dne 23/10/2016 v 11:13 Archimedes Plutonium napsal(a):

Technical note: it is very ugly habit
to change thread subject and even removing the Re: prefix.

Create independent thread instead, if you have to.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#602418 — Re: Re: proving Voltage is the electric-field and that electric field is a fakery, nonexistent entity

Only if volts (V) = volts per meter (E = V/d).

The electric field determines the electrical force on a unit charge
(e.g. an electron). E = F / q and F = E * q. It is the rate of change
of the voltage over a unit distance (e.g. 1 meter). That's why its
measured in volts per meter.

The voltage (or potential difference) is the integral of that force
over distance which is why its sometimes called potential (energy).

Electric Field strength determines the acceleration a unit charge
experiences (velocity acquired) per unit distance. It is the analog of
acceleration in the mechanical formula (F = M * a).


On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 11:30:42 +0200, Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Dne 23/10/2016 v 11:13 Archimedes Plutonium napsal(a):
>
>Technical note: it is very ugly habit
>to change thread subject and even removing the Re: prefix.
>
>Create independent thread instead, if you have to.
See you at the show trials - lol.
---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

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

#602544 — Re: proving Voltage is the electric-field and that electric field is a fakery, nonexistent entity

On 10/24/2016 11:52 PM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> Electric Field strength determines the acceleration a unit charge
> experiences (velocity acquired) per unit distance. It is the analog of
> acceleration in the mechanical formula (F = M * a).

No, that's not correct. The acceleration is related to the electric 
field via the constant of proportionality q/m, which clearly varies from 
object to object.

Compare this to gravity where gravitational charge (m) and inertial mass 
(m) are the same and so the gravitational field does indeed relate 
directly to acceleration and does not vary from object to object.

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

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

#602575 — Re: proving Voltage is the electric-field and that electric field is a fakery, nonexistent entity

On 10/26/2016 9:30 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 10/24/2016 11:52 PM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>> Electric Field strength determines the acceleration a unit charge
>> experiences (velocity acquired) per unit distance. It is the analog of
>> acceleration in the mechanical formula (F = M * a).

> No, that's not correct. The acceleration is related to the electric
> field via the constant of proportionality q/m, which clearly varies from
> object to object.
>
> Compare this to gravity where gravitational charge (m) and inertial mass
> (m) are the same and so the gravitational field does indeed relate
> directly to acceleration and does not vary from object to object.
>


I think he is talking about a CRT, electron gun, screen voltage, and in 
oscilliscopes they use electrostatics to sweep out the field, at least 
in the old ones.  (for millenials, CRT=>Cathode Ray Tube)

        F = ma

       qE = ma

       a = qE/m

When a charged particle is placed in an uniform electric field, in 
absence of all other forces, it will experience an acceleration in the 
direction of the field lines.

https://www.miniphysics.com/acceleration-due-to-electric-field.html

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

#602152 — Re: proving Voltage is the electric-field and that electric field is a fakery, nonexistent entity

Dne 23/10/2016 v 11:13 Archimedes Plutonium napsal(a):

> Alright, getting to the heart of the matter. That means, solving
> the question of whether Voltage is Electric Field and that one
> of them-- electric field is redundant garbage, for it does not exist.
>

The electrostatic field is not quantity.
Therefore voltage as quantity
cannot be something, that is not quantity.

The electrostatic field is described by 2 ways.
By integral way via U - electrostatic potential / voltage
or
by differential way via E - intensity of electrostatic field.

E = grad U, delta U = path integral of E.

Neither a quantity can be a quantity of different dimensions.

Voltage cannot be voltage gradient,
altitude cannot be altitude gradient,
concentration cannot be concentration gradient,
temperature cannot be temperature gradient

X = grad Y and delta Y = path integral of X
are valid relations of the differential and concepts,
describing a phenomena via X. respectively Y.

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

#602153 — Re: proving Voltage is the electric-field and that electric field is a fakery, nonexistent entity

Dne 23/10/2016 v 11:48 Poutnik napsal(a):

> Neither a quantity can be a quantity of different dimensions.
> 
> Voltage cannot be voltage gradient, ....

The essential note is, that
voltage  and electrostatic potential are synonyms
( with objection of eventual different zero reference level )

voltage gradient and intensity of electrostatic field
are synonyms as well ( exactly )

Where there is a scalar voltage field,
there is a vector field of voltage gradient as well.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#602214 — testing out this Voltage as electric field Re: proving Voltage is the electric-field and that electric field is a fakery, nonexistent entity

On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 4:13:49 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, getting to the heart of the matter. That means, solving the question of whether Voltage is Electric Field and that one of them-- electric field is redundant garbage, for it does not exist.
> 
> To solve this, we need go to the Law of Electricity and the Law of Magnetism. There have never been any experiments in physics that displays both Electric Field and Voltage as separate entities. Every experiment, if it has voltage, no need to invoke electric field.
> 
> So, looking at the units of Voltage and of Magnetic Field:
> 
> V = kg*m^2/A*s^3
> 
> Magnetic Field = kg/A*s^2
> 
> Now some weak physicists attest to a Electric Field being that of V/m = kg*m/A*s^3
> 
> Now, since no experiments ever reveal a voltage and electric field present and independent of one another means electric field is nonexistent and fakery.
> 
> That means the Voltage is the Electric Field and what that means is that the units of Voltage must agree with the units of Magnetic Field by a factor that is the angular momentum to uphold the Law of Electricity and Law of Magnetism.
> 
> So we compare
> 
> kg*m^2/A*s^3 versus kg/A*s^2
> 
> What is the factor between Voltage and Magnetic Field? 
> 
> It is a factor of m^2/s
> 
> And what is m^2/s, is angular momentum
> 
> Now, what factor would Law of Electricity and Law of Magnetism require for turning a Magnetic Field into that of a Electric Field, if such exists?
> 
> Well, the law of electricity and magnetism do not call for a factor of m/s, (velocity) as the difference between electric field and magnetic field. But the law of electricity and magnetism, require that the difference between electric field and magnetic field be that of angular momentum. Why? because the coulomb force in law of electricity is a inverse square of distance and requires angular momentum.
> 
> Thus, I have proven that the Electric Field is a nonexistent fakery of physics, and that Voltage replaces the concept of electric field fakery.
> 
> AP

Alright, there is a very quick test on Voltage replacing the Electric Field.

If we thrust a bar magnet through a closed loop of wire, we gain an electric current in that wire.

So what has to happen in order for that to come about?

Well, the bar magnet is kg/A*s^2 and the closed loop of wire has to be kg*m^2/A*s^3, so that the lines of force of the bar magnet cut through, meaning, divide out the Voltage, and what remains in the closed wire loop is angular momentum of m^2/s for electrons flowing as current.

Now, if we had the closed loop be Electric Field as kg*m/A*s^3 and thrust the bar magnet through with kg/A*s^2 we end up with m/s for electrons flowing as a current. We end up with a linear momentum.

And we all know that electricity requires a Closed Loop.

So, the Maxwell Equations with an Electric Field being V/m cannot produce electricity in a closed loop of Faraday's Law. But can produce a electric current when Voltage is the parameter.

AP

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

#602271 — a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field

On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 4:15:56 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 4:13:49 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Alright, getting to the heart of the matter. That means, solving the question of whether Voltage is Electric Field and that one of them-- electric field is redundant garbage, for it does not exist.
> > 
> > To solve this, we need go to the Law of Electricity and the Law of Magnetism. There have never been any experiments in physics that displays both Electric Field and Voltage as separate entities. Every experiment, if it has voltage, no need to invoke electric field.
> > 
> > So, looking at the units of Voltage and of Magnetic Field:
> > 
> > V = kg*m^2/A*s^3
> > 
> > Magnetic Field = kg/A*s^2
> > 
> > Now some weak physicists attest to a Electric Field being that of V/m = kg*m/A*s^3
> > 
> > Now, since no experiments ever reveal a voltage and electric field present and independent of one another means electric field is nonexistent and fakery.
> > 
> > That means the Voltage is the Electric Field and what that means is that the units of Voltage must agree with the units of Magnetic Field by a factor that is the angular momentum to uphold the Law of Electricity and Law of Magnetism.
> > 
> > So we compare
> > 
> > kg*m^2/A*s^3 versus kg/A*s^2
> > 
> > What is the factor between Voltage and Magnetic Field? 
> > 
> > It is a factor of m^2/s
> > 
> > And what is m^2/s, is angular momentum
> > 
> > Now, what factor would Law of Electricity and Law of Magnetism require for turning a Magnetic Field into that of a Electric Field, if such exists?
> > 
> > Well, the law of electricity and magnetism do not call for a factor of m/s, (velocity) as the difference between electric field and magnetic field. But the law of electricity and magnetism, require that the difference between electric field and magnetic field be that of angular momentum. Why? because the coulomb force in law of electricity is a inverse square of distance and requires angular momentum.
> > 
> > Thus, I have proven that the Electric Field is a nonexistent fakery of physics, and that Voltage replaces the concept of electric field fakery.
> > 
> > AP
> 
> Alright, there is a very quick test on Voltage replacing the Electric Field.
> 
> If we thrust a bar magnet through a closed loop of wire, we gain an electric current in that wire.
> 
> So what has to happen in order for that to come about?
> 
> Well, the bar magnet is kg/A*s^2 and the closed loop of wire has to be kg*m^2/A*s^3, so that the lines of force of the bar magnet cut through, meaning, divide out the Voltage, and what remains in the closed wire loop is angular momentum of m^2/s for electrons flowing as current.
> 
> Now, if we had the closed loop be Electric Field as kg*m/A*s^3 and thrust the bar magnet through with kg/A*s^2 we end up with m/s for electrons flowing as a current. We end up with a linear momentum.
> 
> And we all know that electricity requires a Closed Loop.
> 
> So, the Maxwell Equations with an Electric Field being V/m cannot produce electricity in a closed loop of Faraday's Law. But can produce a electric current when Voltage is the parameter.
> 
> AP

Now let me say a few words about "units" in physics. For I am a great admirer of units and know they are extremely important. But there is a caution that I would stress about units, that the greenhorns and failures of physics would never catch a glimpse of and would fall head first into a pit of mistakes.

Units are important but they are sometimes misleading. For example Electric Field if it existed, which it does not exist, would be characterized as that of V/m = kg*m/A*s^3 while the Magnetic Field which truly does exist and is kg/A*s^2 would thus be a factor of m/s to make a Electric Field.

Now, few physicists have logical commonsense, or they would know that if you give velocity to a Magnetic Field, should you expect a Electric Field to come of a velocity placed upon a magnetic field? Only if you are a silly physicist.

Now another important error physicists make in units. Is that they are awestruck of a unit like Magnetic Field as V/m and believe thence, that V/s or V*s or V*m or V/m^2 or V*s^2 or V*s^3 are all valid Physics concepts of those units. These rumdummy physicists believes every one of those units just prattled off is some special unit in physics just as Voltage or Magnetic Field is a special and important unit in physics.

Here I have news for the rumdummies, in that physics has only special units and then the multitude of made up units like V*m are just either nonexistent or compound units of a simple true existing unit. Just like V/m is really just a Magnetic Field given a velocity and is not a Electric Field. But try telling that to the many failures of physics with their loud mouths and no brains.

AP

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

#602313 — Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field

On 10/23/2016 10:08 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Units are important but they are sometimes misleading. For example Electric Field
> if it existed, which it does not exist, would be characterized as that of
> V/m = kg*m/A*s^3 while the Magnetic Field which truly does exist and is kg/A*s^2
> would thus be a factor of m/s to make a Electric Field.
>
> Now, few physicists have logical commonsense, or they would know that if you give
> velocity to a Magnetic Field, should you expect a Electric Field to come of a
> velocity placed upon a magnetic field? Only if you are a silly physicist.

No physicist would claim that. Nor would they claim that if you impart 
speed to a momentum you will get energy. That's not what factoring of 
units is intended to imply.


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

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

#602322 — Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field

On 10/24/2016 04:22 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 10/23/2016 10:08 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> Units are important but they are sometimes misleading. For example
>> Electric Field
>> if it existed, which it does not exist, would be characterized as that of
>> V/m = kg*m/A*s^3 while the Magnetic Field which truly does exist and
>> is kg/A*s^2
>> would thus be a factor of m/s to make a Electric Field.
>>
>> Now, few physicists have logical commonsense, or they would know that
>> if you give
>> velocity to a Magnetic Field, should you expect a Electric Field to
>> come of a
>> velocity placed upon a magnetic field? Only if you are a silly physicist.
>
> No physicist would claim that. Nor would they claim that if you impart
> speed to a momentum you will get energy. That's not what factoring of
> units is intended to imply.
>

Similarly, the product of length[m] and speed[m/s] has dimension m^2/s,
but does not become the kinematic viscosity of the same dimension.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscosity#Units

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

#602335 — Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:

>On 10/23/2016 10:08 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> Units are important but they are sometimes misleading. For example Electric Field
>> if it existed, which it does not exist, would be characterized as that of
>> V/m = kg*m/A*s^3 while the Magnetic Field which truly does exist and is kg/A*s^2
>> would thus be a factor of m/s to make a Electric Field.
>>
>> Now, few physicists have logical commonsense, or they would know that if you give
>> velocity to a Magnetic Field, should you expect a Electric Field to come of a
>> velocity placed upon a magnetic field? Only if you are a silly physicist.

>No physicist would claim that. Nor would they claim that if you impart 
>speed to a momentum you will get energy. That's not what factoring of 
>units is intended to imply.

Yes, you can't read too much into the meaning of a unit's dimensions.  
Force and torque have the same units (kg m^2/s^2) but are definitely not
the same thing.

I believe, but am not sure, that the electric and magnetic fields of a
photon are in a constant ratio, and if you divide its electric field
strength by its magnetic field strength, you get the velocity of the
photon, or c.  I'll have to look that up.

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

#602338 — Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:12:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
(snipped)

> 
> Yes, you can't read too much into the meaning of a unit's dimensions.  
> Force and torque have the same units (kg m^2/s^2) but are definitely not
> the same thing.
> 
> I believe, but am not sure, that the electric and magnetic fields of a
> photon are in a constant ratio, and if you divide its electric field
> strength by its magnetic field strength, you get the velocity of the
> photon, or c.  I'll have to look that up.

For once you are sounding like a normal human, not a subhuman science wannabe. So maybe there is hope for you failures of physics, but I would not hold my breathe for that to happen.

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

#602341 — Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:22:47 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:12:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> (snipped)
> 
> > 
> > Yes, you can't read too much into the meaning of a unit's dimensions.  
> > Force and torque have the same units (kg m^2/s^2) but are definitely not
> > the same thing.
> > 
> > I believe, but am not sure, that the electric and magnetic fields of a
> > photon are in a constant ratio, and if you divide its electric field
> > strength by its magnetic field strength, you get the velocity of the
> > photon, or c.  I'll have to look that up.
> 
> For once you are sounding like a normal human, not a subhuman science wannabe. So maybe there is hope for you failures of physics, but I would not hold my breathe for that to happen.

Well, hold on, I skimmed the above and did not recognize your  (kg m^2/s^2) immediately. So, when is acceleration that of m^2/s^2, when it is m/s^2

Again, you fail

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

#602342 — Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field

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

>On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:22:47 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:12:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> (snipped)
>> 
>> > 
>> > Yes, you can't read too much into the meaning of a unit's dimensions.  
>> > Force and torque have the same units (kg m^2/s^2) but are definitely not
>> > the same thing.
>> > 
>> > I believe, but am not sure, that the electric and magnetic fields of a
>> > photon are in a constant ratio, and if you divide its electric field
>> > strength by its magnetic field strength, you get the velocity of the
>> > photon, or c.  I'll have to look that up.
>> 
>> For once you are sounding like a normal human, not a subhuman science 
>> wannabe. So maybe there is hope for you failures of physics, but I 
>> would not hold my breathe for that to happen.

>Well, hold on, I skimmed the above and did not recognize your  (kg 
>m^2/s^2) immediately. So, when is acceleration that of m^2/s^2, when it 
>is m/s^2

I never said acceleration was m^2/s^2. I never even mentioned acceleration.
I was talking about torque and energy.  Typo: I wrote force when I should
have written energy.

>Again, you fail

The failure (in this case, to read correctly) is all yours.

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

#602352 — Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field

On 10/24/2016 1:43 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:22:47 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:12:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> (snipped)
>>>

>>>> Yes, you can't read too much into the meaning of a unit's dimensions.
>>>> Force and torque have the same units (kg m^2/s^2) but are definitely not
>>>> the same thing.

>>>> I believe, but am not sure, that the electric and magnetic fields of a
>>>> photon are in a constant ratio, and if you divide its electric field
>>>> strength by its magnetic field strength, you get the velocity of the
>>>> photon, or c.  I'll have to look that up.
>>>
>>> For once you are sounding like a normal human, not a subhuman science
>>> wannabe. So maybe there is hope for you failures of physics, but I
>>> would not hold my breathe for that to happen.

>> Well, hold on, I skimmed the above and did not recognize your  (kg
>> m^2/s^2) immediately. So, when is acceleration that of m^2/s^2, when it
>> is m/s^2
>
> I never said acceleration was m^2/s^2. I never even mentioned acceleration.
> I was talking about torque and energy.  Typo: I wrote force when I should
> have written energy.
>
>> Again, you fail
>
> The failure (in this case, to read correctly) is all yours.
>

I have submitted this fail, failure to the Physics Fail Review Board, 
which consists of all people who post in sci.physics.

We will hold a blame assignment meeting, and assign blame thusly.

Thus, The Great Pooba in the Sky (or all posters in sci.physics) is 
Judge, not any one mear mortal aposting in sp

[except for commonlly known physics, math, ee knowledge immediatly 
verifyable by single searches]


(mis-speltings are not a blamable item)

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

#602354 — Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field

On 10/24/2016 2:05 PM, Serigo wrote:
> On 10/24/2016 1:43 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:22:47 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:12:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> (snipped)
>>>>

>>>>> Yes, you can't read too much into the meaning of a unit's dimensions.
>>>>> Force and torque have the same units (kg m^2/s^2) but are
>>>>> definitely not
>>>>> the same thing.

>>>>> I believe, but am not sure, that the electric and magnetic fields of a
>>>>> photon are in a constant ratio, and if you divide its electric field
>>>>> strength by its magnetic field strength, you get the velocity of the
>>>>> photon, or c.  I'll have to look that up.

>>>> For once you are sounding like a normal human, not a subhuman science
>>>> wannabe. So maybe there is hope for you failures of physics, but I
>>>> would not hold my breathe for that to happen.

>>> Well, hold on, I skimmed the above and did not recognize your  (kg
>>> m^2/s^2) immediately. So, when is acceleration that of m^2/s^2, when it
>>> is m/s^2

>> I never said acceleration was m^2/s^2. I never even mentioned
>> acceleration.
>> I was talking about torque and energy.  Typo: I wrote force when I should
>> have written energy.
>>
>>> Again, you fail
>>
>> The failure (in this case, to read correctly) is all yours.
>>

> I have submitted this fail, failure to the Physics Fail Review Board,
> which consists of all people who post in sci.physics.
>
> We will hold a blame assignment meeting, and assign blame thusly.
>
> Thus, The Great Pooba in the Sky (or all posters in sci.physics) is
> Judge, not any one mear mortal aposting in sp

> [except for commonlly known physics, math, ee knowledge immediatly
> verifyable by single searches]
>
>
> (mis-speltings are not a blamable item)

       first law of physics, => Units Must Match

if they dont, then YOU have mistake, or YOU have to rewrite all the laws 
of physics, or try too, [but they already got all that stuff worked out 
and it took them years and years...]

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

#602414 — Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:05:55 -0500, Serigo wrote:

>On 10/24/2016 1:43 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:22:47 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:12:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> (snipped)
>>>>
>
>>>>> Yes, you can't read too much into the meaning of a unit's dimensions.
>>>>> Force and torque have the same units (kg m^2/s^2) but are definitely not
>>>>> the same thing.
>
>>>>> I believe, but am not sure, that the electric and magnetic fields of a
>>>>> photon are in a constant ratio, and if you divide its electric field
>>>>> strength by its magnetic field strength, you get the velocity of the
>>>>> photon, or c.  I'll have to look that up.
>>>>
>>>> For once you are sounding like a normal human, not a subhuman science
>>>> wannabe. So maybe there is hope for you failures of physics, but I
>>>> would not hold my breathe for that to happen.
>
>>> Well, hold on, I skimmed the above and did not recognize your  (kg
>>> m^2/s^2) immediately. So, when is acceleration that of m^2/s^2, when it
>>> is m/s^2
>>
>> I never said acceleration was m^2/s^2. I never even mentioned acceleration.
>> I was talking about torque and energy.  Typo: I wrote force when I should
>> have written energy.
>>
>>> Again, you fail
>>
>> The failure (in this case, to read correctly) is all yours.
>>
>
>I have submitted this fail, failure to the Physics Fail Review Board, 
>which consists of all people who post in sci.physics.
>
>We will hold a blame assignment meeting, and assign blame thusly.

Well, finally!

It's about time someone did this in an organized fashion.

Where has the mob mentaility been when we needed it?

How long has it been since a group of smug prigs have blamed someone,
thrashed them, and held them up to ridcule?!

Oh, wait ... maybe that should be how many times in the last
nanosecond ...


>Thus, The Great Pooba in the Sky (or all posters in sci.physics) is 
>Judge, not any one mear mortal aposting in sp
>
>[except for commonlly known physics, math, ee knowledge immediatly 
>verifyable by single searches]
>
>
>(mis-speltings are not a blamable item)

Not until the list of is written into the bylaws ... then, more
blaming.

As an organizer, you can exclude from the list: spelTings.

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

#602424 — Re: Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:14:13 -0400, Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:05:55 -0500, Serigo wrote:
>
>>On 10/24/2016 1:43 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:22:47 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:12:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>> (snipped)
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> Yes, you can't read too much into the meaning of a unit's dimensions.
>>>>>> Force and torque have the same units (kg m^2/s^2) but are definitely not
>>>>>> the same thing.

Technically Work (W = F dot s) might be construed to have the same
units (Newtons * meters) as Torque (Newtons * meters) but the first is
a dot product and the second is a cross product. Therefore,
technically the respective units are Newtons dot meters (Work) and
Newtons cross meters (Torque) so they are not the same.

I just now realized this. That one has nagged me for a while too -
lol.

...

See you at the show trials - lol.
---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

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

#602432 — Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 04:16:08 -0400, Michael J. Strickland wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:14:13 -0400, Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:05:55 -0500, Serigo wrote:
>>
>>>On 10/24/2016 1:43 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:22:47 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:12:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> (snipped)
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, you can't read too much into the meaning of a unit's dimensions.
>>>>>>> Force and torque have the same units (kg m^2/s^2) but are definitely not
>>>>>>> the same thing.
>
>Technically Work (W = F dot s) might be construed to have the same
>units (Newtons * meters) as Torque (Newtons * meters) but the first is
>a dot product and the second is a cross product. Therefore,
>technically the respective units are Newtons dot meters (Work) and
>Newtons cross meters (Torque) so they are not the same.

But dividing either by time gives power.

In what way is rotational power different from linear power?


>I just now realized this. That one has nagged me for a while too -
>lol.
>
>...
>
>See you at the show trials - lol.
>---------------------------------------------------
>Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
>---------------------------------------------------

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

#602436 — Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field

On 10/25/2016 8:03 AM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 04:16:08 -0400, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:14:13 -0400, Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:05:55 -0500, Serigo wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/24/2016 1:43 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:22:47 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:12:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>> (snipped)
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, you can't read too much into the meaning of a unit's dimensions.
>>>>>>>> Force and torque have the same units (kg m^2/s^2) but are definitely not
>>>>>>>> the same thing.
>>
>> Technically Work (W = F dot s) might be construed to have the same
>> units (Newtons * meters) as Torque (Newtons * meters) but the first is
>> a dot product and the second is a cross product. Therefore,
>> technically the respective units are Newtons dot meters (Work) and
>> Newtons cross meters (Torque) so they are not the same.
>
> But dividing either by time gives power.
>
> In what way is rotational power different from linear power?

dot product is scalar

cross product is vector

power is scalar, like voltage.

>
>
>> I just now realized this. That one has nagged me for a while too -
>> lol.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> See you at the show trials - lol.

bring torches and pitchforks for the Blame Assignment Meeting! (BAM!),


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

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web