[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Physics of Wireless Transmission
Original poster: Vardan <vardan01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi,
At 09:32 PM 4/22/2006, you wrote:
Hi Bob,
> No I can't provide a link (back then the internet did not
> exist LOL) Perhaps back way back issues of Wirlessworld can
> be found on the web.
> Sorry no equations either.
That sounds highly suspicious. If the relativistic electrostatic
charge has been shown to be equal to magnetic field, then
everybody should know the physics by now. Like I said, I saw the
physics once and the units didn't work out right.
I am pretty sure it works out "just fine" since so much modern
technology is based on relativistic effects and Maxwell's equations
for near light speed effects. The GPS navigation system is one example...
The problem with relativistic charge is that charge is merely a
dimension. There is no physical object that is charge.
Electrons and protons possess charge, but the thing that is
moving is the electron and proton, not charge. So when we are
talking about electrostatic charge, we are talking about a
specific manifestation of charge as it applies to the movement of
a subatomic particle.
Charge is not "subatomic"... The effects are know to more digits
than I have fingers...
Yet it is obvious from observing a permanent magnet that there
are no electrons flying around the magnet. This is further
evidence against relativistic charge as a magnetic field.
;-) There are billions of electrons flying around my 10,000G super magnet...
> You have me curious about the units as I figure the units
> would be force per unit of I or E
Check it out, you will be disappointed.
> I found this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
> yes hardly a definitive source.
> It does however confirm the above and claims Einstein pointed
> it out in 1905.
All it does it repeat popular rumor. There are no meaningful
physics presented.
:o))
> Main stream for 100 years. Ouch and I thought it was a
> radical new idea. I hope they teach this stuff better these
days.
"Mainstream" is not physics, either. We need the equations.
> I find the idea that there is only one field very satisfying
> as there is only one type of photon.
I don't disagree that there is just one type of field. I have
worked out a system of physics where there is only one type of
field for electrostatics, electromagnetics, and gravity.
Further, this one field has a quantum unit. This is possible
because I can quantify from empirical data two distinct
manifestations of charge; electrostatic charge and
electromagnetic charge. It also turns out that the
electromagnetic charge is directly proportional to mass so it
also works that the electromagnetic force is directly
proportional to gravitational force. The electromagnetic and
gravitational forces are actually the same phenomenon but from
orthogonal perspectives.
Those interested in "new physical theory" can check out the new
physics... Our only interest is if such science can extend the
knowledge of Tesla coils...
> If magnetic fields are just relativistic effects of
> electrostatic fields, what are the equivalent relativistic
> effects of gravity, the weak and strong forces fields.
Relativity is not necessary to unify the forces (if it can even
be done with Relativity theory). All that is required is simple
algebra and recognition that the charge dimension has both
electrostatic and electromagnetic manifestations in subatomic
particles. It is really quite simple.
Relativistic extensions of Maxwell's and Einstein's equations are
done every day... If you are trying to keep a GPS clock on time, or
are trying to track a cell phone location on a jet plane... It seems
to work perfectly well, as is, with theories discovered 50 years
before we were all born ;-)))
I often have trouble with claims of "new physics" that can't explain
or help anything... Solve a problem that the old physics can't
solve... "Then" we will have gone "further"...
Cheers,
Terry
Dave