Art wrote:
"The Physics World states that displacement current does not exist with
respect to radiation---."

Who and where?

Be reasonable. Free space is normally nonconductive. It is a good
insulator or dielectric. Light is by all accounts an electrromagnetic
radiation. We readily see light from sources throughout space.

Michael Faraday (1791- 1867) wrote:
E = F/Q where E & F are parallel vectors. E = the electric field
strength in force per unit charge and F is measured in newtons per
coulomb.

Electric charges` force on each other are readily measured. Likewise,
magnetic forces` influence on each other and upon electric charges are
readily measured.

Radio waves as Terman says:
"---travel with the speed of light and consist of magnetic and
electrostatic fields at right angles to each other and to the direction
of travel."

Electrostatic does not mean stationary.

There are no conductors in space suited to support an electric current
for wave propagation, therefore it is the invisible but readily
measurable electric and magnetic fields which invoke action at great
distances.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...
Art wrote:
"The Physics World states that displacement current does not exist with
respect to radiation---."

Who and where?

Be reasonable. Free space is normally nonconductive.

remember, art believes space is full of magic jumping diamagnetic levitating
neutrinos, obviously they carry the charge so there is no need for
displacement current, only the weak force.

On Nov 21, 1:28*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Richard Harrison" wrote in message

...

Art wrote:
"The Physics World states that displacement current does not exist with
respect to radiation---."

Who and where?

Be reasonable. Free space is normally nonconductive.

remember, art believes space is full of magic jumping diamagnetic levitating
neutrinos, obviously they carry the charge so there is no need for
displacement current, only the weak force.

Not so. I am willing to believe what modern science say that the
aether is filled with
a circulating magnetic field thru which particles can pass. If that is
what they think that is fine by me.
After all there must be something inside the arbritary border of the
Aether to prevent it collapsing per Newton
Art

I wrote:
"---electric and magnetic fields which invoke action at great
distances."

I now think "evoke" should have been used in place of "invoke".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:

...
I now think "evoke" should have been used in place of "invoke".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


Richard:

I am sure there is, most-probably, enough difference for argument ...

However, to a poor country boy like myself, these terms are, for the
most part, interchangeable ... both can be found with definitions which
bring "magic", "mystery" and the "spiritual realm" into mind ... and, I
am sorry, sometimes I "just feel" this way (and, especially when it is
the "wifes time of the month!") ... grin

Sorry, just thought a bit of sick humor might be appreciated by some ...
LOL! and-a-evil-grin

Regards,
JS

On Nov 21, 4:03*pm, John Smith wrote:
Richard Harrison wrote:
...
I now think "evoke" should have been used in place of "invoke".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard:

I am sure there is, most-probably, enough difference for argument ...

However, to a poor country boy like myself, these terms are, for the
most part, interchangeable ... both can be found with definitions which
bring "magic", "mystery" and the "spiritual realm" into mind ... and, I
am sorry, sometimes I "just feel" this way (and, especially when it is
the "wifes time of the month!") ... grin

Sorry, just thought a bit of sick humor might be appreciated by some ...
LOL! *and-a-evil-grin

Regards,
JS

No JS THEY ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE
You can't insert units that state it is a current and
in the same breath say it does not produce a magnetic field
Best regards
Art

Art Unwin wrote:

...
No JS THEY ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE
You can't insert units that state it is a current and
in the same breath say it does not produce a magnetic field
Best regards
Art

Interesting ...

EVOKE:
# arouse: call forth (emotions, feelings, and responses); "arouse pity";
"raise a smile"; "evoke sympathy"
# provoke: evoke or provoke to appear or occur; "Her behavior provoked a
quarrel between the couple"
# educe: deduce (a principle) or construe (a meaning); "We drew out some
interesting linguistic data from the native informant"
# raise: summon into action or bring into existence, often as if by
magic; "raise the specter of unemployment"; "he conjured wild birds in
the air"; "call down the spirits from the mountain"
# suggest: call to mind; "this remark evoked sadness"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

INVOKE:
# raise: summon into action or bring into existence, often as if by
magic; "raise the specter of unemployment"; "he conjured wild birds in
the air ...
# cite as an authority; resort to; "He invoked the law that would save
him"; "I appealed to the law of 1900"; "She invoked an ancient law"
# appeal: request earnestly (something from somebody); ask for aid or
protection; "appeal to somebody for help"; "Invoke God in times of trouble"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Gee, I am "feeling for you", just can't "reach you", but then, you
already knew that ... :-(

Regards,
JS

Richard Harrison wrote:
Michael Faraday (1791- 1867) wrote:
E = F/Q where E & F are parallel vectors. E = the electric field
strength in force per unit charge and F is measured in newtons per
coulomb.

Faraday should have written that E is in units of newtons per coulomb,
as F would obviously be in newtons.

Electrostatic does not mean stationary.

In what way does it not?

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
"In what way is it (an electrostatic field) not (stationary)?"

Terman was refering to an electromagnetic (radio) wave. It is a
peculiarity of "old-speak" to call an electric field an electrostatic
field.

As Cecil reminds us, radio waves are always in motion. But, their
superposition may produce a stationary wave called a standing wave.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Nov 21, 5:47*pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

"In what way is it (an electrostatic field) not (stationary)?"

Terman was refering to an electromagnetic (radio) wave. It is a
peculiarity of "old-speak" to call an electric field an electrostatic
field.

As Cecil reminds us, radio waves are always in motion. But, their
superposition may produce a stationary wave called a standing wave.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

But Cecil has never said you can have current flow without a magnetic
field!
So now one must determine where the reflection occurs and science
puports that it is not at the end of the antenna!
Thus the term "standing wave" must be thougherly defined in line with
the newly disclosed facts so that all jive.
Also, Gauss never assumed the wave description over a particle
description, The answer regarding waves and particles
with respect to radiation has not yet been resolved by the scientific
community because of the Maxwell additive dillema.
And "Old speak" doesn't cut the mustard in present day debate. It is
completely wrong to call a static field an electrical field.
It is either a static or a dynamic field so guessing what Terman
really ment or meant to say just does not have any standing.