Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #480522
| Subject | Re:MACROSCOPIC THEORY. |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| References | (15 earlier) <BeGdnVpd2bm4O4LBnZ2dnUU7_8xg4p2d@giganews.com> <W68UD.54340$jz5.3833@fx41.am4> <pvr538$fp8$2@pcls7.std.com> <8Q9UD.128158$nd2.44517@fx22.am4> <pvs1cn$6bj$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
| Message-ID | <VaIUD.39279$8Q1.33658@fx14.am4> (permalink) |
| Organization | virginmedia.com |
| Date | 2018-12-26 09:52 +0000 |
MACROSCOPIC THEORY.
MAXWELL'S ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY is a MACROSCOPIC theory, which means
that it treats everything, be it solid,liquid,or gas, as CONTINUOUS.
There are no atoms in "MACROSCOPIC" theory.One could say that
"NO ATOMS" is what "MACROSCOPIC" means.
On 25/12/2018 01:33, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
>> The "density" at every point throughout ALL SPACE,
>> will have a FINITE,non zero ,value,
>
> Wrong. Only as a simplification can this be done, when the simplification
> is valid.
>
>> and yet ironically "DENSITY" does not exist at a "POINT".
>
> For very small volumes, the density will be 0 if the small volume does not
> contain an atom, or nonzero if it contains an atom.
You miss the "POINT" Mr. Moroney. The point is that no POINT can
contain even a whole proton let alone a whole atom eh!, and i repeat
"DENSITY" does not exist at a "POINT".
The same could also be said of other macroscopic parameters like
pressure, temperature, and even electric and magnetic field, because
in Maxwell's theory, as written by Maxwell, these latter parameters
do not vary according to the proximity of the electrons of an atom.
This is no doubt why Maxwell's theory does indeed break down at the
atomic level.
Nevertheless Maxwell's theory works fine at the MACROSCOPIC LEVEL,
and you should note, Mr.Moroney, that there ain't nothing more
macroscopic than the intergalactic medium eh!
keith stein
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 03:18 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-22 20:12 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-23 09:13 -0600
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 16:50 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-24 17:30 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 18:46 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-25 01:33 +0000
Re:MACROSCOPIC THEORY. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 09:52 +0000
Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-26 09:33 -0600
Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY. Edko Czka <ziue@wuasrvi.kw> - 2018-12-26 17:19 +0000
Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-26 18:10 +0000
Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY. yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-26 13:10 -0800
Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY. maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-26 13:21 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-24 18:26 -0600
csiph-web