Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #617234 > unrolled thread
| Started by | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-06 11:57 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-14 18:20 -0800 |
| Articles | 19 on this page of 59 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Maxwell's equations numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-06 11:57 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 15:21 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-02-06 15:38 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 08:56 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 08:46 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 09:03 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 09:56 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 10:00 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 18:17 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:36 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 18:47 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 18:59 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:47 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 21:47 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 22:17 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations Serg Io <invliad@invalid.com> - 2017-02-09 07:01 -0600
Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 09:26 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 07:29 +0100
Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 09:35 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:50 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 21:24 +0100
Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 13:14 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 22:45 +0100
Re: Maxwell's equations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:15 -0600
Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 13:49 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 14:36 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-17 01:59 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 11:30 +0100
Re: Maxwell's equations benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 15:48 -0500
Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 10:32 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 14:32 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 23:38 +0100
Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 16:19 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 19:15 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 10:50 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 21:53 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 08:51 +0100
Re: Maxwell's equations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:24 -0600
Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 09:31 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 18:39 +0100
Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 12:07 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 21:28 +0100
Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 13:31 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 22:46 +0100
Re: Maxwell's equations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:38 -0600
Re: Maxwell's equations benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-09 17:31 -0500
Re: Maxwell's equations numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 10:41 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 14:12 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 11:32 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 20:28 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 23:59 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 13:59 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 11:37 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 14:11 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-13 13:00 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 10:07 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 09:58 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 10:42 -0800
Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 18:20 -0800
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | kdthrge@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 12:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ca16a22a-86a9-4ee6-9310-0f336e4a9d83@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617758 |
The erg can also be expressed in foot-pounds. A pound being the force incured on 1 slug of mass in earths gravity at the surface. Kinetic energy = force x distance of applied force x cosine of theta Can also be expressed as time of applied force All energy is interchangeable between forms and does not originate from nothing and does not cease to exist. E = mc^2 is the formalism of the Law of the Conservation of Energy since matter and energy can be interchanged but never lost or created from nothing. These are the most basic principles of physics and thermodynamics, the first law of thermodynamics being the reiteration of the Law of the Conservation of Energy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 21:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o7ijad$smi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #617782 |
Dne 09/02/2017 v 21:07 kdthrge@gmail.com napsal(a): > The erg can also be expressed in foot-pounds. A pound being the force incured on 1 slug of mass in earths gravity at the surface. > > Kinetic energy = force x distance of applied force x cosine of theta Rather, the work done is the path integral of force. The energy provided to do the work may oir may not to be transformed to the kinetic energy. > > Can also be expressed as time of applied force > All energy is interchangeable between forms and does not originate from nothing and does not cease to exist. > E = mc^2 is the formalism of the Law of the Conservation of Energy since matter and energy can be interchanged but never lost or created from nothing. > These are the most basic principles of physics and thermodynamics, the first law of thermodynamics being the reiteration of the Law of the Conservation of Energy. But this is nothing new nor not obvious. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kdthrge@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 13:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6014ff44-8f6e-4a79-b841-97c303d07990@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617784 |
But this is nothing new nor not obvious. ..... I agree with that as anyone with proper schooling would. But you should look around you and notice that present theoretical physics and thermodynamics is based on the principle that the Law of the Conservation of Energy doesn't exist. Worthless bunch of crap.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 22:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o7ins2$fjt$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #617790 |
Dne 09/02/2017 v 22:31 kdthrge@gmail.com napsal(a): > > But you should look around you and notice that present theoretical physics and thermodynamics is based on the principle that the Law of the Conservation of Energy doesn't exist. It is not true. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 15:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7o08n$175u$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #617790 |
On 2/9/2017 3:31 PM, kdthrge@gmail.com wrote: > But you should look around you and notice that present theoretical physics and thermodynamics is > based on the principle that the Law of the Conservation of Energy doesn't exist. I'm not following. There's not one correct thing you've posted that is inconsistent with conservation of energy. > > Worthless bunch of crap. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 17:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <589cedc3$0$43757$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #617750 |
On 2/9/2017 10:24 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/8/2017 8:17 PM, kdthrge@gmail.com wrote: >> Planck's constant in electron Volts is, 6.626E15. > > Planck's constant does not have units of energy, so it cannot have units > of electron volts. > > I did not read the rest. > Hey you dumb uneducated ignorant nasty fuckwit, The units are Electron volt seconds which is certainly close enough to discuss. Leave it to some dumb-ass Lib like you to think that arguing typos and other debating tricks is "discussing science"! Get a science education, nutjob.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 10:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <287dd143-7b23-44b6-a3a5-de3d8174128d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617234 |
Dear Students, Out of all that you have not answered the question why Maxwell's equations are derived using Faraday's induction effect yet induction is not luminous nor is induction an ionization effect. P.S. the blackbody is emitting electrons. Ben
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 14:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d7c3f189-64b0-4139-acb7-0433093f11e9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617234 |
Einstein paper photoelectric paper "On a Heuristic Point of View about the Creation and Conversion of Light" also uses the blackbody radiation effect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 11:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d48e2a84-ef32-418f-baca-fbf474f84e58@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617234 |
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, No one has answered the question why Maxwell's equations are derived using Faraday's induction effect yet induction is not luminous nor is induction an ionization effect or particle effect. Maxwell electromagnetic field cannot maintain a particle of an em photon since as an em field propagates an em field expands. P.S. the blackbody is emitting electrons. Ben
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kdthrge@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 20:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6f8718e0-34cf-4fd1-817f-7313d7649d4c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618137 |
Any change in an electric field brings on the appearance of a magnetic field and vice versa. The vectors of the fields are perpendicular. E and H. Induction is critical in electronics, the basis of a transformer and solenoid. The transfer of eleectrical energy through the formation and absorption of these electro- magnetic fields. A circular current produces a spherical magnetic fie)d. The distance of the circumference makes a wavelength and frequency of emitted photons. Thermionic emissions of electrons from an incandescent metal leaves the metal postibely charged, and producing electric field. The energy of these radio photons is almost non-existent compared to infrared. The equations may apply here but not to general luminosity. Here one simply needs Stefan's Law for temperarure and emissions of energy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 23:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ba3f694c-acab-4873-aa66-fd7db9d96f1a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618750 |
that was great, but it's not diameter makes wavelength? > A circular current produces a spherical magnetic fie)d. > The distance of the circumference makes a wavelength and frequency of emitted photons. > > Thermionic emissions of electrons from an incandescent metal leaves the metal postibely charged, and producing electric field. > > The energy of these radio photons is almost non-existent compared to infrared. The equations may apply here but not to general luminosity. Here one simply needs Stefan's Law for temperarure and emissions of energy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 13:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f786a78d-eced-4d36-87ac-4adfe13d402c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617234 |
Maxwell is assuming that since light and the radio induction effect propagate at the same velocity that light has an electromagnetic field structure but the velocity of light does not change the fact that Maxwell's theory is based on Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous. Poynting (1884) supports Maxwell's theory by deriving an energy equation of light but Poynting's current wire is not luminous.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 11:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1845f447-37d9-4e92-98f7-c6b39180685d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617234 |
Hertz (1887) attempts to structurally unite light with induction using a spark gap that produces light and the radio induction effect but Hertz's spark gap emits electrons yet Faraday's induction effect is also not an ionization effect. The generation of light by a light source is always accompanied by the emission of electrons yet Maxwell's theory is based on Faraday's induction effect that is not an ionization effect which proves light is not an electromagnetic phenomenon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 14:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <281bc3b9-0726-455c-ac46-abde61b33c61@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618348 |
light is just due to electronic orbital adjustments, whereas ionization requireth "energy of escape. > The generation of light by a light source is always accompanied by the emission of electrons yet Maxwell's theory is based on Faraday's induction effect that is not an ionization effect which proves light is not an electromagnetic phenomenon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 13:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <78771fba-99dc-4ed2-a2e9-a80eebc6f0ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617234 |
The QM atomic orbitals are formed by probability wave interference yet the minimum value of a probability is zero; consequently, the orbitals derived using probability waves is physically invalid and your argument using orbitals is moot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 10:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e28e30e6-f2d7-44a3-9bce-37f607692191@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618466 |
Pascal would have nailed you at dice, using only one die > minimum value of a probability is zero; consequently, the orbitals derived using probability waves is physically invalid and your argument using orbitals is moot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 09:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <104f8534-3c75-4585-b3cc-55ecfa1e317e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617234 |
Is Faraday's induction coil emitting light?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 10:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f6a5334c-2548-430f-bf48-16f8405c4330@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617234 |
Do electric motor emit light?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 18:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0d46be5f-6d81-41ba-bfb6-71bbc9be2187@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618624 |
esop. iff you call infraredness, alightness
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web