"socratus"

1) What does the electron do in Maxwell's theory?
Maxwell's equations have no relation to the movement of the
electron.
They describe the distribution of electromagnetic waves
but not the movement of a particle such as an electron.
In Maxwell's theory, the charge - electron is considered local,
as though the particle is "at rest".
This means that it particle does not move rectilinearly,
but rotates around his diameter (has the form of a sphere).
The rotation of the electron creates electrical waves.
* * *

It is very difficult to find experimental data about movement of the
electrons. It is obvious that in wire is the gradient of electrons density.
And what about the electron beam in vacuum. There is also the gradient?. Has
the vacuum resistance for moving electrons or it is a superconductor?. I am
thinking about electron beams far from the gun in vacuum where no fields. If
such beams are two, they attract like wires?
S*

On Mar 24, 6:17*pm, wrote:
On Mar 24, 12:09*am, maxwell wrote:



On Mar 23, 6:21*pm, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:

I read it cover to cover. Newton published -Princiipia- using
traditional geometric language because his calculus methods were
relatively unknown to his target audience. He invented calculus to talk
about motion. Calculus is the language of motion. He could not have
formulated his physics without calculus.

It turns out the later developments of classical mechanics required the
least action principle and the calculus of variations to be stated. See
the works of Jacobi, Lagrange and Hamilton.

Bob Kolker

Wrong again, Bob. *Calculus was not 'relatively' unknown by Newton's
contemporaries - it was totally unknown, since Newton wished to keep
his 'secret weopon' to himself. *

As usual with most of your writings, you are sadly misinformed.

Leibnitz independently developed many ideas of calculus as early as
1674, and used well-developed methods of calculus, expressed in his
own, superior notation, in correspondence with other mathematicians
starting around 1677.

Newton's Principia Mathematica was published in 1687.

Jerry
Sorry to disappoint you, Jerry. But one of my sources ("Greatest
Feuds in Science" H. Hellman) reports on the 'clash of titans' as
follows.
Newton had developed the fundamental theorem of the calculus by 1665 &
his fluxions by 1666. In 1676 Leibniz visited London & met Collins who
showed him (without permission) Newton's unpublished papers one
evening ("Never at Rest" R. Westfall pp. 260-267). Leibniz soon after
received two letters from Newton. Newton began his main work on the
Principia around 1684 when Leibniz first started to publish his papers
on the calculus, without any mention of Newton. Newton finally
relented, wrote a private paper on the calculus in 1691 & published it
in 1704. Apart from the pathetic nationalism & egotism that have
cursed science from 1600, I must agree that Leibniz did a better job
of the math but Newton wins on the physics.

On Mar 27, 2:27*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
It is very difficult to find experimental data about movement of the
electrons. It is obvious that in wire is the gradient of electrons density..
And what about the electron beam in vacuum. There is also the gradient?. Has
the vacuum resistance for moving electrons or it is a superconductor?. I am
thinking about electron beams far from the gun in vacuum where no fields. If
such beams *are two, they attract like wires?
S*

The vacvum loses resistanse at infinity.

The beams may attract by a proxy magnetism at first, but would bound
back as they slowd.

"Autymn D. C."

The vacvum loses resistanse at infinity.

The beams may attract by a proxy magnetism at first, but would bound
back as they slowd.

Are available any "experimental data"?
S*

On Mar 27, 7:53*pm, maxwell wrote:
On Mar 24, 6:17*pm, wrote:

On Mar 24, 12:09*am, maxwell wrote:

On Mar 23, 6:21*pm, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:

I read it cover to cover. Newton published -Princiipia- using
traditional geometric language because his calculus methods were
relatively unknown to his target audience. He invented calculus to talk
about motion. Calculus is the language of motion. He could not have
formulated his physics without calculus.

It turns out the later developments of classical mechanics required the
least action principle and the calculus of variations to be stated. See
the works of Jacobi, Lagrange and Hamilton.

Bob Kolker

Wrong again, Bob. *Calculus was not 'relatively' unknown by Newton's
contemporaries - it was totally unknown, since Newton wished to keep
his 'secret weopon' to himself. *

As usual with most of your writings, you are sadly misinformed.

Leibnitz independently developed many ideas of calculus as early as
1674, and used well-developed methods of calculus, expressed in his
own, superior notation, in correspondence with other mathematicians
starting around 1677.

Newton's Principia Mathematica was published in 1687.

Jerry

Sorry to disappoint you, Jerry. *But one of my sources ("Greatest
Feuds in Science" H. Hellman) reports on the 'clash of titans' as
follows.
Newton had developed the fundamental theorem of the calculus by 1665 &
his fluxions by 1666. In 1676 Leibniz visited London & met Collins who
showed him (without permission) Newton's unpublished papers one
evening ("Never at Rest" R. Westfall pp. 260-267). Leibniz soon after
received two letters from Newton. Newton began his main work on the
Principia around 1684 when Leibniz first started to publish his papers
on the calculus, without any mention of Newton. Newton finally
relented, wrote a private paper on the calculus in 1691 & published it
in 1704. *Apart from the pathetic nationalism & egotism that have
cursed science from 1600, I must agree that Leibniz did a better job
of the math but Newton wins on the physics.

The way that the history is told depends on the nationality of
the historian. English authors make the claim that Leibnitz had
an unauthorized peek at Newton's unpublished work. French
historians deny this. The evidence on this matter, either way, is
entirely hearsay in nature.

THE DEBATED QUESTION OF PRIORITY WAS NOT THE POINT OF MY POST.

In response to Bob's statement that "Newton published -Princiipia-
using traditional geometric language because his calculus methods
were relatively unknown to his target audience," you made the
totally false assertion, "Wrong again, Bob. Calculus was not
'relatively' unknown by Newton's contemporaries - it was totally
unknown, since Newton wished to keep his 'secret weopon' to
himself."

In 1687, the year of publication of Newton's Principia, calculus
was by no means "unknown" among Newton's contemporaries. Leibnitz
had been publishing on the subject for the previous decade.

You were misinformed when you wrote that calculus was totally
unknown by Newton's contemporaries.

Now you are attempting to cover up, misdirecting readers away
from your mistake by focusing on the priority debate.

How pathetic of you.

Jerry

On Mar 29, 5:08*am, Jerry wrote:
On Mar 27, 7:53*pm, maxwell wrote:





On Mar 24, 6:17*pm, wrote:

On Mar 24, 12:09*am, maxwell wrote:

On Mar 23, 6:21*pm, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:

I read it cover to cover. Newton published -Princiipia- using
traditional geometric language because his calculus methods were
relatively unknown to his target audience. He invented calculus to talk
about motion. Calculus is the language of motion. He could not have
formulated his physics without calculus.

It turns out the later developments of classical mechanics required the
least action principle and the calculus of variations to be stated.. See
the works of Jacobi, Lagrange and Hamilton.

Bob Kolker

Wrong again, Bob. *Calculus was not 'relatively' unknown by Newton's
contemporaries - it was totally unknown, since Newton wished to keep
his 'secret weopon' to himself. *

As usual with most of your writings, you are sadly misinformed.

Leibnitz independently developed many ideas of calculus as early as
1674, and used well-developed methods of calculus, expressed in his
own, superior notation, in correspondence with other mathematicians
starting around 1677.

Newton's Principia Mathematica was published in 1687.

Jerry

Sorry to disappoint you, Jerry. *But one of my sources ("Greatest
Feuds in Science" H. Hellman) reports on the 'clash of titans' as
follows.
Newton had developed the fundamental theorem of the calculus by 1665 &
his fluxions by 1666. In 1676 Leibniz visited London & met Collins who
showed him (without permission) Newton's unpublished papers one
evening ("Never at Rest" R. Westfall pp. 260-267). Leibniz soon after
received two letters from Newton. Newton began his main work on the
Principia around 1684 when Leibniz first started to publish his papers
on the calculus, without any mention of Newton. Newton finally
relented, wrote a private paper on the calculus in 1691 & published it
in 1704. *Apart from the pathetic nationalism & egotism that have
cursed science from 1600, I must agree that Leibniz did a better job
of the math but Newton wins on the physics.

The way that the history is told depends on the nationality of
the historian. English authors make the claim that Leibnitz had
an unauthorized peek at Newton's unpublished work. French
historians deny this. The evidence on this matter, either way, is
entirely hearsay in nature.

THE DEBATED QUESTION OF PRIORITY WAS NOT THE POINT OF MY POST.

In response to Bob's statement that "Newton published -Princiipia-
using traditional geometric language because his calculus methods
were relatively unknown to his target audience," you made the
totally false assertion, "Wrong again, Bob. *Calculus was not
'relatively' unknown by Newton's contemporaries - it was totally
unknown, since Newton wished to keep his 'secret weopon' to
himself."

In 1687, the year of publication of Newton's Principia, calculus
was by no means "unknown" among Newton's contemporaries. Leibnitz
had been publishing on the subject for the previous decade.

You were misinformed when you wrote that calculus was totally
unknown by Newton's contemporaries.

Now you are attempting to cover up, misdirecting readers away
from your mistake by focusing on the priority debate.

How pathetic of you.

P.S. You wrote, "In 1676 Leibniz visited London & met Collins who
showed him (without permission) Newton's unpublished papers..."
On the other hand, Leibnitz's earliest documented writings on
calculus (in his private memoirs) were in 1674.

1674 is, by my reckoning, approximately two years before 1676.

If Collins indeed had shown Leibnitz some of Newton's unpublished
work, it was because Leibnitz had surprised Collins by showing
that he was already familiar with calculus concepts.

"Androcles" wrote in message
news

"hanson" wrote in message
news:maiFj.4737$Oj5.4452@trnddc06...
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| k...
| The link again is:
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rbit/Orbit.xls
|
| hanson wrote:
| NOW that your link arrived, double clicking on it worked just fine.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3760e9bcc757513d

Androcles wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/1b962698cba7fb01
Copernicus.exe (which I wrote over 15 years ago) allows
for 10,000,000 points. 100,000,000 points and you need a
faster computer. I'm not planning on increasing the point count
for a spreadsheet.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rnicus/LCV.htm

| hanson wrote:
| ****! Gotta run! Pool pump in the grotto just "exploded"
| Water's all over!... ahahahaha.... lata alligata!....
|
Androcles wrote:
Thanks for your help, it is appreciated. Now go fix the pool pump.
|
hanson wrote:
ahaha... AHAHAHA... your all heart, Andro... Kelperian orbits
first!... ahahaha... --- But no, I didn't fix the pump. I couldn't bring
my heart to do it when I saw the "little twits" having the time of
their young lives having great fun under their new "waterfall"...
So, I checked whether there were any el. shock dangers and
there were not. A faulty safety valve had burst and created
a huge "fountain"... ahahaha... So, I let'em play under it for an
hour until they got bored. -- We celebrated Easter here, in
Raratonga, with the tribe and staffs united. After few days they
all left, back to their own lairs and salt mines or sugar loafs.
That's when the crews will come for clean up and do repairs
and maintenance.

Anyway, now we can gp back to your Keplerian Orbit plots ,
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.xls ... [1].
for which you say to have no plans to "increase the point count".
But listen man, if I were as interested as you are in searching
for new ways to look at things I'd give that some more attention.
I thought that YOU were after a novel way for you to see & explain
gravitational n-body interactions, in an analog fashion like you
did for the light intensity/freq. curves in your
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LCV.htm

A refinement in [1] by/with tilting the view angle onto the ellipses
until they become perfect circles ought to give you the loci of the
gravitational zero/balance-points (like L3/L4 etc), those positions
in 3D space which may be used for to find solutions for the old
3-body/n-body problem. -- Go for it if it strikes your fancy.
Good luck and take care, Andro,
hanson

"hanson" wrote in message
news:5EvHj.1380$p97.1094@trnddc03...
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| news |
| "hanson" wrote in message
| news:maiFj.4737$Oj5.4452@trnddc06...
| | "Androcles" wrote in message
| | k...
| | The link again is:
| | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rbit/Orbit.xls
| |
| | hanson wrote:
| | NOW that your link arrived, double clicking on it worked just fine.
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3760e9bcc757513d
|
| Androcles wrote:
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/1b962698cba7fb01
| Copernicus.exe (which I wrote over 15 years ago) allows
| for 10,000,000 points. 100,000,000 points and you need a
| faster computer. I'm not planning on increasing the point count
| for a spreadsheet.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rnicus/LCV.htm
|
| | hanson wrote:
| | ****! Gotta run! Pool pump in the grotto just "exploded"
| | Water's all over!... ahahahaha.... lata alligata!....
| |
| Androcles wrote:
| Thanks for your help, it is appreciated. Now go fix the pool pump.
| |
| hanson wrote:
| ahaha... AHAHAHA... your all heart, Andro... Kelperian orbits
| first!... ahahaha... --- But no, I didn't fix the pump. I couldn't bring
| my heart to do it when I saw the "little twits" having the time of
| their young lives having great fun under their new "waterfall"...
| So, I checked whether there were any el. shock dangers and
| there were not. A faulty safety valve had burst and created
| a huge "fountain"... ahahaha... So, I let'em play under it for an
| hour until they got bored. -- We celebrated Easter here, in
| Raratonga, with the tribe and staffs united. After few days they
| all left, back to their own lairs and salt mines or sugar loafs.
| That's when the crews will come for clean up and do repairs
| and maintenance.
|

Sounds like the "faulty" safety valve was doing its job. :-)

| Anyway, now we can gp back to your Keplerian Orbit plots ,
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.xls ... [1].
| for which you say to have no plans to "increase the point count".
| But listen man, if I were as interested as you are in searching
| for new ways to look at things I'd give that some more attention.

I shoved it out to a nice round 100, improved the plot, added the centre and
the
focus. Also you can see the data in columns J and K.
If you know how to use Excel you can unhide the columns, but I fail to
see how a thousand entries in a column would be useful. It can be done
but it would make the program 10 times larger.


| I thought that YOU were after a novel way for you to see & explain
| gravitational n-body interactions, in an analog fashion like you
| did for the light intensity/freq. curves in your
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LCV.htm
|
| A refinement in [1] by/with tilting the view angle onto the ellipses
| until they become perfect circles ought to give you the loci of the
| gravitational zero/balance-points (like L3/L4 etc), those positions
| in 3D space which may be used for to find solutions for the old
| 3-body/n-body problem. -- Go for it if it strikes your fancy.
| Good luck and take care, Andro,
| hanson

That would be outside the purview of Kepler's equal areas in equal
times law.
Key here is that because the time between points is always
the same, the distance between points is a measure of velocity.
Because the velocity of light HAS to be source dependent (despite
the crank Einstein's claims to the contrary) and Algol CANNOT be
an eclipsing binary (despite the 18-year-old Goodricke's theory)
(see http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lgol/Algol.htm )
the light curve of Algol is generated by Copernicus.exe by a star
in orbit with a large body, in close agreement with

"HD 189733 may not seem to be remarkable, but it is known to have at least
one hot, jupiter-sized planet orbiting very close, with an impressively
short period of 2.2 days.
(see http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080321.html )

Thus the extent to which Einstein's crackpottery has led the world
astray is truly astronomical.

"Androcles" wrote in message
. uk...
"hanson" wrote in message
news:5EvHj.1380$p97.1094@trnddc03...
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| news |
| "hanson" wrote in message
| news:maiFj.4737$Oj5.4452@trnddc06...
| | "Androcles" wrote in message
| | k...
| | The link again is:
| | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rbit/Orbit.xls
| |
| | hanson wrote:
| | NOW that your link arrived, double clicking on it worked just fine.
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3760e9bcc757513d
|
| Androcles wrote:
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/1b962698cba7fb01
| Copernicus.exe (which I wrote over 15 years ago) allows
| for 10,000,000 points. 100,000,000 points and you need a
| faster computer. I'm not planning on increasing the point count
| for a spreadsheet.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rnicus/LCV.htm
|
| | hanson wrote:
| | ****! Gotta run! Pool pump in the grotto just "exploded"
| | Water's all over!... ahahahaha.... lata alligata!....
| |
| Androcles wrote:
| Thanks for your help, it is appreciated. Now go fix the pool pump.
| |
| hanson wrote:
| ahaha... AHAHAHA... your all heart, Andro... Kelperian orbits
| first!... ahahaha... --- But no, I didn't fix the pump. I couldn't
bring
| my heart to do it when I saw the "little twits" having the time of
| their young lives having great fun under their new "waterfall"...
| So, I checked whether there were any el. shock dangers and
| there were not. A faulty safety valve had burst and created
| a huge "fountain"... ahahaha... So, I let'em play under it for an
| hour until they got bored. -- We celebrated Easter here, in
| Raratonga, with the tribe and staffs united. After few days they
| all left, back to their own lairs and salt mines or sugar loafs.
| That's when the crews will come for clean up and do repairs
| and maintenance.
|
Androcles wrote:
Sounds like the "faulty" safety valve was doing its job. :-)

hanson wrote:
| Anyway, now we can gp back to your Keplerian Orbit plots ,
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.xls ... [1].
| for which you say to have no plans to "increase the point count".
| But listen man, if I were as interested as you are in searching
| for new ways to look at things I'd give that some more attention.

Androcles wrote:
I shoved it out to a nice round 100, improved the plot, added
the centre and the focus.
Also you can see the data in columns J and K.
If you know how to use Excel you can unhide the columns, but I fail to
see how a thousand entries in a column would be useful. It can be done
but it would make the program 10 times larger.

hanson wrote"
| I thought that YOU were after a novel way for you to see & explain
| gravitational n-body interactions, in an analog fashion like you
| did for the light intensity/freq. curves in your
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LCV.htm
|
| A refinement in [1] by/with tilting the view angle onto the ellipses
| until they become perfect circles ought to give you the loci of the
| gravitational zero/balance-points (like L3/L4 etc), those positions
| in 3D space which may be used for to find solutions for the old
| 3-body/n-body problem. -- Go for it if it strikes your fancy.
| Good luck and take care, Andro,
| hanson

Androc les wrote:
That would be outside the purview of Kepler's equal areas in equal
times law.
Key here is that because the time between points is always
the same, the distance between points is a measure of velocity.
Because the velocity of light HAS to be source dependent (despite
the crank Einstein's claims to the contrary) and Algol CANNOT be
an eclipsing binary (despite the 18-year-old Goodricke's theory)
(see http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lgol/Algol.htm )
the light curve of Algol is generated by Copernicus.exe by a star
in orbit with a large body, in close agreement with

"HD 189733 may not seem to be remarkable, but it is known to have at least
one hot, jupiter-sized planet orbiting very close, with an impressively
short period of 2.2 days.
(see http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080321.html )

Thus the extent to which Einstein's crackpottery has led the world
astray is truly astronomical.

hanson wrote:
"Androcles" wrote
Why a circular orbit doesn't help with Lagrange:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rbit/Orbit.htm

hanson wrote:
Yo, Andro, that is a wonderful depiction and very elegant...
I reposted your post here as a follow-up to these 2 posts here in
"Andro's Keplerian orbit plot & the n-body problem
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/196fa175940684da
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ec0d0a7211db0d96
Say, Andor, have you tried to offer your Website contents to some
Uni for pedagogic purposes?. You should. You really should.
Thanks and take care man,
hanson

On Mar 29, 1:50*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"Autymn D. C."
The vacvum loses resistanse at infinity.
The beams may attract by a proxy magnetism at first, but would bound

back as they slowd.

Are available any "experimental data"?

Are maths and cinematics experimental? The AC reactive time-constant
for finite C and R should be a good leed.