Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #601961 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-21 13:28 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-10-26 14:22 -0500 |
| Articles | 13 on this page of 53 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
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 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 01:15 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field |
| Message-ID | <u9e01c9gglqmp3chb1f6s5ut28kt3oo3va@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #602436 |
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:20:16 -0500, Serigo wrote: >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, Agreed. So is time, as I use it. So how does a vector (torque) divided by a scalar (time) become a scalar (power)? >like voltage. Isn't voltage a vector? It has magnitude and direction. Current is a vector. Power is V dot I, with cos(theta) being the power factor. >> >> >>> 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!), Woo hoo. It will suck to be those **other** people who deserve blame. But how will we distinguish our self-righteousness from the type exhibited by greenies who fly chartered jets to conferences about banning fossil fuels? >>> --------------------------------------------------- >>> Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA >>> --------------------------------------------------- >>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 08:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field |
| Message-ID | <nuqam9$b55$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #602522 |
On 10/26/2016 12:15 AM, Wally W. wrote: > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:20:16 -0500, Serigo wrote: > >> 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, > > Agreed. > > So is time, as I use it. > > So how does a vector (torque) divided by a scalar (time) become a > scalar (power)? if you take the magnitude of torque, you loose the direction of torque so it changed to scalar. > >> like voltage. > > Isn't voltage a vector? It has magnitude and direction. it can be, typically is is just a number, a value it depends upon context, as a complex voltage in complex plane, same as magnitude and angle. (2-D vector) Voltage Field is Vector Field, is E Field, a 3 dimentional vector array representation > > Current is a vector. same as voltage above > > Power is V dot I, with cos(theta) being the power factor. > >>> >>> >>>> 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!), > > Woo hoo. > > It will suck to be those **other** people who deserve blame. > > But how will we distinguish our self-righteousness from the type > exhibited by greenies who fly chartered jets to conferences about > banning fossil fuels? secret handshake ? > >>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>> Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA >>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 23:07 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field |
| Message-ID | <kjr21cd1s64fvk0bug2sbmqnb4gomb12c3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #602534 |
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 08:22:08 -0500, Serigo wrote: >On 10/26/2016 12:15 AM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:20:16 -0500, Serigo wrote: >> >>> 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, >> >> Agreed. >> >> So is time, as I use it. >> >> So how does a vector (torque) divided by a scalar (time) become a >> scalar (power)? > >if you take the magnitude of torque, you loose the direction of torque >so it changed to scalar. It seems contrived. Why don't we take the magnitude of a velocity, divide it by time, and come up with a scalar version of acceleration (as speed is a scalar version of velocity) by losing the direction of the velocity? >> >>> like voltage. >> >> Isn't voltage a vector? It has magnitude and direction. > >it can be, typically is is just a number, a value >it depends upon context, > >as a complex voltage in complex plane, same as magnitude and angle. (2-D >vector) > >Voltage Field is Vector Field, is E Field, a 3 dimentional vector array >representation > >> >> Current is a vector. > >same as voltage above > >> >> Power is V dot I, with cos(theta) being the power factor. >> >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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!), >> >> Woo hoo. >> >> It will suck to be those **other** people who deserve blame. >> >> But how will we distinguish our self-righteousness from the type >> exhibited by greenies who fly chartered jets to conferences about >> banning fossil fuels? > >secret handshake ? > > >> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>> Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA >>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-28 18:31 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field |
| Message-ID | <4dd12114-b639-4134-bf21-a40d32e84706@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602617 |
viz the secondpoweer of the speed of light, i areal acceleration, so to say > Why don't we take the magnitude of a velocity, divide it by time, and > come up with a scalar version of acceleration (as speed is a scalar > version of velocity) by losing the direction of the velocity?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 09:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field |
| Message-ID | <nut4ht$1n6u$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #602432 |
On 10/25/2016 8:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: >> Technically Work (W = F dot s) might be construed to have the same >> >units (Newtons * meters) as Torque (Newtons * meters) but the first is >> >a dot product and the second is a cross product. Therefore, >> >technically the respective units are Newtons dot meters (Work) and >> >Newtons cross meters (Torque) so they are not the same. > But dividing either by time gives power. > > In what way is rotational power different from linear power? > > I don't think if you divide torque by time you get power. Torque divided by time is a vector quantity, power is a scalar quantity. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 16:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field |
| Message-ID | <nutag0$sd4$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #602658 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >On 10/25/2016 8:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>> 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 don't think if you divide torque by time you get power. Torque divided >by time is a vector quantity, power is a scalar quantity. Torque time rotation rate equals power. Motorheads may know that (in English units) engine horsepower = torque * RPM/5252. In SI units, rotation rate (angular velocity) has units of 1/sec or omega/sec. Rotation rate or angular velocity is a vector (pseudovector) and the power must be the dot product of torque and angular velocity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 19:21 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field |
| Message-ID | <5v251c513lq6nn6nunt5kujse1ahfv7v54@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #602662 |
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:37:20 +0000 (UTC), Michael Moroney wrote: >Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: > >>On 10/25/2016 8:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> 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 don't think if you divide torque by time you get power. Torque divided >>by time is a vector quantity, power is a scalar quantity. > >Torque time rotation rate equals power. Motorheads may know that (in >English units) engine horsepower = torque * RPM/5252. In SI units, >rotation rate (angular velocity) has units of 1/sec or omega/sec. >Rotation rate or angular velocity is a vector (pseudovector) and >the power must be the dot product of torque and angular velocity. Aha. Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 18:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field |
| Message-ID | <092c8f2f-daa5-4fe9-a06e-e50d4c06661a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602352 |
On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 3:06:03 PM UTC-4, 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.
What school gave you a passing grade? Force and torque differ by metres|meters!
> >>>> 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.
I have learned, it's better to look it up before posting about it==anything.
Conclusion: There exist no new thoughts and ideas; just go read their Books|Links!
> >>> 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.
Subhuman? Seriously? I think you meant to write 'your failures' not ...youKnow.
O wait... that 'you' is a jab at all of us who took a physics class. Good one!
> >> 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.
Can relate, I too hate it when I make extreme typos that big Big BIG!
> >> 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
A-posting? Ok, I must feel forced to intervene here! Help me... Me... ME...
There is {mere, mear, amir, ..., and whatever rhymes with her sex(y) rear}.
M(y) pal Amir daily says/saying to himself: A mere mortal am I... Amir?!
Mahipal: Wait a mere Amir... mere is mere==mine as in O mere dil ke chain...?!
Here, no need for you to go out of your way and type. You are welcome:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=O+mere+dil+ke+chain What does it mean?!
> [except for commonlly known physics, math, ee knowledge immediatly
> verifyable by single searches]
>
> (mis-speltings are not a blamable item)
I suspect Usenet is a text-based-words-playing medium Medium MEDIUM, rare.
-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 07:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: a cautionary tale on how to use "units" wrongly Re: testing out this Voltage as electric field |
| Message-ID | <nunkap$74n$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #602335 |
On 10/24/2016 1:12 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > 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. You probably meant energy and torque. > > 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. > If you take the electric and magnetic fields of a traveling electromagnetic wave, they have the ratio c. But you are in no way imparting a speed to either field to get the other. Likewise, the energy of a photon and the *magnitude* of a photon are related by the ratio c, but in no way do you impart a speed to a momentum to get the energy. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 09:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: failures of Physics can never seem to show an Experiment where Electric Field independent of Voltage exists, too much knuckleheads |
| Message-ID | <nul4b9$as2$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #602146 |
On 10/23/2016 2:19 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > The bulk of this discussion is show me an experiment where voltage and electric field are > separate and independent concepts. Since you cannot do that, they are one and the same. The are not independent, but they are not the same. Voltage is the integral of the electric field over a path. They have different units. They cannot possibly be the same. Likewise, velocity is the integral of acceleration. The two concepts are not independent but they are CLEARLY not the same. They also have different units. Anybody who would claim that voltage and electric field are the same would have to also conclude by the same argument that velocity and acceleration are the same, and at that point that person would surely have to blush. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 08:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: failures of Physics can never seem to show an Experiment where Electric Field independent of Voltage exists, too much knuckleheads |
| Message-ID | <nul33c$8q0$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #602088 |
On 10/22/2016 3:51 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Look at the definition of current as A*second Uh....what???? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 12:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f87da8ec-4ba2-437b-8b32-d131ca19789c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #601990 |
that is just a quandary, the relation between voltage and dystance of ... some thing -- or age-of-votingness > > Note: the units are V/m for Electric Field. V = Voltage m=meter > > There is no electric field setting, another evidence in proof that the Voltage is the electric field. > > You have been hanging out too much with the physics failures of Moroney and Odd, and your posts are becoming as degenerate as theirs. > > AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 14:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nuqvqi$2vt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #601961 |
On 10/21/2016 3:28 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Alright, I am rather done with the textbook, but a immense amount of > polishing needs be done now. And the way I plan to do this polishing > is by having a commentary talk corner. > Today for discussion is that I have recently bought a precision > multimeter which gives Voltage of a very delicate amount. And unlike > the dial multimeters I was used to in the past, this digital > multimeter is far superior. > > So in the textbook I raise the issue that the Electric Field is phony > baloney and what replaces that fakery is Voltage. > So, why is my multimeter reading upwards of .014 volts in ambient > air. When I press the meter against magnets 0 reading but when I > measure the air and move the leads about in Ambient Air, I get many > various readings of voltage, I get .014, then .009 then .005 then > .012 etc etc. The same happens when I go outside into Nature and the > ambient air can even go as high as .05 volts. > > So, what is happening here? The answer is that the Electric Field is > phony baloney, but electricity is represented not by a field, but by > Voltage. So, there never was a Electric Field, and it was always a > Voltage. > I suspect Maxwell never realized or understood that fact of physics. > That the Electric Field was a garbage loser concept, and that Voltage > was there, true blue. > Only a illogical person would want to have Voltage exist and on top > of voltage, want to have a dumb concept of a Electric Field along > with voltage. A dumb illogical person would want both. Whereas a > scientist who wants only the truth, the true blue, realizes that > Voltage is the electric-field. > > AP > E fields are commonly used in CRTs in Ocilliscopes, TV sets, to accellerate electrons. Also in most Vacuum tubes. I guess they don't know yet, that they are "phony baloney", as you say. Now what did you replace it with ? so these things can still work ?
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web