The screw nature of electromagnetism

Farsight -- you are misusing the term "pop science." -- Pop science is that largely mathless expression of physics concepts to layman in books with pictures but ultimately giving no ability to precisely predict the behavior of physical phenomena. For example: Einstein's Relativity: The Special and General Theory doesn't tell you how to calculate the precision of Mercury's orbit from the theory of general relativity. Thus it is an example of a pop science book about physics which avoids telling the read how to do physics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry rpenner. Maybe I should have said "modern myth". One such is the notion that the electron and the proton in the hydrogen atom throw photons at one another.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not quite. Science operates by consensus. What the evidence tells is agreed-upon by consensus. Lots of other, more basic things are a matter of consensus, such as the definitions of words. You making up words/definitions isn't consistent with proper communication, much less proper science. You tend to bluster about being correct and everyone else on the planet being wrong, but it appears to me that what's really happening is that you don't know what the words you are using mean and instead of learning, you make the definitions up and proclaim your definition "correct" and everyone else's wrong. It's a cover for your ignorance.

Yes, I read it. I'm not sure you even know what the picture is supposed to show. Here's what you quoted about the electric field, from wiki:

"The electric field is a vector field. The field vector at a given point is defined as the force vector per unit charge that would be exerted on a stationary test charge at that point."

The lines in such pictures represent equality: the (scalar) value of a certain calculated property is equal all along those lines. In the case of the electric field, that property is the force for a certain amount of charge. So what I'm asking for is a similar, concise description (mathematical, even better) of what your picture shows.

Is your picture a vector field? (like airflow streamlines) Scalar field? (like a topographic map) Of what? Force? Velocity? What specific property is calculated along those lines to generate the graph?

I'll say it again and paraphrase others: I don't think you know what those diagrams are for. I think you're just "fingerpainting": drawing a pretty picture that has no actual meaning, then trying to ascribe a vague pseudophilosophy to it. You probably think that's how the "trampoline analogy" works for GR, when in fact the curvature of space is generated mathematically, not just by painting a pretty picture.

"Crackpot Cliff" is where you go when your ideas get beaten-back so much that you start to come unglued and switch from explaining/discussing your ideas to blustering about how everyone else in the world is a bunch of idiots except you. All I'm saying is that that doesn't help you any: falling off that cliff is how you end up getting yourself banned. So do yourself a favor and reel-it back in.

So it doesn't correct any errors then? I thought this was lost knowlege and therefore an error in the current accepted understanding. But since it doesn't correct any errors and you haven't connected it to any such unified theory, it really doesn't offer us anything except for people who like pretty pinwheels.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

These threads with Farsight become ' a bunch of folks' spending their posting time trying to fend off the Farsight troll. Same for the other crank threads. Having this bullshit become the 'standard for physics and math' is a travesty. Over and over and over again. Before Alphanumeric bailed he told Farsight [paraphrased] that this bullshit was going to end unless he could justify his troll with some physics. In the end the cranks win out and the members interested in science lose out. The only way to stop this nonsense is for moderation to set a standard where 'it's seriously frowned upon' and then enforce it. Doing it this way requires moderators who understand the subject matter. Whatever.

 

I think the electromagnetic field is a thing that apparently exists, whose influence we can measure, and that turns out to behave in a nontrivial but regular and predictable way that we can quantitatively characterise.

Asking what an electromagnetic field "really is" beyond that presumes that there's something deeper that we can explain the electromagnetic field in terms of. On that, either there is or there isn't, and that's a matter for experimentation and rigorous analysis, and not personal ideology, to determine.

Well you tell me. You're bringing this up.

 

Yeah, it is important to continually point out that Farsight is simply lying when he presents his points. He knows that he can't do physics, yet he continues to post as if he can.

 

That's why we're all gradually leaving this forum.

 

If that's how this ends it'll be the third forum I've seen implode: where the ratio (cranks/intellectually honest) becomes so large that nothing [not even coherent moderation] can forestall complete collapse. Evolving into a black hole [the stinky kind].

BTW the observational evidence leads me to predict I'm 'gradually' leaving as I write this down. No loss in the long run since I can't even figure out how to use the emoticons or how to break posts up for a line by line response. LOL. See?

 

The scourge of the human race. Runaway intellectual dishonesty.

 

Not a nice thing to picture.

You are perhaps not being completely serious when you say those things. You clearly know how to type a smiley

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, that is : followed by ), right? I do not really remember you ever replying line by line to any posts, so maybe you that is not your style, or maybe you don't know how, but you clearly know how to "Reply with quote". Replying line by line is done by typing [ /quote ] (no spaces), somewhere within the original quote, then type your response to that part, and then type [ quote ], (again no spaces), and check the result by clicking "Go Advanced" or click "Preview post", one of the two will be at the bottom of the post box. If satisfied with the result, then note that when you typed [ quote ], the rest of the original post appears, followed by [ /quote ]. You can interject as many line item responses as you want that way, until you get to the end of the original post.

 

I know of some science-oriented forums that have kept that disaster from happening. They either confine crackpottery to a special forum or else they forbid it outright.

 

"Like Einstein said"??? That's pure book-thumping. The electromagnetic field is not a "state of space", it's something that has a value at every point in space-time.

Not the mathematics, it seems.

The original material is also interesting as showing the development of ideas, but to treat it as the best statement of a theory is to argue like a theologian. I say that because a theologian would argue that one needs to go back to the original revelation. But science does not work like theology, for good reason. Later versions of theories often improve upon the originals. Isaac Newton's Principia is almost impenetrable to most of us, and astrophysicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar spent some years translating it into modern notation. Modern statements of Newtonian mechanics are much improved over the original, it must be said, with vectors, Lagrangians, Hamiltonians, and the like. Likewise for relativity. Hermann Minkowski discovered that special relativity involves unification of space-time, and Einstein, it must be said, did not quite realize the importance of Minkowski's insight for some time. Einstein eventually decided that utilizing Minkowski's insight was necessary for working out general relativity.

Pure hooey. It's separate from the gravitational field.

 

No, it doesn't. The consensus was that the Sun went round the Earth. We know better now. Because of science. Because scientific progress is forever showing that your precious consensus is wrong.

I've given it. The picture shows the electron's electromagnetic field. It doesn't have an electric field. It doesn't have a magnetic field. It has an electromagnetic field. The "greater whole".

You know what it is. It's akin to the NASA depiction. It depicts the state of space. It's frame-dragged space. Only it's frame-dragged in more than one dimension because it isn't the Earth in the middle. It's a bispinor in the middle, like the spindle-sphere torus:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

LOL. Curvature of space.

Beat it Russ.

I know of some science-oriented forums that are dominated by abusive naysayer trolls whose physics knowledge is scant. If somebody knowledgeable comes along talking sensible sincere physics, they shout him down with ad-hominems. They'll do anything to trash a thread and spoil a discussion. On such forums moderators aren't moderators, they're thought police. And sometimes they're the very people who are the abusive naysayer trolls. They're people like you Loren.

All: Google on lpetrich multiverse. He's a multiverse quack. A peddler of woo. A dismisser of Einstein. Amazingly he tries to dismiss my references to Einstein by likening me to a theologian. He must think you're all really stupid to fall for that.

 

Yes, but what is it? Come on przyk, you're a physicist aren't you? What you going to do, roll over and give up? And ignore what Einstein said to boot? It's a state of space pryzk. That's it. That's all that's there. And as a physicist, your next question is how do I describe this state? Not just quantatively, but qualitatively too. Because you do not really understand something until you can explain it to your grandmother.

It's not personal ideology. It's pointing out what Minkowski said, what Maxwell said, what Jackson said, and so on. "One should properly speak of the electromagnetic field Fμv rather than E or B separately". Because "the field caused by the electron itself" is the field, singular, and "the division of the field into electric and magnetic forces" is what E and B is all about. They aren't fields przyk. They merely denote the forces that result from Fuv field interactions. Now read the OP and try to understand it, because hydrogen atoms don't twinkle and magnets don't shine.

I said What geometry? What curvature? The answer is the geometry of space. The curvature of space. Not spacetime. Space. Ever heard of the strong curvature regime? People talk about black holes. They shouldn't. They should talk about electromagnetism. Not geons. Electrons.

 

I hope you don't follow through with the leaving brucep.
As long as you genuine reputable blokes keep the pressure on these alternative/pseudoscientists/conspiracy nutters, you are doing a job.
I'll certainly keep up my end where appropriate.
You notice I lump those three types together, as it has become obvious that with at least three on this forum, the alternative hypothesis person, eventually becomes the pseudo quackery pusher and then the cries of victimisation etc puts them quickly into the conspiracy ratbag class.

What you need to realise, and I have stated it a few times now, these forums are their only outlet...this and other forums like it, are the only places they can use to boost egos and pretend to be someone learned and noteworthy.
They are not and never will be recognised in mainstream proper, and their fairy tale pseudo quackery will continue to stagnate in oblivion.

Science will move on without them, that is the over riding certainty that we can be confident and happy about.

So brucep, keep on keeping on because we can rest contented, that they are getting nowhere.

 

...thus generating a new consensus. You're under the mistaken impression that a consensus is a dogma, to be overcome. It isn't.

You didn't answer my questions. I'm asking you to re-write the two-sentence wiki description to be about your graph. You'll need to answer, what value is calculated along those lines? In order to show that the diagram has meaning, you need to be able to generate it, mathematically. You didn't, did you? You just philosophized about those pretty pictures and created your own, with no basis in any math, right?

 

No that's just plain rubbish. Space/time is certainly bent, warped twisted and curved, and this has been observed many times.
space is real, time is real, space/time is real, as is gravity, matter and energy.

Or as Sten Odenwald puts it.....

" Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation".
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html


Now after helping you out in that small area of knowledge, I can now get some sleep. It's been a busy day.
Seeyas!

 

And it's back on filter for you.

Go on bruce, sling your hook. All you contribute to the discussions is bile. You're a naysayer troll whose physics knowledge is scant.

 

OK, so can you please prove that you are different? Please, give us an example of how we can use your diagrams to do a simple physics problem. Please?

All I want to know is more physics in a world where education funding for physics is in decline. Please explain to me how I can use your diagram to do some physics.

 

Yes indeed. And they are more vibrant places. I belong to one of these, which banned Farsight a long while ago as it happens, and banned him again when he tried to come back en clair as John Duffield.

This place is dying.