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

Groups > sci.physics > #602326

Re: why physicists screwed up on not realizing Voltage was the Electric Field

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/23/2016 12:48 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 11:53:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney
> wrote:
>> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Now, take a few minutes and look at Ohm's law
>>
>>> V = current times resistance
>>
>>> Now, realize that current is A*seconds, charge times seconds
>>
>> No, A (amperes) is current. A*seconds is charge.  Current is
>> equivalent to charge/second.
>>
>
> Good that one of the two physics failures gets involved, because when
> one gets involved, I can explain the physics better.
>
> It so happens that Halliday & Resnick, my source for units, in their
> PHYSICS, Extended Version (yellow cover with green waves) 1986, page
> A21 uses the Electric Current symbol A, amperes.
>
> H&R do not use "i" but use A

they are both use for current, I, i typically, and A is the amount or 
magnitude, or mA, or ma, or......

>
> And further down H&R calls V for voltage as that of kg*m^2/A*s^3
>
> Quantity of Electricity, charge, Coulomb = C = A*s

which is not current......



>
>> Ohm's Law is Voltage is current times resistance, V=I*R (I is
>> standard notation for current in amperes A)
>>
>> How the hell can you claim to be "fixing" Maxwell's equations if
>> you don't even know what current or charge are?
>>
>
> So that a physics failure has a mind of concrete and when he sees A,
> the failure could never envision it being current as ampere. A
> failure of physics thinks current can only be "i" because that is
> what he learned in a textbook with his concrete mind.

nope, it depends upon context.  in circuit design problems, I is 
current, A is amps.  if you use SPICE or other simulators, i means 
current, usally  with a subcase number per element. current i1 in 
resistor 1....

But i also is (-1)^0.5, and currents can be complex numbers, 1+i1, and 
the elements can have have complex impeadance. So j is also used as 
(-1)^0.5


>
>>> In Electricity/Magnetism we can easily and justifiably
>>> intermingle time with distance, almost in every situation.
>>
>>> So now, V= A*s*(resistance)
>>
>>> then, V/s = A*R
>>
>>> now, intermingling seconds with meters we finally have
>>
>>> V/m = A*R
>>
>> All based on a false assumption so all that is wrong.
>>
>
> All of mine above is correct if you realize that current is measured
> in Ampere which is A = dq/dt across a x*x cross section.

    dq/dt is rate of charge per unit time or coulmbs per second which is 
measured in Amperes, which disagrees with your definition of current is 
ampere-seconds

and it is still all wrong as you are trying to substitute meters for 
seconds.  In Physics the units must always check, yours do not.


>
> So the definition of current embodies several distance length in
> meters and several time parameters in seconds. Far over the head of a
> physics failure.

definition of current is

I = current = coulomb/second = ampere-second/second = ampere

and has nothing to do with distance.

>
> What I am saying is that when we look at an equation of V=
> current*resistance, that the current term has so many parameters of
> distance length already built into it. And that V*s or V/m are the
> same as V itself.

sigh,  still confused,
but remember the Physics rule,

         Units Must Match (UMM)

V is not V*s, V*s is not V/m, V/m is not V

the math shows you directly that s or m is needed, and you are dealing 
with different units.

V*s in a 50 ohm system is Energy

V/m for Earth is about 150 Volts per meter near the surface,

(you can not measure it with your meter as the input impeadance is not 
high enough, a specialized meter is needed, or you can wire up a neon 
bulb, one side to earth the other side to a wire that goes about 30 feet 
up, you will see it flash at night, also remember Ben Franklin had a 
wire into the air with pith ball that would ring a bell  in his house in 
the 1700s, when the Electric field of the earth got high enough, you can 
do that too)

if you continue to ignore the math,  it leads into strange conjectures



>
> The proof that no electric field exists, is experiments. And the
> World has not one single lousy experiment that shows an Electric
> field independent of Voltage.

silly rabbit, E-field is measured in Voltage and direction (vector) 
dependent upon location.

all "fields" have a magnitude and a direction (vector)

Is there a Current Field ?  Yes.

take a copper wire with high frequency current, there is magnitude and 
direction dependent upon location in the wire.



> Not one louse experiment where you can
> graph electric field on the x-axis and Voltage on the y-axis that is
> not the function Voltage = Electric Field.

I  don't think you know what a "field" is.

think of a 3 dimentional array of points, where each point has a value 
and a direction, a little arrow, similar to the 2 dimentional weather 
map with wind shown by a magnitude 20mph and an arrow, which way it is 
going.

>
> And the reason no-one saw this before is that they were too screwed
> up in mind with V/m and V alone, not realizing that there are so many
> distance length values that goes into forming the current, such as
> the x*x cross section that H&R talk about in their Physics textbook.

current is not defined in terms of distance.

perhaps your book means a "surface" instead of x*x cross section, or the 
amount of charge per second going through a surface, that is valid and 
required.

a wire has a fixed cross section, which leads to problems if you define 
current on a certian size wire.

So instead they define current as going past a surface or past a 
point(if one dimentional current)


and V/m is not V.   units do not match.

if you measure a E-Field, you normalize it to one meter, like you 
measure 2000 Volts across 10 meters, that is 200 V/m.
if you say it is 2000 volts you would be wrong.

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

Thread

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

csiph-web