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.

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*

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.

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.

"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*

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.