The screw nature of electromagnetism

Yes, or so it seems. This same topic came up a year ago, and I said I would be the last man standing, and would turn out the lights, lol. But these forums don't usually just die off. They limp on, or morph, or get sold and new owners come in. Half the members like it and half the members hate it. They try new things and old things, and somehow keep going.

The business plan is what works, and I think that if you get enough clicks on ads to make a profit, the forum survives in some fashion. The funny thing about that is that regardless of the popularity of the content among the members, or what goes on in the threads themselves, it is the non-members who see the ads.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Farsight,
Since I think you genuinely have no clue what you are talking about and aren't just being evasive (being evasive is part of it, but I think it is just a cover for your total lack of understanding), I'll give the mathematical version of one of your examples:

The magnetic field drawing you posted in the OP, of concentric circles, is not just a pretty picture. It has a specific meaning. It is the cross section of a magnetic field around an infinite wire with a steady current. Fortunately, this simple case even has online calculators, so you don't even need to do the math yourself:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magcur.html#c2

So, for example, for a 100 Amp current, if the field lines have a spacing of 1mm, their values are:

r=1mm, B=2.0 Gauss
r=2mm, B=1.0 Gauss
r=3mm, B=0.67 Gauss
etc.

In words to describe the math: The diagram shows the strength of the magnetic field at regular intervals of distance from an infinite wire, with a steady current. The field strength is constant around each ring.

Your diagram will necessarily be more complicated than that, but the principle is the same. You need to be able to describe the conditions that generate the graph and the math that generates the value along each line.

Now, the way you drew the two graphs adding to generate the third, if taken almost literally, should mean that all three are showing different parameters of the same situation. Is that what you intended? Is your graph depicting something for an infinite wire with a steady current? What parameter is being shown and what is the value along each line? Pick a line and show how it is generated and how the value is calculated, like I just did.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I don't. I just need to point to the Minkowski quote and the Maxwell quote and the Jackson quote and remind you that the field is the electromagnetic field. Not the "electric field" which is drawn with radial lines of force. Not the "magnetic field" which is drawn with concentric lines. But the electromagnetic field. I don't need to give you any maths at all, just as the NASA gravitomagnetism article doesn't.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now why does that picture look familiar?

Sling your hook. Go talk on the other forum. But my oh my, there's been no posts today in the physics section, has there?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So why bother posting this if you can't explain/demonstrate that it has any meaning? By refusing to do so, you are showing us that either you think it has meaning but don't know what it is or you are just handwaving and it never occurred to you that it even should have such a meaning. Either way, it is just a pretty picture to you, with no scientific value to us.

You posted the thread and claim, Farsight. If you don't want to explain/prove it that's fine, but it just relegates your writing to the trash: it has no value. A total waste of everyone's time, including yours.

But just so we're clear: Do you think your pinwheel even has any mathematical meaning?

Basically, you are saying you don't understand the difference between a scientific paper and a news article about science. A piece of art and a graph of an equation.

 

I understand the difference between a scientific paper and a news article about science. But you don't understand the difference between a scientific paper and a discussion forum.

 

The difference is that NASA puts objects int space, so they demonstrate that they can do the physics. You claim to be providing a deep understanding of physics, but you have never helped anyone solve one physics problem.

 

Ahh, so it is just art, then, not science? It must be if you think it is analogous to the NASA news article and the artwork in it. But as said, while that particular picture in the article is just art, NASA is actually doing science. You seem to be admitting that you are not: you're just making meaningless, pretty pictures.

Aren't you writing a book? Is this in it? Are you acknowledging that your book contains no science, only art and literature?

Drawing a distinction between a scientific article and a discussion forum is another telling admission that you aren't doing science here. But you should be. That wasn't a news post you made; you were making a claim about how a scientific phenomena works. Like most of your such posts, no, it wasn't scientific - but it should have been and needed to be to support your claim.

You even went so far as to claim that most physicists don't understand the physics of this -- but now you are acknowledging that you haven't posted any physics or demonstrated the reality of the claim!

 

What makes a paper scientific is that it expands human knowledge into areas where we were ignorant about the behavior of phenomena in reality, in models or the comparison between them -- there's no reason a physics forum can't have a discussion about behavior of phenomena. That doesn't appear to be case in this thread -- this thread seems to be about Farsight's metaphysics: the embrace of tortured readings and contextomy and belief that physics authority rests in something other than usefully and precisely modeling the behavior of a wide variety of related phenomena. Thus Farsight has not supported his decision to put this thread in "math and physics" by doing math or physics.

What makes a discussion forum a forum where discussions happen is that people toss ideas back and forth and explain what it is about such ideas that makes them attractive. Farsight has drawn a pretty picture and tells us that it is his belief that the picture better represents reality than 100 years of papers on relativistic electromagnetism, but offers us no fact-based rational argument on why we should adopt this belief. For example, his Minkowski quote doesn't help him, for that author was talking about an imperfect analogy between one six-dimensional system and another. Farsight neither explains how his diagram relates to a generic six-dimensional system or gives a specific case where there are aspects of electromagnetism accurately portrayed by the model. Thus there is no fact-based rational argument to support the belief that the pretty picture is other than just a pretty picture. Thus Farsight isn't effectively proselytizing his opinion -- he's preaching to an audience consisting of himself. Thus Farsight has not supported his decision to introduce this topic on a discussion forum by actually having a expressed reason why this particular diagram is worthy of consideration.

In contrast, people with the opinion that Farsight's discussion isn't scientific or that the diagram is unconnected to any phenomena which occurs or is modeled seem to raise arguments that Farsight declares rebutted without actually rebutting them. Perhaps Farsight is unskilled at persuasive writing or perhaps he has embraced opinion which offers no rational support upon which to expound. But he certainly seems motivated in sharing these opinions with us, baseless as they appear to be.

 

Well I suppose the Smartest Man in the World is under no obligation to explain/demonstrate anything to anyone, since being that we are so far beneath his intellect, we wouldn't understand it anyway. Perhaps future archeologists will discover in the ruins of his house a treasure trove of scientific manuscripts that future scientists will be equipped to digest. Until then, I guess we just have to take him at his word that he's done some science and it would be pointless to show it to us, since we wouldn't understand it anyway.

 

And all of it done without any qualifications in physics……

A terrible lesson to us all of the risks of autodidacticism.

 

It isn't. It's about what Maxwell and Minkowski and Jackson said, and the hard scientific evidence, and why you should pay attention to it. Please do so instead of avoiding the physics and launching into an ad-hominem diatribe because I bested you on page 2.

Try reading the OP. It is dripping with facts and rational argument. Unlike the notion that electrons and protons sling photons at one another.

That author said the field, referred to electric and magnetic forces rather than fields, and to a screw mechanism. He didn't refer to six-dimensional systems. The text of Space and Time is on wikisource. It's searchable. He refers to two three and four dimensional things. Not six-dimensional systems. So your counterargument is a straw man argument. You are asking the reader to dismiss what Minkowski actually said in favour of something he didn't.

No, because my diagram relates to what Minkowski actually said and to what's actually there. Not to what you wish he said and to an abstract mathematical representation of reality.

I did. I referred to attraction and repulsion and linear and rotational vorticial motion. How do you think that all works? By throwing photons around? Or magic? I could have also referred to annihilation. Throw a cyclone at an anticyclone, and all you're left with is wind. Throw a positron at an electron, and all you're left with is light.

There is no fact-based rational argument in your post, rpenner. As ever.

 

And where is your demonstration of how we use your ideas to do a physics problem or application?

 

I explain things. For example, I explained gravity in the gravity works like this thread, referring to Einstein and Newton and Riemann curvature and the stress-energy tensor and professor Ned Wright at UCLA. You paid absolutely no attention to the content. You totally ignored the fact that what I was describing was totally utterly in line with Einstein and Newton. And Ned Wright. All you said was:

"Can you show or describe a real experiment that demonstrates your hypothesis and shows the mainstream theory does not work?"

You ignore my explanations because you're just a cargo-cult popscience naysayer. Your physics knowledge is weak, and until you start paying attention that's the way it's going to stay.

Now go and read the OP and start asking some sincere questions. If any part of my explanation is not clear, say so.

Either contribute with sincerity to the physics discussion or ship out. Playing the troll does you no credit, and does not help this forum.

 

I totally agree. Please show us how to use your pictures to do a physics problem or application.

Of course, it's because I ask this simple, direct question and he never answers that he has me on ignore. Asking Farsight to do physics is "trolling".

 

I think it is perfectly fair, and a service to the forum, to highlight to readers the credentials (or lack thereof) of people who seem determined to plaster their idiosyncratic version of physics all over it.

 

The EM field contains electric and magnetic fields as components in it. Farsight, why don't you study the math behind it rather than quote mining?

(Someone else about pseudoscientists driving off people interested in legitimate science)
Me: 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.

Such self-pity is so typical of pseudoscientists. Farsight, don't you have any better arguments?

Farsight, I understand Einstein's math. Do you? Your accusing me of dismissing Einstein -- that's the sort of thing that I compare to how a theologian argues.

Says who?

Book-thumping. So like a theologian. Quote-mined book-thumping at that.

What is that supposed to prove?

Except that GR is about curvature of space-time. Not space separate from time, space-time.

Except that that's sort of like the Discovery Channel and New Scientist, two sources that you have disparaged as "popscience".

Like a creationist who thinks that evolution states that birds' wings popped out of nowhere.

The electromagnetic field is 6-dimensional because it has 6 independent components, 3 electric-field ones and 3 magnetic-field ones.

How convenient. Are you now disclaiming the ability to predict new results?

That's a bad excuse for ignoring his challenge.

 

Yes. Are you sure you've understood what that means? Because you've got a lot of bizarre ideas about how to go about trying to convince a physicist of something.

That's a myth.

Insisting on adherence to what famous physicists said is ideology.

Except that \(\bar{E}\) and \(\bar{B}\) don't have the SI units of force and they aren't the time rate of change of momentum of anything, which is what the word "force" is normally taken to mean in physics, as I already explained to you. You've given no explanation whatsoever as to why \(\bar{E}\) and \(\bar{B}\) should be called "forces" and why it would be wrong to call them "fields". You just copied something Minkowski said.

Who says they do? Google turns up only a handful of hits for an exact phrase search for "hydrogen atoms twinkle", all of them to posts written by you.

You've got no evidence or supporting theoretical analysis showing that the electromagnetic field can even be interpreted as a state of curved space, let alone any basis for presenting it as if it were an established fact.

 

But not here. Here you just waved your hand over an analogy and finger-painted a pinwheel. You've refused to go any further, claiming you don't need to, but I think by now you should be able drop this charade and just admit that it isn't because you don't need to, but because you can't.

Um, what? You want to reboot and pretend the last day's discussion didn't happen? I already asked such questions and you already refused to answer. If you've changed your mind, just go back and answer them!

This is where the lines between crackpot and troll become blurred: believing your finger-painting is science is crackpottery, but knowingly dodging scientific discussion of it or refusing to acknowledge you are unable to provide it is trolling. Why make the distinction? Becuase it's possible to be an honest crackpot. Some people get overzealous with their daydreaming and think it is real science. That leads to crackpottery. But trolling is worse: it's dishonest.

Farsight, you explicitly declined to provide any "phyiscs discussion". You said "No, I don't." [...need to show the physics]

Then you posted a sample from a news article that indicates that you realize that what you posted isn't science, it's just "about science". This is all on you: you can't have it both ways.

 

Yes. Are you sure you've understood what that means? Because you've got some bizarre ideas about how to go about trying to convince a physicist of something.

That's a myth.

Insisting on adherence to what famous physicists said is ideology.

Except that \(\bar{E}\) and \(\bar{B}\) don't have the SI units of force and they aren't the time rate of change of momentum of anything, which is what the word "force" is normally taken to mean in physics, as I already explained to you. You've given no explanation whatsoever as to why \(\bar{E}\) and \(\bar{B}\) should be called "forces" and why it would be wrong to call them "fields". You just copied something Minkowski said.

You've got no evidence or supporting theoretical analysis showing that the electromagnetic field can even be interpreted as a state of curved space, let alone any basis for presenting that as if it were an established fact.

On the face of it the idea doesn't seem workable. A small body affected just by spatial curvature should normally just follow a geodesic trajectory, in which case its equation of motion should just be the geodesic equation, which looks like this:

\(\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2} x^{k}}{\mathrm{d}t^{2}} \,=\, -\, \Gamma^{k}_{ij} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} x^{i}}{\mathrm{d} t} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} x^{j}}{\mathrm{d}t} \,.\)​

But what experiments keep confirming is that a charged body in the presence of an electromagnetic field is deflected according to the Lorentz force law, meaning that the equation of motion (for velocities much less than c) is

\(\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2} \bar{x}}{\mathrm{d}t^{2}} \,=\, \frac{q}{m} \, \bigl( \, \bar{E} \,+\, \bar{v} \,\times\, \bar{B} \, \bigr) \,.\)​

These don't predict the same behaviour, even qualitatively. The geodesic equation predicts coordinate acceleration that depends quadratically on the coordinate velocity and independently of a body's properties such as its charge and mass. By contrast, the Lorentz force law predicts a constant contribution to the acceleration and a contribution that depends linearly on the velocity, but no quadratic term, with the magnitude of the deflection depending on the body's charge-to-mass ratio.

So if you are going to claim that the electromagnetic field can be thought of as curved space, it would fall on you to explain in detail exactly how that idea is made to work (or point to where that analysis has already been done by someone else), including how it correctly predicts the trajectories of macroscopic charges in a way consistent with the Lorentz force law.

 

It doesn't. That's a popscience fallacy. The field is the electromagnetic field.

I have. I referred to it earlier in the thread in response to CptBork's challenge, but he backed down.

As ever you say nothing.