"Bilge" wrote in message
...
Harold Ensle:

"Bilge" wrote in message
e-al.net...
V.K.Tamhane:

Taking into consideration that the currents are vectors,

Currents are _NOT_ vectors. Currents are _scalars_. Current
_densities_
are vectors and a current is the surface integral of J,

I = \integral J . dS Note the scalar product.

Whoooo.....this is one of those basic physics errors that worry me.
Current is by definition a vector since it has a direction. (Is the
current going East...west...north..south....up....down...etc)

Wrong. Current is a scalar. Note that ampere's law reads:

Why do you not confess your mistake? If you did, I would just reply OK.
Since you can't seem to follow my simple argument above, perhaps you
will listen to authority (which seems to be your only ability):

Griffiths states in "Introduction to Electrodynamics" page 202:

"The current at each point is actually a _vector_: ..........."

duh, not that anyone but yourself would be surprised.

curl B = J = \integral (curl B) . dS = \integral J . dS = I

Your equation determines the _magnitude_ of current that passes throught
the surface. And yes, the _magnitude_ of current is a scalar.

Scalars do not have directions.

Yes I know....that is why current is a vector.

Note that the bio-savart law reads:
I dl x r, not dI x r.

magnetic force may change in magnitude but never
in the direction. Therefore under all conditions, eq.1 alone should
have been found true. But it is true only as a special case, that
when
Ib rotates in the y-z plane.
When the direction of Ib is x, the force exerted on Ib is
parallel to Ia. The force is no more 'between' the current elements
and so no more 'due' to the current elements.

It's completely inappropriate to consider the current elements
outside
of the integral sign. Ampere's law does not permit you to do that.

Clearly in the above case, Ib is not responding directly to
Ia;
it is responding to the B field of Ia and this is possible only if B
field is real.
Obviously Ib, too, has a real field and the actual mechanical
fore between the current elements is due to the interaction of these
real fields.

What is your deal with magnetic fields being ``real'' or not
``real''?

I think he means does the magnetic field exist as a real property of
a space instead of merely mathematical book-keeping relating
to the interaction of separate particles.

What he means is his problem and it does appear to be some pet
problem of his.

They are obviously real to the extent that I can measure something I
call a magnetic field. The fact that div B = 0 in maxwell's equations
tells you that there exists no source (or sink) for the magnetic
field.

Again irrelevant.

Harold, if all you are going to is make dumb comments, I'm simply
going to tell you that they're dumb. Of course it's relevant. How
can you have a field which is a field in its own right if there
exists no source of that field?

This is still irrelevant. You are arguing apples and oranges. The
fact that delxB=0 does not necessarily imply that the magnetic field
is not "a field in its own right".

The reason the B-field is considered
to be an artifact of a changing E-field, is because there is
no source for the B-field other than a changing E-field.

This may be the reason for the prevalent attitudes, but it is
not rigorous.

Feel free to change that. Maxwells equations may be rewritten
with complete symmetry between electric and magnetic fields,

You cannot have complete symmetry without a magnetic monopole.

It's not worth repeating this until you get it, since I've posted
it before. Go look in jackson instead of posting uninformed bull****.
You'll find the details to what you snipped just before the section
on monopoles.

So I assume you are beginning to babble here.......

If you could have understood what you snipped, you would
have seen your comment above was the result of your own ignorance.

.....just the contrary actually.


H.Ellis Ensle

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"V.K.Tamhane" wrote in message
m...
Let us first ponder over force acting at a distance. Whenever there
exists such a force between two bodies, the force vector always lies
between them. The bodies, depending on their nature, either attract
or
repel in the direction of the line joining them. Force between two
current elements is a bit complex, because sources are vectors and
so,
justifiably, we can say that, in this case, the force depends not
only
on magnitude but also on the orientation of the sources as well.
Hence
for the magnetic force, we have following Biot-Savart law (neglect
constants),

F=(Ia) dot (Ib)/r^2 .........1.

That is not the Biot Savart law. Current is not a vector.

This seems to be a universal idiocy. Of course current is a vector.
It can have a direction...therefore it is a vector....duh.

Practically, people are usually just interested in the magnitude, since
the direction is confined to the direction of the wire, but even in
practical applications, there could be situations where one would
need to treat it as a vector. (e.g. in a plasma)

[.........]

H.Ellis Ensle

Harold Ensle wrote:
This seems to be a universal idiocy. Of course current is a vector.
It can have a direction...therefore it is a vector....duh.

Current is a *phasor* which exists somewhere in between a vector
and a scalar value. In a single wire, its directions are limited
to a binary existence and it possesses an imaginary phased component
which doesn't exist in our universe. Reality should dictate
the model, not vice versa.

An H-field can exist in any vector direction but a current cannot.
All a current needs is a +/- sign and a magnitude.
--
cheers, Cecil




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Harold Ensle, crackpot and idiot,

"Bilge" wrote in message

Wrong. Current is a scalar. Note that ampere's law reads:

Why do you not confess your mistake?

Because I havent made a mistake. You have.

If you did, I would just reply OK.

And if you didn't post nonsense, you wouldn't have a need to
try and defend it.

Since you can't seem to follow my simple argument above, perhaps you

Your argument is silly and naive. Which parts of the equations
I = \integral J . dS and I = dq/dt, do you not understand? Are
you trying to tell me that charge is also a vector?

will listen to authority (which seems to be your only ability):

You are an idiot. You happen to be the one with that hangup,
only after to listen to an authority, you feel compelled to
disagree. I can derive anything I post from scratch, using
my own arguments. You seem to be stuck misunderstanding passages
in books.

Griffiths states in "Introduction to Electrodynamics" page 202:

"The current at each point is actually a _vector_: ..........."

duh, not that anyone but yourself would be surprised.

Since I have a copy of griffith's and did not find that statement on
that page, I can only guess what you don't comprehend. A ``current
at each point'' is not a current, it's a current density and if
griffiths really said that, he used a very poor choice of words.
Currents are scalars. If you don't understand the meaning of the
`.' in J . dS, look up ``scalar product''.

[...]
Harold, if all you are going to is make dumb comments, I'm simply
going to tell you that they're dumb. Of course it's relevant. How
can you have a field which is a field in its own right if there
exists no source of that field?

This is still irrelevant. You are arguing apples and oranges. The
fact that delxB=0 does not necessarily imply that the magnetic field
is not "a field in its own right".

curl B = J, (in magnetostatics) not zero.

The reason the B-field is considered
to be an artifact of a changing E-field, is because there is
no source for the B-field other than a changing E-field.

This may be the reason for the prevalent attitudes, but it is
not rigorous.

No, but you snipped the argument I made which clarified what I said.

[...]

If you could have understood what you snipped, you would
have seen your comment above was the result of your own ignorance.

....just the contrary actually.

Then why did you not understand it? Again, go look in jackson
right before the section on monopoles.

"Harold Ensle" wrote in message k.net...


Harold sometimes you have to ignore some people. Now that I have
understood his calibre, I will always ignore him. In the last message
he said that when the coil loop is linked with maximum flux induced
emf is maximum. In this he proves that he doesn't even know what a
vector is. He says, out of I.dl, I is a scaler and dl is a vector,
when either I or dl can be assigned a direction. Other follows it. Are
we going to waste our time over this kid and a kid that belongs to a
barking brigade?

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ...
"V.K.Tamhane" wrote in message
m...
Let us first ponder over force acting at a distance. Whenever there
exists such a force between two bodies, the force vector always lies
between them. The bodies, depending on their nature, either attract
or
repel in the direction of the line joining them. Force between two
current elements is a bit complex, because sources are vectors and
so,
justifiably, we can say that, in this case, the force depends not
only
on magnitude but also on the orientation of the sources as well.
Hence
for the magnetic force, we have following Biot-Savart law (neglect
constants),

F=(Ia) dot (Ib)/r^2 .........1.

That is not the Biot Savart law. Current is not a vector.

Where Ia and Ib are two parallel current elements in the y
direction, having a distance vector r in the x direction.
This dot product should have been the final word. It is not!

You are telling me. It is not even the initial word.

Correct equation is given by following Ampere's law. (Also known as
Ampere's Biot-Savart law),

F= (Ia cross r) cross Ib/r^3 ........2.

That is not Ampere's law. Current is not a vector.

How is it that you can't understand simple things. If you don't
like current to be treated as a vector, then treat length of the
conductor as a vector. Do I have to simplify everything?

The rest was just a garbled recital of your own misconceptions, so I
will snip it.

[snip]

What you snip is truth, but of course it is beyond your
comprehension.

Franz

"Bilge" wrote in message
...
Harold Ensle:

"Bilge" wrote in message
e-al.net...
V.K.Tamhane:

Taking into consideration that the currents are vectors,

Currents are _NOT_ vectors. Currents are _scalars_. Current
_densities_
are vectors and a current is the surface integral of J,

I = \integral J . dS Note the scalar product.

Whoooo.....this is one of those basic physics errors that worry me.
Current is by definition a vector since it has a direction. (Is the
current going East...west...north..south....up....down...etc)

Wrong. Current is a scalar. Note that ampere's law reads:

curl B = J = \integral (curl B) . dS = \integral J . dS = I

Your equation determines the _magnitude_ of current that passes throught
the surface. And yes, the _magnitude_ of current is a scalar.

Scalars do not have directions. Note that the bio-savart law reads:
I dl x r, not dI x r.
SNIP

Bilge, indeed for example Alonso&Finn part 2 (Electromagnetism) treats "I"
as only a scalar.

But W.D.Day (Intro to vector analysis for Radio and electronic eng.) treats
"I" as a vector and writes:
F = I x B (he apparently took l=1).

When a current has one single direction as well as a magnitude it can be
presented as a vector.
Maybe a little sloppy, but very handy!

Harald

Someday! Maybe! Some! of YOU will learn the word TENSOR! and hear and
read about the Faraday Tensor and see the Complete Maxwell Equations
in Tensor form! not in the piece meal dot and cross product baby
garbage you are apitin' up here on and on!
Read, Jacksons' "Classical Electrodynamics" for one such great well
know text to get some DECENT knowledge!
for know!
http://www.altelco.net/~lovekgc/brainwash.htm
http://twinoak.altelco.net/~lovekgc/science/science.htm
http://www.altelco.net/~lovekgc/thetruth.jpg
AND if you WANT to know the REAL TRUTH why BUSH is PRESIDENT!
http://www.altelco.net/~lovekgc/bb.jpg
you guys should be political speech writers for Dubya!
peace and LOVE!
HA HA HA!
peace and love again!
(kirk) kirk gregory czuhai
http://heavensense.intranets.com
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/
(V.K.Tamhane) wrote in message om...
Let us first ponder over force acting at a distance. Whenever there
exists such a force between two bodies, the force vector always lies
between them. The bodies, depending on their nature, either attract or
repel in the direction of the line joining them. Force between two
current elements is a bit complex, because sources are vectors and so,
justifiably, we can say that, in this case, the force depends not only
on magnitude but also on the orientation of the sources as well. Hence
for the magnetic force, we have following Biot-Savart law (neglect
constants),

F=(Ia) dot (Ib)/r^2 ?????????1.

Where Ia and Ib are two parallel current elements in the y
direction, having a distance vector r in the x direction.
This dot product should have been the final word. It is not!
Correct equation is given by following Ampere's law. (Also known as
Ampere's Biot-Savart law),

F= (Ia cross r) cross Ib/r^3 ??????..2.

(Ia cross r)/r^3 gives magnetic field intensity B. It is in the
z direction. B is not a force vector, because actual force is in the x
direction. (For this reason B is not called force field, it is called
magnetic induction, whatever that may mean).
If we rotate Ib in the y-z plane, then the direction of the
force remains constant in x, always between the elements, but the
magnitude changes from maximum to zero, as Ib changes direction from y
to z respectively.
If we rotate Ib in the x-y plane, then the magnitude of the
force remains constant at maximum but the direction rotates along with
it. Direction of the force is x, when Ib is in the y direction and it
is y when Ib is in the x direction.

And here lies the problem!

If we consider magnetic field just a mathematical entity, same as
electric field, then we must always be able to look at the actual
sources of the force to explain it, Taking into consideration that the
currents are vectors, magnetic force may change in magnitude but never
in the direction. Therefore under all conditions, eq.1 alone should
have been found true. But it is true only as a special case, that when
Ib rotates in the y-z plane.
When the direction of Ib is x, the force exerted on Ib is
parallel to Ia. The force is no more 'between' the current elements
and so no more 'due' to the current elements.
Clearly in the above case, Ib is not responding directly to Ia;
it is responding to the B field of Ia and this is possible only if B
field is real.
Obviously Ib, too, has a real field and the actual mechanical
fore between the current elements is due to the interaction of these
real fields.
The picture of E vector lines is imaginary, which helps
visualization. Picture of circular B lines is not only not imaginary,
but it represents real physical entity. A third entity, after two
others, mass and charge.

Real: such as mass and charge
Intangible: such as force and energy
Fictitious: such as elctric field
-------------------------------------

This is one article out of a serial. New visitors should go through
all the previous. Dates are posting dates. Articles are posted to 1.
Alt.sci.physics.new-theories 2.Sci.physics 3.sci.physics.electromag
4. sci.physics.relativity


1. Limitation of Divergence theorem 8-3-04 1,2,3,4
2. Electron positron annihilation 12-3-04 1,2,3,4
3. Changing magnetic field does
not produce electric field 17-3-04 1,2,3,4
4. Barnett's experiment 22-3-04 1,2,3,4
5. Relativity and electrodynamics 25-3-04 1,2,3,4
6. Relativity of two moving charges 2-4-04 1,2,3,4
7. Relativity of steady charge and current 11-4-04 1,2,3,4
8 Relativity of two currents 14-4-04 1,2,3,4
9. Nature of electric field 16-4-04 1,2,3,4
10. Magnetic field is real 22-4-04 2,3,4
11. once more relativity 5-5-04 1,2,3,4
12. A new paradox in SR 10-5-04 1,2,3,4

"Bilge" wrote in message
...
Harold Ensle, crackpot and idiot,

This is a sign that you know that you are wrong...
you always get more insultive in such cases.
(perhaps you should seek some counseling)


"Bilge" wrote in message

Wrong. Current is a scalar. Note that ampere's law reads:

Why do you not confess your mistake?

Because I havent made a mistake. You have.

If you did, I would just reply OK.

And if you didn't post nonsense, you wouldn't have a need to
try and defend it.

Since you can't seem to follow my simple argument above, perhaps you

Your argument is silly and naive. Which parts of the equations
I = \integral J . dS and I = dq/dt, do you not understand? Are
you trying to tell me that charge is also a vector?

will listen to authority (which seems to be your only ability):

You are an idiot. You happen to be the one with that hangup,
only after to listen to an authority, you feel compelled to
disagree. I can derive anything I post from scratch, using
my own arguments. You seem to be stuck misunderstanding passages
in books.

Griffiths states in "Introduction to Electrodynamics" page 202:

"The current at each point is actually a _vector_: ..........."

duh, not that anyone but yourself would be surprised.

Since I have a copy of griffith's and did not find that statement on
that page, I can only guess what you don't comprehend. A ``current
at each point'' is not a current, it's a current density and if
griffiths really said that, he used a very poor choice of words.

No he explained quite well, sufficient for anyone with even
meagre understanding to grasp. If you don't have the 2nd Ed.
then look on the page with section "5.3.3 Currents". It is
quite clear that he is refering to _current_ and not _current
density_.

The truely amazing thing is that you can't see it for yourself
that current is a vector.

Currents are scalars. If you don't understand the meaning of the
`.' in J . dS, look up ``scalar product''.

I know what scalar products are. And as I tried to explain
to you. This equation yields the _magnitude_ of the current
_vector(s)_ which is of course a scalar. I cannot believe that
you don't get this.

[...]
Harold, if all you are going to is make dumb comments, I'm simply
going to tell you that they're dumb. Of course it's relevant. How
can you have a field which is a field in its own right if there
exists no source of that field?

This is still irrelevant. You are arguing apples and oranges. The
fact that delxB=0 does not necessarily imply that the magnetic field
is not "a field in its own right".

curl B = J, (in magnetostatics) not zero.

Actually that was a typo. I meant del dot B.

The reason the B-field is considered
to be an artifact of a changing E-field, is because there is
no source for the B-field other than a changing E-field.

This may be the reason for the prevalent attitudes, but it is
not rigorous.

No, but you snipped the argument I made which clarified what I said.

[...]

If you could have understood what you snipped, you would
have seen your comment above was the result of your own ignorance.

....just the contrary actually.

Then why did you not understand it? Again, go look in jackson
right before the section on monopoles.

I couldn't find it. You need to be more specific. (I have the 2nd edition)

H.Ellis Ensle

Harry:
"Bilge" wrote in message
ue-al.net...

Scalars do not have directions. Note that the bio-savart law reads:
I dl x r, not dI x r.
SNIP

Bilge, indeed for example Alonso&Finn part 2 (Electromagnetism) treats "I"
as only a scalar.

But W.D.Day (Intro to vector analysis for Radio and electronic eng.) treats
"I" as a vector and writes:
F = I x B (he apparently took l=1).

When a current has one single direction as well as a magnitude it can be
presented as a vector. Maybe a little sloppy, but very handy!

I's a question of physics, not (somewhat dubious) notational convenience.