Sidebands
 

On Dec 30, 8:56*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...
On Dec 29, 6:41 pm, wrote:

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

In Heaviside's "restatement" something flow along the lines and they do
not
rotate.

Take a glance at:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Phy...Lines_of_Force
Excelent English. Perfect physics.
S*

What a buffoon.

You haven't a clue what any of your referenced links mean.

--
Jim Pennino

not only that but the reference is an article from a magazine
published years before the completed set of Maxwell's equations were
first published. *During those years there were many changes in the
understanding of electricity and magnetism and EM waves... not that
the initial publication of Maxwell's equations completely converted
those who had different viewpoints, obviously aetherists and adherents
to other old and disproved theories still exist despite 150 years of
experiments that have failed to damage Maxwell's equations.

See at this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co...Dawes_1920.png

There is shown the magnetic flux (Heaviside). Tell me which physical law
produce it (the hand rule is not a physical law).

Now see at Maxwell's model:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mo...rtex_Model.jpg

There the curent in the solenoid physically rotate the magnetic lines of
force.

So " During those years there were many changes in the understanding of
electricity and magnetism" and the hand rule becomes a physical law.
S*

so you have taken 2 unrelated drawings without the explanatory text to
show what?

The 'hand rule' as you call it is not a physical law, it is a
convention that is used to easily remember relationships expressed in
higher mathematics. There is no magic or physical meaning to it... in
fact both 'hand rules' are used depending on how you learned your
electronics, as long as you are consistent the provide identical
results.

Sidebands
 

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Dec 30, 8:56 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

So " During those years there were many changes in the understanding of
electricity and magnetism" and the hand rule becomes a physical law.
S*

so you have taken 2 unrelated drawings without the explanatory text to
show what?

Maxwell model (page 304):
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Phy...Lines_of_Force
"Let the vertical circles V and V represent the molecular vortices of which
the line of magnetic force is the axis. V revolves as the hands of a watch,
and V the opposite way."

"We have thus obtained a point of view from which we may regard the relation
of an electric current to its lines of force as analogous to the relation of
a toothed wheel or rack to wheels which it drives."

The 'hand rule' as you call it is not a physical law, it is a
convention that is used to easily remember relationships expressed in
higher mathematics. There is no magic or physical meaning to it... in
fact both 'hand rules' are used depending on how you learned your
electronics, as long as you are consistent the provide identical
results.

But what kind of force cause the magnetic flux?

In Part IV Maxwell wrote:
"Now it seems natural to suppose that all the direct effects of any cause
which is itself of a longitudinal character, must be them- selves
longitudinal, and that the direct effects of a rotatory cause must be
themselves rotatory. A motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a
rotation about' that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like
that of a screw, which con- nects a motion in a given direction along the
axis with a rotation in a given direction round it ; and a motion of
rotation, though it may produce tension along the axis, cannot of itself
produce a current in one direction along the axis rather than the other."

Does Heaviside's mechanism in form of the 'hand rule' "works fine for you."
EM is for kids. Are You?
S*

Sidebands
 

On Dec 30, 3:59*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...
On Dec 30, 8:56 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



So " During those years there were many changes in the understanding of
electricity and magnetism" and the hand rule becomes a physical law.
S*
so you have taken 2 unrelated drawings without the explanatory text to

show what?

Maxwell model (page 304):http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Phy...Lines_of_Force
"Let the vertical circles V and V represent the molecular vortices of which
the line of magnetic force is the axis. V revolves as the hands of a watch,
and V the opposite way."

"We have thus obtained a point of view from which we may regard the relation
of an electric current to its lines of force as analogous to the relation of
a toothed wheel or rack to wheels which it drives."

The 'hand rule' as you call it is not a physical law, it is a

convention that is used to easily remember relationships expressed in
higher mathematics. *There is no magic or physical meaning to it... in
fact both 'hand rules' are used depending on how you learned your
electronics, as long as you are consistent the provide identical
results.

But what kind of force cause the magnetic flux?

In Part IV Maxwell wrote:
"Now it seems natural to suppose that all the direct effects of any cause
which is itself of a longitudinal character, must be them- selves
longitudinal, and that the direct effects of a rotatory cause must be
themselves rotatory. A motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a
rotation about' that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like
that of a screw, which con- nects a motion in a given direction along the
axis with a rotation in a given direction round it ; and a motion of
rotation, though it may produce tension along the axis, cannot of itself
produce a current in one direction along the axis rather than the other."

Does Heaviside's mechanism in form of *the 'hand rule' "works fine for you."
EM is for kids. Are You?
S*

EM is for kids?? i take it that you think EM is too simple and you
must have a more complicated theory? if that is so then i understand
why you are trying to study ancient research, back then there were
many competing theories each with separate complicated descriptions
about rotations and forces... all of those were made simple when
Maxwell combined the essential 4 equations to describe electromagnetic
interactions, add in ohms law and the Lorentz force equation and you
have everything necessary to describe EM effects... Sometimes simple
is best.

Sidebands
 

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Dec 30, 3:59 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

So " During those years there were many changes in the understanding of
electricity and magnetism" and the hand rule becomes a physical law.
S*
so you have taken 2 unrelated drawings without the explanatory text to

show what?

Maxwell model (page
304):http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Phy...Lines_of_Force
"Let the vertical circles V and V represent the molecular vortices of
which
the line of magnetic force is the axis. V revolves as the hands of a
watch,
and V the opposite way."

"We have thus obtained a point of view from which we may regard the
relation
of an electric current to its lines of force as analogous to the relation
of
a toothed wheel or rack to wheels which it drives."

The 'hand rule' as you call it is not a physical law, it is a

convention that is used to easily remember relationships expressed in
higher mathematics. There is no magic or physical meaning to it... in
fact both 'hand rules' are used depending on how you learned your
electronics, as long as you are consistent the provide identical
results.

But what kind of force cause the magnetic flux?

In Part IV Maxwell wrote:
"Now it seems natural to suppose that all the direct effects of any cause
which is itself of a longitudinal character, must be them- selves
longitudinal, and that the direct effects of a rotatory cause must be
themselves rotatory. A motion of translation along an axis cannot produce
a
rotation about' that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism,
like
that of a screw, which con- nects a motion in a given direction along the
axis with a rotation in a given direction round it ; and a motion of
rotation, though it may produce tension along the axis, cannot of itself
produce a current in one direction along the axis rather than the other."

Does Heaviside's mechanism in form of the 'hand rule' "works fine for
you."
EM is for kids. Are You?
S*

EM is for kids?? i take it that you think EM is too simple and you
must have a more complicated theory?

EM is is a simple version of Maxwell's model.

if that is so then i understand
why you are trying to study ancient research, back then there were
many competing theories each with separate complicated descriptions
about rotations and forces... all of those were made simple when
Maxwell

It was Heaviside,

combined the essential 4 equations to describe electromagnetic
interactions, add in ohms law and the Lorentz force equation and you
have everything necessary to describe EM effects... Sometimes simple
is best.

Maxwell's model and EM by Heaviside are not simple.
The most simple and the best is the gas (electron) analogy. All waves are
the same.
S*

Sidebands
 

On Dec 30, 4:36*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...
On Dec 30, 3:59 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:





So " During those years there were many changes in the understanding of
electricity and magnetism" and the hand rule becomes a physical law.
S*
so you have taken 2 unrelated drawings without the explanatory text to

show what?

Maxwell model (page
304):http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Phy...Lines_of_Force
"Let the vertical circles V and V represent the molecular vortices of
which
the line of magnetic force is the axis. V revolves as the hands of a
watch,
and V the opposite way."

"We have thus obtained a point of view from which we may regard the
relation
of an electric current to its lines of force as analogous to the relation
of
a toothed wheel or rack to wheels which it drives."

The 'hand rule' as you call it is not a physical law, it is a

convention that is used to easily remember relationships expressed in
higher mathematics. There is no magic or physical meaning to it... in
fact both 'hand rules' are used depending on how you learned your
electronics, as long as you are consistent the provide identical
results.

But what kind of force cause the magnetic flux?

In Part IV Maxwell wrote:
"Now it seems natural to suppose that all the direct effects of any cause
which is itself of a longitudinal character, must be them- selves
longitudinal, and that the direct effects of a rotatory cause must be
themselves rotatory. A motion of translation along an axis cannot produce
a
rotation about' that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism,
like
that of a screw, which con- nects a motion in a given direction along the
axis with a rotation in a given direction round it ; and a motion of
rotation, though it may produce tension along the axis, cannot of itself
produce a current in one direction along the axis rather than the other.."

Does Heaviside's mechanism in form of the 'hand rule' "works fine for
you."
EM is for kids. Are You?
S*
EM is for kids?? *i take it that you think EM is too simple and you

must have a more complicated theory?

EM is is a simple version of Maxwell's model.

if that is so then i understand

why you are trying to study ancient research, back then there were
many competing theories each with separate complicated descriptions
about rotations and forces... all of those were made simple when
Maxwell

It was Heaviside,

combined the essential 4 equations to describe electromagnetic

interactions, add in ohms law and the Lorentz force equation and you
have everything necessary to describe EM effects... Sometimes simple
is best.

Maxwell's model and EM by Heaviside are not simple.
The most simple and the best is the gas (electron) analogy. All waves are
the same.
S*

analogies are not theories, nor are any good at making predictions.
being able to predict things is required of theories, they must be
able to predict things that can be tested to either prove or disprove
the theory. an analogy is just a story trying to explain one thing as
if it were something else, this unfortunately doesn't work very well.

Maxwell's equations are very simple, that is what is best about them.
They have taken the absolute simplest set of equations necessary to
describe all electro-magnetic phenomena.

Sidebands
 

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...

Maxwell's equations are very simple,

Maxwell wrote 20 equations where were the inertia is and all necessary to
wave propagation in a medium.
They are extremally difficult.

that is what is best about them.
They have taken the absolute simplest set of equations necessary to
describe all electro-magnetic phenomena.

The 4 Heaviside equations describe the hydraulic analogy. It is known as EM.
The DC is like the water. The AC of electrons is not.
S*

Sidebands
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...

Maxwell's equations are very simple,

Maxwell wrote 20 equations where were the inertia is and all necessary to
wave propagation in a medium.
They are extremally difficult.

that is what is best about them.
They have taken the absolute simplest set of equations necessary to
describe all electro-magnetic phenomena.

The 4 Heaviside equations describe the hydraulic analogy. It is known as EM.
The DC is like the water. The AC of electrons is not.
S*

All babbling gibberish.

You never did address the question of what it is you think an "electric wave"
is.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Sidebands
 

On Dec 30, 6:49*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...



Maxwell's equations are very simple,

Maxwell wrote 20 equations where were the inertia is and all necessary to
wave propagation in a medium.
They are extremally difficult.

that is what is best about them.
They have taken the absolute simplest set of equations necessary to

describe all electro-magnetic phenomena.

The 4 Heaviside equations describe the hydraulic analogy. It is known as EM.
The DC is like the water. The AC of electrons *is not.
S*

no, the 4 Maxwell equations are all that is necessary for propagation
in vacuum or other medium... its in there, you just have to learn how
to solve them properly. if you are seeing bigger sets of equations
for em waves then you are reading something that is outdated.

you never did give the equation for an 'electric wave'... please
provide that.

Sidebands
 

"K1TTT" Wrote
...

you never did give the equation for an 'electric wave'... please
provide that.

Write: "electric wave equation" and you have 21 000 in 0.2 s.
Happy New Year.
S*

Sidebands
 

On Dec 31, 8:30*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ...

you never did give the equation for an 'electric wave'... please

provide that.

Write: "electric wave equation" and you have 21 000 in 0.2 s.
Happy New Year.
S*

you have a poor search engine, i get 6M hits... and all of them are
either for 'electric field' or 'electromagnetic wave'. provide a
formula or specific reference.

Sidebands
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On Dec 31, 8:30 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Write: "electric wave equation" and you have 21 000 in 0.2 s.
Happy New Year.
S*

you have a poor search engine, i get 6M hits... and all of them are
either for 'electric field' or 'electromagnetic wave'. provide a
formula or specific reference.

Write: ("electric wave equation") and your search engine will be poor.

For EM waves: "Maxwell's contribution to science in producing these
equations lies in the correction he made to Ampère's circuital law in his
1861 paper On Physical Lines of Force. He added the displacement current
term to Ampère's circuital law and this enabled him to derive the
electromagnetic wave equation in his later 1865 paper A Dynamical Theory of
the Electromagnetic Field and demonstrate the fact that light is an
electromagnetic wave".

And:
"Heaviside worked to eliminate the potentials (electric potential and
magnetic potential) that Maxwell had used as the central concepts in his
equations;[21] this effort was somewhat controversial,[25] though it was
understood by 1884 that the potentials must propagate at the speed of light
like the fields, unlike the concept of instantaneous action-at-a-distance
like the then conception of gravitational potential.[22] Modern analysis of,
for example, radio antennas, makes full use of Maxwell's vector and scalar
potentials to separate the variables, a common technique used in formulating
the solutions of differential equations. However the potentials can be
introduced by algebraic manipulation of the four fundamental equations."

Electric waves are normal pressure waves. In place of pressure is the
voltage. In Heaviside's no voltage. But "However the potentials can be
introduced by algebraic manipulation of the four fundamental equations."

Nice manipulations.
S*

Sidebands
 

Electric waves are normal pressure waves. In place of pressure is the
voltage.

sorry, this is not correct. site a CURRENT source for this
statement. you did a good job quoting the proper relations between
potentials and fields, why not for 'electric waves'? if there are so
many good references that your search shows up there must be one that
provides a current good description of them.

In Heaviside's no voltage. But "However the potentials can be
introduced by algebraic manipulation of the four fundamental equations."

of course, potentials are not required, they are a figment of the
equations. what is required are the fields. the potentials, as you
quote:

Modern analysis of,
for example, radio antennas, makes full use of Maxwell's vector and scalar
potentials to separate the variables, a common technique used in formulating
the solutions of differential equations.

are just a 'technique' used to solve the equations, they are not the
result. there are many techniques like that used to solve
differential equations, they often introduce new variables that have
no physical meaning but are useful to simplify the equations leading
to a useful result. as you quoted above, even heaviside realized the
potentials and therefore the separate electric and magnetic 'waves'
were not necessary to the solution so he eliminated them. while this
may have provided a simpler representation of Maxwell's equations, it
did not change the results that they represented.

Sidebands
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...

Electric waves are normal pressure waves. In place of pressure is the
voltage.

sorry, this is not correct. site a CURRENT source for this
statement. you did a good job quoting the proper relations between
potentials and fields, why not for 'electric waves'? if there are so
many good references that your search shows up there must be one that
provides a current good description of them.

In Maxwell's time were math for the longitudinal waves. I am sure that were
such for electric waves also. But I am not interested in equations.
Maxwell did the math for the rotational oscillations. It is still in use in
engines area.

What Heaviside did I do not know because I do not understand in what way the
magnetic whirl appears around the wire.
It is only the piece to teach the math.

In Heaviside's no voltage. But "However the potentials can be
introduced by algebraic manipulation of the four fundamental equations."

of course, potentials are not required, they are a figment of the
equations. what is required are the fields. the potentials, as you
quote:

Modern analysis of,
for example, radio antennas, makes full use of Maxwell's vector and
scalar
potentials to separate the variables, a common technique used in
formulating
the solutions of differential equations.

are just a 'technique' used to solve the equations, they are not the
result. there are many techniques like that used to solve
differential equations, they often introduce new variables that have
no physical meaning but are useful to simplify the equations leading
to a useful result. as you quoted above, even heaviside realized the
potentials and therefore the separate electric and magnetic 'waves'
were not necessary to the solution so he eliminated them. while this
may have provided a simpler representation of Maxwell's equations, it
did not change the results that they represented.

The topic is if the damped radio waves exhibit "redshift" with the distance.
S*

Sidebands
 

The topic is if the damped radio waves exhibit "redshift" with the
distance.
S*


No, the topic that you asked about is do sidebands change with distance.

But, yes radio waves do experience Doppler shift, damped or otherwise!

Jeff

Sidebands
 

On Jan 1, 5:46*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

In Maxwell's time were math for the longitudinal waves. I am sure that were
such for electric waves also. But I am not interested in equations.
Maxwell did the math for the rotational oscillations. It is still in use in
engines area.

of course there was, because they didn't know any better yet. all
those theories have been proven wrong and dropped 100 years ago. if
you want to talk waves you MUST use the equations, they are what
provides the description of the fields. Maxwell did math for lots of
things unrelated to electromagnetics, that was a very interesting
time.



What Heaviside did I do not know because I do not understand in what way the
magnetic whirl appears around the wire.
It is only the piece to teach the math.

if you don't know then why quote him?


The topic is if the damped radio waves exhibit "redshift" with the distance.
S*

no, damped waves do not exhibit redshift with distance, unless of
course they are from a distant galaxy that is moving away from us
rapidly!

Sidebands
 

"Jeff" wrote ...

The topic is if the damped radio waves exhibit "redshift" with the
distance.
S*

No, the topic that you asked about is do sidebands change with distance.

One sideband is "redshifted" and the second "blueshifted". AM waves have the
increasing/decreasing amplitudes. The damped also but there no symmetry.
Were the sidebands symmetric at the damped waves?

But, yes radio waves do experience Doppler shift, damped or otherwise!

It is not distance dependent.
S*

Sidebands
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:


One sideband is "redshifted" and the second "blueshifted". AM waves have the
increasing/decreasing amplitudes. The damped also but there no symmetry.
Were the sidebands symmetric at the damped waves?

Meaningless word salad gibberish.

Seek medical help.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Sidebands
 

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Jan 1, 5:46 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

In Maxwell's time were math for the longitudinal waves. I am sure that
were
such for electric waves also. But I am not interested in equations.
Maxwell did the math for the rotational oscillations. It is still in use
in
engines area.

of course there was, because they didn't know any better yet. all
those theories have been proven wrong and dropped 100 years ago. if
you want to talk waves you MUST use the equations, they are what
provides the description of the fields.

Seperate "electric field", "magnetic field", gravity field" are for kids.

Charged body at rest produces the electric field but a moving body do not
produce the electric field but magnetic.
Do you understand it?

Maxwell did math for lots of
things unrelated to electromagnetics, that was a very interesting
time.

Eg. 60 pages of equations for Saturn's rings.

What Heaviside did I do not know because I do not understand in what way
the
magnetic whirl appears around the wire.
It is only the piece to teach the math.

if you don't know then why quote him?

The citations were from Maxwell's papers and Wiki.

The topic is if the damped radio waves exhibit "redshift" with the
distance.
S*

no, damped waves do not exhibit redshift with distance, unless of
course they are from a distant galaxy that is moving away from us
rapidly!

Wiki wrote: "They initially interpreted these redshifts and blue shifts as
due solely to the Doppler effect, but later Hubble discovered a rough
correlation between the increasing redshifts and the increasing distance of
galaxies. Theorists almost immediately realized that these observations
could be explained by a different mechanism for producing redshifts.
Hubble's law of the correlation between redshifts and distances is required
by models of cosmology derived from general relativity that have a metric
expansion of space.[16] As a result, photons propagating through the
expanding space are stretched, creating the cosmological redshift."

Photons are stretched with the distance.
Damped waves are like photons.
S*

Sidebands
 

On Jan 2, 5:48*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...
On Jan 1, 5:46 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

In Maxwell's time were math for the longitudinal waves. I am sure that
were
such for electric waves also. But I am not interested in equations.
Maxwell did the math for the rotational oscillations. It is still in use
in
engines area.
of course there was, because they didn't know any better yet. *all

those theories have been proven wrong and dropped 100 years ago. *if
you want to talk waves you MUST use the equations, they are what
provides the description of the fields.

Seperate "electric field", "magnetic field", gravity field" are for kids.

of course, that is why you haven't learned enough to understand them
that way yet, you are below kids in understanding fields.



Charged body at rest produces the electric field but a moving body do not
produce the electric field but magnetic.
Do you understand it?

do you understand that the electric field from a charged body at rest
does not propagate, it is static everywhere so there are no waves.

but what about if the body is at rest in one inertial frame and you
are moving past it in another one, do you see a magnetic field or
not?


Maxwell did math for lots of

things unrelated to electromagnetics, that was a very interesting
time.

Eg. 60 pages of equations for Saturn's rings.



What Heaviside did I do not know because I do not understand in what way
the
magnetic whirl appears around the wire.
It is only the piece to teach the math.
if you don't know then why quote him?

The citations were from Maxwell's papers and Wiki.

The topic is if the damped radio waves exhibit "redshift" with the
distance.
S*
no, damped waves do not exhibit redshift with distance, unless of

course they are from a distant galaxy that is moving away from us
rapidly!

Wiki wrote: "They initially interpreted these redshifts and blue shifts as

due solely to the Doppler effect, but later Hubble discovered a rough
correlation between the increasing redshifts and the increasing distance of
galaxies. Theorists almost immediately realized that these observations
could be explained by a different mechanism for producing redshifts.
Hubble's law of the correlation between redshifts and distances is required
by models of cosmology derived from general relativity that have a metric
expansion of space.[16] As a result, photons propagating through the
expanding space are stretched, creating the cosmological redshift."

Photons are stretched with the distance.
Damped waves are like photons.
S*

now that is a good laugh... stretching photons would be quite a trick
since they don't exist in Maxwell's equations. damped waves may be
made of many photons, but they are not 'like' photons... they are just
another set of em waves propagating along just like any other.

Sidebands
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On Jan 2, 5:48 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Seperate "electric field", "magnetic field", gravity field" are for kids.

of course, that is why you haven't learned enough to understand them
that way yet, you are below kids in understanding fields.

The only trouble for kids to remembe are the "hand rules".
Kids do not try to understand. They must remember.
Good memeory is most important in schools.


Charged body at rest produces the electric field but a moving body do not
produce the electric field but magnetic.
Do you understand it?

do you understand that the electric field from a charged body at rest
does not propagate, it is static everywhere so there are no waves.

But in antennas charge appears and disappears. Electric waves must appear.
Some Authors call them electrostatic waves.

but what about if the body is at rest in one inertial frame and you
are moving past it in another one, do you see a magnetic field or
not?

No. No magnetic charge and no magnetic field.


Wiki wrote: "They initially interpreted these redshifts and blue shifts
as
due solely to the Doppler effect, but later Hubble discovered a rough
correlation between the increasing redshifts and the increasing distance
of
galaxies. Theorists almost immediately realized that these observations
could be explained by a different mechanism for producing redshifts.
Hubble's law of the correlation between redshifts and distances is
required
by models of cosmology derived from general relativity that have a metric
expansion of space.[16] As a result, photons propagating through the
expanding space are stretched, creating the cosmological redshift."

Photons are stretched with the distance.
Damped waves are like photons.
S*

now that is a good laugh... stretching photons would be quite a trick
since they don't exist in Maxwell's equations. damped waves may be
made of many photons, but they are not 'like' photons... they are just
another set of em waves propagating along just like any other.

With the decreased amplitudes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ondes_amorties.jpg
S*

Sidebands
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On Jan 2, 5:48 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Seperate "electric field", "magnetic field", gravity field" are for kids.

of course, that is why you haven't learned enough to understand them
that way yet, you are below kids in understanding fields.

The only trouble for kids to remembe are the "hand rules".
Kids do not try to understand. They must remember.
Good memeory is most important in schools.

The "hand rules" were invented to be a memory aid, and that is all they
are, a memory aid.

Charged body at rest produces the electric field but a moving body do not
produce the electric field but magnetic.
Do you understand it?

do you understand that the electric field from a charged body at rest
does not propagate, it is static everywhere so there are no waves.

But in antennas charge appears and disappears. Electric waves must appear.
Some Authors call them electrostatic waves.

Complete nonsense.

but what about if the body is at rest in one inertial frame and you
are moving past it in another one, do you see a magnetic field or
not?

No. No magnetic charge and no magnetic field.


Wiki wrote: "They initially interpreted these redshifts and blue shifts
as
due solely to the Doppler effect, but later Hubble discovered a rough
correlation between the increasing redshifts and the increasing distance
of
galaxies. Theorists almost immediately realized that these observations
could be explained by a different mechanism for producing redshifts.
Hubble's law of the correlation between redshifts and distances is
required
by models of cosmology derived from general relativity that have a metric
expansion of space.[16] As a result, photons propagating through the
expanding space are stretched, creating the cosmological redshift."

Photons are stretched with the distance.
Damped waves are like photons.
S*

now that is a good laugh... stretching photons would be quite a trick
since they don't exist in Maxwell's equations. damped waves may be
made of many photons, but they are not 'like' photons... they are just
another set of em waves propagating along just like any other.

With the decreased amplitudes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ondes_amorties.jpg
S*

Reposting the same **** in French does not make it applicable to EM radiation.

You are a babbling idiot.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Sidebands
 

wrote ...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

But in antennas charge appears and disappears. Electric waves must
appear.
Some Authors call them electrostatic waves.

Complete nonsense.

"Waves in plasmas can be classified as electromagnetic or electrostatic
according to whether or not there is an oscillating magnetic field. Applying
Faraday's law of induction to plane waves, we find , implying that an
electrostatic wave must be purely longitudinal. An electromagnetic wave, in
contrast, must have a transverse component, but may also be partially
longitudinal. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waves_in_plasmas

In space is the rare plasma + dust.
S*

Sidebands
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
[-- text/plain, encoding 7bit, charset: iso-8859-2, 21 lines --]


wrote ...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

But in antennas charge appears and disappears. Electric waves must
appear.
Some Authors call them electrostatic waves.

Complete nonsense.

"Waves in plasmas can be classified as electromagnetic or electrostatic
according to whether or not there is an oscillating magnetic field. Applying
Faraday's law of induction to plane waves, we find , implying that an
electrostatic wave must be purely longitudinal. An electromagnetic wave, in
contrast, must have a transverse component, but may also be partially
longitudinal. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waves_in_plasmas

In space is the rare plasma + dust.
S*

Babbling nonsense.

Most of space is empty vacuum and "waves in plasma" has absolutely nothing
to do with real antennas, either on Earth or in space.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Sidebands
 

On Jan 3, 5:41*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
....

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

But in antennas charge appears and disappears. Electric waves must
appear.
Some Authors call them electrostatic waves.

Complete nonsense.

"Waves in plasmas can be classified as electromagnetic or electrostatic
according to whether or not there is an oscillating magnetic field. Applying
Faraday's law of induction to plane waves, we find , implying that an
electrostatic wave must be purely longitudinal. An electromagnetic wave, in
contrast, must have a transverse component, but may also be partially
longitudinal. From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waves_in_plasmas

In space is the rare plasma + dust.
S*

sure, and in the rare plasma of most of space omega-p goes to zero so
the remaining waves are pure electromagnetic. you can only support
those other wave types in a dense plasma as in the lower levels of the
solar atmosphere or in a confined plasma in a laboratory. you might
as well take the basic Maxwell's equations and claim they don't work
on the Earth's surface because air has a different dielectric constant
that in space... while this is true, the results are rarely measurably
different than free space.

Sidebands
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On Jan 3, 5:41 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

In space is the rare plasma + dust.
S*

sure, and in the rare plasma of most of space omega-p goes to zero so
the remaining waves are pure electromagnetic. you can only support
those other wave types in a dense plasma as in the lower levels of the
solar atmosphere or in a confined plasma in a laboratory. you might
as well take the basic Maxwell's equations and claim they don't work
on the Earth's surface because air has a different dielectric constant
that in space... while this is true, the results are rarely measurably
different than free space.

In plasma are electrons and ions. Like in metals.

Tesla known that: http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1929-09-22.htm

":Up to 1896, however, I did not succeed in obtaining a positive
experimental proof of the existence of such a medium. But in that year I
brought out a new form of vacuum tube capable of being charged to any
desired potential, and operated it with effective pressures of about
4,000,000 volts. I produced cathodic and other rays of transcending
intensity. The effects, according to my view, were due to minute particles
of matter carrying enormous electrical charges, which, for want of a better
name, I designated as matter not further decomposable. Subsequently those
particles were called electrons."

You are still before the electron time:

""When Dr. Heinrich Hertz undertook his experiments from 1887 to 1889 his
object was to demonstrate a theory postulating a medium filling all space,
called the ether, which was structureless, of inconceivable tenuity and yet
solid and possessed of rigidity incomparably greater than that of the
hardest steel. He obtained certain results and the whole world acclaimed
them as an experimental verification of that cherished theory. But in
reality what he observed tended to prove just its fallacy".

But you are fine. Nothing wrong.
S*

Sidebands
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

In plasma are electrons and ions. Like in metals.

A plasma is not "like in metals".


Tesla known that: http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1929-09-22.htm

":Up to 1896, however, I did not succeed in obtaining a positive
experimental proof of the existence of such a medium. But in that year I
brought out a new form of vacuum tube capable of being charged to any
desired potential, and operated it with effective pressures of about
4,000,000 volts. I produced cathodic and other rays of transcending
intensity. The effects, according to my view, were due to minute particles
of matter carrying enormous electrical charges, which, for want of a better
name, I designated as matter not further decomposable. Subsequently those
particles were called electrons."

Free electrons in a vacuum are nothing like a plasma.

Free electrons in a vacuum are nothing like metal.


You are still before the electron time:

""When Dr. Heinrich Hertz undertook his experiments from 1887 to 1889 his
object was to demonstrate a theory postulating a medium filling all space,
called the ether, which was structureless, of inconceivable tenuity and yet
solid and possessed of rigidity incomparably greater than that of the
hardest steel. He obtained certain results and the whole world acclaimed
them as an experimental verification of that cherished theory. But in
reality what he observed tended to prove just its fallacy".

Yep, they were all wrong; there is no "ether".

But you are fine. Nothing wrong.
S*

Yeah, we are fine, you are a babbling kook.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.