On Apr 22, 4:55*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:23:44 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Apr 21, 5:54*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:52:56 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Apr 20, 5:02*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

Its predictions will be the same as those already known.
The only way to investigate Watter is to start with the known maths and
construct a model that will produce it.

That's how physics works.

Uh, no, that is not how physics works. A new model gets developed into
*new math* and in particular makes predictions that are *not* made by
theories to date. It is in fact the distinctive predictions of the new
model that make it testable against experiment -- since it makes
claims that are quantitatively *different* than what current models
make, then the measurement of that quantity thereby tells you whether
the new model is right and the current models necessarily wrong, or
vice versa.

THAT is how physics works.

That's one way...a model is developed from observations and then tested with
maths.....but it is not applicable in this instance. The maths are already
known but the model is not.
Any physical model that IS conceived will be tested against the known maths..

How would you know. You're just a ****ing engineer. You merely apply models and
maths already developed by us physicists.

:)
It's so cute the way you can guess wrong and lie in the same thought.


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Apr 22, 1:47 pm, "Timo A. Nieminen"
....

Well, to know what happens in these devices,
you'd better forget about
electrons being "little balls".

Yeah "Mie's" et al worked the sphere ball
to death early last century.

Timo, I still see echo's of that as late as 1976
in P.G.Bergmanns "Intro to..." Eq.(13.34), that
implies "self energization of a single charge",
which is a replay of Mie's theory, applied to
GR, and Bergmann is very good.

That is what bugged me decades ago, is that
Bergmann used the self energization of a
single charge within a metric when that darn
theory was discredited decades before that.

I sympathize with some students skepticism
when contradictions like that come up.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

On Apr 22, 4:46*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:28:00 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:04*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:47:30 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Apr 21, 5:37*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
Where the distinction between the mathematics of the link and the
physics of the link is WHAT, exactly? This is where I challenged Jan
to be a bit more complete, and I'd be entertained by your spluttering
an attempt as well.

We don't know the physics, Draper. That is what we are trying to determine.

So you admit you don't know the difference between the mathematics of
the link and the physics of the link. All you care to project is that
there is something missing and leaving you unsatisfied, but you can't
say what.

That's right Draper. You are getting the picture at last.

Oh, I'm not at all surprised that you don't know the difference
between the mathematics of the link and the physics of the link.


All we know is that it must exist.

WHAT must exist? If you don't know what it is, please explain how
you're going to recognize the physics when you stumble upon it.

Draper, a PHYSICAL explanation of the mathematics of fields MUST EXIST.

But you can't distinguish a physical explanation from a mathematical
explanation. You just admitted that. So saying it more loudly doesn't
get you any closer, does it?


That's what Aristotle said about thunder and lightning, remember.....or was if
Confuscious?

Well, you're certainly confusedious. Are you using Aristotle as your

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Apr 22, 4:53*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 05:41:02 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Apr 22, 4:11*am, Jan Panteltje wrote

You are confusing some issues I think.
Those are 2 seperate things, electrons are the 'thing' and field is the mathematical
representation of the forces you expect.

Not the same animal by a long shot.

Why are you
happy with "electron" as "mechanism" but not "field"? (Perhaps a good time
to actually try to define what you mean by "mechanism"?)

Well, put it very simply: It is easier to think in little balls moving
around, knowing their charge, their preferences (such as to repel each other),
their mass, etc.
It allows you to visualise.
AND THEY REALLY EXISTS!

Well, this is where I think there is room for some contention.
Electrons are NOT little balls imbued with charge and mass. They don't
behave consistently like little balls, they don't bear all the
properties of little balls, and a little ball description does not
accommodate what they do.

Nonsense draper. The charged ball idea is pretty useful in most applications.

Don't think so. You might want to see if the little charged ball idea
is at all useful for electron diffraction, for example.

I suppose it depends on what you consider "most applications". If you
are only interested in a few applications and the little charged ball
works fine for those applications you care about, that's fine. Most
physicists have moved beyond that.


So despite a little ball image being easy to visualize, it is known to
be insufficient and inaccurate.

This is why I asked you to be careful in distinguishing the reality of
a field from the reality of an electron.

that's what this thread is all about.

What physical model fits the infinite 'field' surrounding a 'charged little
ball'?

And how do you distinguish a physical model from a mathematical model?
You'll recall that's what I asked. No fair replying, "Well, it's....
it's.... PHYSICAL! You know!"


Sure you cannot grasp the electron tube, or the CRT you mentioned, without electrons
flying around.
Neither semiconductors, 'holes' too.
You 'could' start with math, try with math only, but it would be a incomprehensible mess.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

I would like to attract your attention to something called 'isomap'. I just
have found that and I allready love it. Try to google for that. I guess you
find out yourself what I mean. Or maybe you look at the the thread 'simple
theory' on
sci.physics

, where I collected some of my
ideas.

Thomas Heger

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:47:57 +1000) it happened "Timo A.
Nieminen" wrote in
:

You are confusing some issues I think.
Those are 2 seperate things, electrons are the 'thing' and field is the mathematical
representation of the forces you expect.

Not the same animal by a long shot.

"Electron" is what we _call_ the thing. We have a mathematical model of
how they behave. We have no mechanism of why they behave that way.

And that, and the question of what makes up a 'field', electrostatic
field in this case, is exactly what the OP would like to know, and me too.


Well, put it very simply: It is easier to think in little balls moving
around, knowing their charge, their preferences (such as to repel each other),
their mass, etc.
It allows you to visualise.
AND THEY REALLY EXISTS!

Sure, they exist. OK, and you like to visualise them as little balls. But
surely "mechanism" means more than "easily visualised"! Where is the
"mechanism"?

Like I said: There is a limit to the depth (of our knowledge), and especially
_my_ knowledge, you have to stop somewhere, but it is needed to ask the question
'how' nevertheless.
The level of little balls (with charge of course) is in many cases sufficient
to 'visualise' or understand what is happening (like in a vacuum tube, or capacitor, etc).

Alas, they _don't_ behave like little balls. Sure, electrons exist. But
they're not little balls.

Shoot one in the CRT, see it hit, looks so much like 'ball'istics to me :-)


Visualising photons as little balls can also be
very misleading at times.

Not only misleading, but plainly wrong, photon is simply a mathematical construct,
EM is waves.


It sounds like, for you, "mechanism" means an easily visualised picture.

As in the EM case waves, everybody works with waves, this has been discussed here.


Easily visualised pictures are nice, but you need to be careful with them
when, fundamentally, they're wrong.

Agreed.


Well, to know what happens in these devices, you'd better forget about
electrons being "little balls".

Nope, works just fine.


By how much do the _electromagnets_ increase the speed of the particles?

That depends on the timing, the field strength.
Tick tick tick, like a clock, wrong timing and they slow down.

By how much can a magnetic field change the speed of a charged particle?

Never more then accelerating it to close to c.

As to the OP's question, like I said, there is a limit to how deep our knowledge goes.
I asked several times 'what is charge', and I would like to know the answer.
Preferably is a way I can visualise.

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:09:16 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:

On Apr 22, 4:46*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:28:00 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:04*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

So you admit you don't know the difference between the mathematics of
the link and the physics of the link. All you care to project is that
there is something missing and leaving you unsatisfied, but you can't
say what.

That's right Draper. You are getting the picture at last.

Oh, I'm not at all surprised that you don't know the difference
between the mathematics of the link and the physics of the link.


All we know is that it must exist.

WHAT must exist? If you don't know what it is, please explain how
you're going to recognize the physics when you stumble upon it.

Draper, a PHYSICAL explanation of the mathematics of fields MUST EXIST.

But you can't distinguish a physical explanation from a mathematical
explanation. You just admitted that. So saying it more loudly doesn't
get you any closer, does it?

You are just fiddling with words now, Draper.
Stop wasting my valuable time.




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:13:22 GMT, Jan Panteltje
wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:47:57 +1000) it happened "Timo A.
Nieminen" wrote in
:



Alas, they _don't_ behave like little balls. Sure, electrons exist. But
they're not little balls.

Shoot one in the CRT, see it hit, looks so much like 'ball'istics to me :-)


Visualising photons as little balls can also be
very misleading at times.

Not only misleading, but plainly wrong, photon is simply a mathematical construct,
EM is waves.


It sounds like, for you, "mechanism" means an easily visualised picture.

As in the EM case waves, everybody works with waves, this has been discussed here.

....and you were doing so well.....

EM consists of 'photons', which are lumps of 'stuff' that is intrinsically
oscillating. They behave ballistically in empty space.
Radio waves are based on variations in photon density.

Maybe electrons are also 'balls of similar stuff' spinning around vigorously.

Easily visualised pictures are nice, but you need to be careful with them
when, fundamentally, they're wrong.

Agreed.


Well, to know what happens in these devices, you'd better forget about
electrons being "little balls".

Nope, works just fine.


By how much do the _electromagnets_ increase the speed of the particles?

That depends on the timing, the field strength.
Tick tick tick, like a clock, wrong timing and they slow down.

By how much can a magnetic field change the speed of a charged particle?

Never more then accelerating it to close to c.

As to the OP's question, like I said, there is a limit to how deep our knowledge goes.
I asked several times 'what is charge', and I would like to know the answer.
Preferably is a way I can visualise.

The most interesting revelation from this whole thread is that supporters of
relativity generally cannot even understand the question.
It is becoming more and more clear that they possess a lower IQ than the
average individual.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:13:22 GMT, Jan Panteltje

wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:47:57 +1000) it happened "Timo A.
Nieminen" wrote in
:



Alas, they _don't_ behave like little balls. Sure, electrons exist. But
they're not little balls.

Shoot one in the CRT, see it hit, looks so much like 'ball'istics to me
:-)


Visualising photons as little balls can also be
very misleading at times.

Not only misleading, but plainly wrong, photon is simply a mathematical
construct,
EM is waves.


It sounds like, for you, "mechanism" means an easily visualised picture.

As in the EM case waves, everybody works with waves, this has been
discussed here.

...and you were doing so well.....

EM consists of 'photons', which are lumps of 'stuff' that is intrinsically
oscillating. They behave ballistically in empty space.
Radio waves are based on variations in photon density.

Maybe electrons are also 'balls of similar stuff' spinning around
vigorously.


And Maybe they are not...



Easily visualised pictures are nice, but you need to be careful with
them
when, fundamentally, they're wrong.

Agreed.


Well, to know what happens in these devices, you'd better forget about
electrons being "little balls".

Nope, works just fine.


By how much do the _electromagnets_ increase the speed of the
particles?

That depends on the timing, the field strength.
Tick tick tick, like a clock, wrong timing and they slow down.

By how much can a magnetic field change the speed of a charged particle?

Never more then accelerating it to close to c.

As to the OP's question, like I said, there is a limit to how deep our
knowledge goes.
I asked several times 'what is charge', and I would like to know the
answer.
Preferably is a way I can visualise.

The most interesting revelation from this whole thread is that supporters
of
relativity generally cannot even understand the question.
It is becoming more and more clear that they possess a lower IQ than the
average individual.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....


--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:14:28 GMT) it happened HW@....(Dr. Henri
Wilson) wrote in :

It sounds like, for you, "mechanism" means an easily visualised picture.

As in the EM case waves, everybody works with waves, this has been discussed here.

...and you were doing so well.....

This has been discussed, go to any optics related group, all waves.


EM consists of 'photons', which are lumps of 'stuff' that is intrinsically
oscillating.

If EM radiation is generated by an electron changing orbit in an atom,
then the amount of enery is E = h.c / wavelength, where h is Planck's constant.
And, depending on that electron orbit and atom, a specific frequency
(energy) is emitted.
This is a mathematical construct.
But what if the electron is simply moved by some remote field (electrostatic
or magnetic), can it not have any energy?
So what does that leave of 'light comes in photons'? Nothing.


The most interesting revelation from this whole thread is that supporters of
relativity generally cannot even understand the question.
It is becoming more and more clear that they possess a lower IQ than the
average individual.

I dunno, the education system, as we know it, crams ideas into the kids heads.
Neural paths are formed at young age, and then they are stuck with it.
The education system does NOT support analysis, or finding out things for
yourself.
So once relativity was crammed into a generation, it sort
of preserves it self, then is transferred to the next generation.
It is the difference between understanding and parroting.
They do not really have a low IQ, just their neural wiring is wrong for
the purpose of understanding.