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

Groups > sci.physics > #597624

Re: people that do not understand that if you have a Magnetic Field which is always a vector, that multiples thereof are also vectors

Show all headers | View raw

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

>On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 10:52:42 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>> >All of the above are multiples of the vector space Magnetic Field, hence,
>> >all are vectors.

>> No, whether a derived unit is a vector or a scalar depends on
>> how it is derived. If the dot product is taken between two
>> vectors, you get a scalar.  The cross product of two vectors
>> is another vector.  For example, voltage is the dot product
>> of the distance vector and the electric field vector, thus it
>> is a scalar.  A (3D) vector has a direction, while a scalar is
>> just a value.
>>=20
>> >You got bamboozled by Old Physics
>>=20
>> >AP

>The Magnetic Field is always a vector, regardless of any operation placed
>upon it. That is the meaning of dipole. Something like a parrot of
>understanding cannot grasp for themselves until told. Dipole means
>Magnetism requires a Field to mediate the two poles, and hence a vector
>is involved.

The magnetic field is a vector, yes, but not for the reasons you give.
I suspect you really don't understand what a vector is, or what the dot
products and cross products of vectors are.

>And no matter what operations you place on magnetism you never get rid of
>the vector field unless you get rid of the magnetism itself.

For the cross product, yes, not the dot product.  Again, do you even know
what they are?

>You still cling to the stupidity of a Electric Field which would be in your
> imagination (m/s) times kg /A*s^2. Unable to fathom that your electric-field
>is just a Magnetic Field times speed. A vector times speed.

You can't just "times" two vectors. You can take the dot product, or the cross
product, or create a 2d matrix/tensor from them.

The electric field is a vector, the electric potential is a scalar.
They are different. Electrodynamics requires and uses both.

>All these terms are vectors because they all are multiples of the Magnetic
>Field Vector

Some are scalars, some vectors, depending on how they are derived.
The base units are an oversimplification, they don't reveal how the
unit was derived.  In the list of base units, both dot products
and cross products are represented by multiplication, so information
is lost.  For example, torque and energy both have the same units,
(kg*m^2/s^2) and both can be derived from force and distance, but one
is a vector and the other a scalar. And they are very different.

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 15:07 -0700
  How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 17:25 -0700
  Re: How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-18 20:32 -0500
    Magnetic Field in most-everything Re: How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 19:38 -0700
      Re: Magnetic Field in most-everything Re: How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 15:51 +0000
        people that do not understand that if you have a Magnetic Field which is always a vector, that multiples thereof are also vectors Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 13:07 -0700
          Re: people that do not understand that if you have a Magnetic Field which is always a vector, that multiples thereof are also vectors Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-19 16:15 -0500
            Re: people that do not understand that if you have a Magnetic Field which is always a vector, that multiples thereof are also vectors Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 14:29 -0700
              Re: people that do not understand that if you have a Magnetic Field which is always a vector, that multiples thereof are also vectors Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-19 19:51 -0500
                Faraday law looks like (V*R^-1)' = A*R + B + constant; Ampere law looks like (A*R)' = B + V*A^-1 + constant Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 19:41 -0700
                Re: Faraday law looks like (V*R^-1)' = A*R + B + constant; Ampere law looks like (A*R)' = B + V*A^-1 + constant Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-20 09:55 -0500
                Re: Faraday law looks like (V*R^-1)' = A*R + B + constant; Ampere law looks like (A*R)' = B + V*A^-1 + constant "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-09-20 09:03 -0700
          Re: people that do not understand that if you have a Magnetic Field which is always a vector, that multiples thereof are also vectors moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 22:26 +0000
            This moron thought a magnetic field is only a vector dependent on how it was derived Re: people that do not understand Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 19:23 -0700
              Re: This moron thought a magnetic field is only a vector dependent on how it was derived Re: people that do not understand Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-19 21:41 -0500
                (A*R)' = A'*R  +  R'*A and derivative (V*R^-1)' = V'*R^-1  +  V*(R^-1)' Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 22:12 -0700
                derivative of magnetic field Re: (A*R)' = A'*R  +  R'*A and derivative (V*R^-1)' = V'*R^-1  +  V*(R^-1)' Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 23:45 -0700
                Re: (A*R)' = A'*R + R'*A and derivative (V*R^-1)' = V'*R^-1 + V*(R^-1)' Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-20 10:09 -0500
              Re: This moron thought a magnetic field is only a vector dependent on how it was derived Re: people that do not understand moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 04:08 +0000
                Re: This moron thought a magnetic field is only a vector dependent on how it was derived Re: people that do not understand Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-20 10:28 -0500
                Re: This moron thought a magnetic field is only a vector dependent on how it was derived Re: people that do not understand moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 16:40 +0000
    Someone in Old Physics trying to flesh out Faraday's law Re: How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 20:03 -0700
      Re: Someone in Old Physics trying to flesh out Faraday's law Re: How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-18 22:31 -0500
        Old Physics Faraday law math does not match the experiment Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 20:51 -0700
          math that matches is the Product Rule in Differentiation that gives a Lenz law inside of Faraday law Re: Old Physics Faraday law math does not match the experiment Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 02:47 -0700
    trying to teach a brainwashed that velocity on Magnetic Field is just another Magnetic Field Re: How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 20:20 -0700

csiph-web