Notices
Results 1 to 57 of 57

Thread: electric and magnetic field differences

  1. #1 electric and magnetic field differences 
    Forum Masters Degree organic god's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    567
    i got a question today in physics.
    "state two differences between electric and magnetic fields"

    i'm really stumped i considered.

    magentic field lines will form a loop however electric field lines are continuos and will extend to infinity. does this only apply to point charges/magnets?

    i also considered that a charge can be shielded from the effects of another charge. but a magnet can't. (incidentally what particles are effected by magnetic fields?)

    any help would be appreciated


    everything is mathematical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    You are already on a good way. Indeed the main difference is that charges can appear as monopoles, magnets can't (at least they have not been observed yet). Therefore, magnetic fields generally are always closed, because you always have a source and a sink for magnetic fields. This is different for electric fields. If you vary one of these fields, you automatically generate the other (electromagnetic waves). They are polarised orthogonally to each other.

    Shielding is another good example, just as you stated. All charged particles can be affected by magnetic fields (metals have lots of free electrons). If you observe an electron flying through a magnetic field, it deviates from its original path and emits synchrotron radiation. But also neutral particles can be affected indirectly.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    You are already on a good way. Indeed the main difference is that charges can appear as monopoles, magnets can't (at least they have not been observed yet). Therefore, magnetic fields generally are always closed, because you always have a source and a sink for magnetic fields. This is different for electric fields. If you vary one of these fields, you automatically generate the other (electromagnetic waves). They are polarised orthogonally to each other.

    Shielding is another good example, just as you stated. All charged particles can be affected by magnetic fields (metals have lots of free electrons). If you observe an electron flying through a magnetic field, it deviates from its original path and emits synchrotron radiation. But also neutral particles can be affected indirectly.
    I am not sure what you mean by charges that are monopole? Any charge whether abundant or short of electrons. Is trying to get somewhere, or something is trying to get to it.

    Air might be holding it back, or keeping power from getting to it. By air almost instantly polarizing at the contact point, and repelling electricity from flowing from the charged pole. Or repel electricity from other neutral points in the area and keeping them from hitting the pole.

    In a vacuum you will see that charge is not monopole. It either wants to get somewhere, or something else wants to get to it.

    You can block magnetic effects with three walls of steel. And space between them. That was the foundation of the original flight recorders.

    They had three wall steel boxes to block magnetism, during total destruction of the plane. To protect the tape recordings on magnetic tape, made during the crash. The small bubbles with the magnetic switches in the tape are highly susceptible to outside magnetism. The triple wall steel black box would protect them. Even during explosions.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    Does anyone know what a magnetic field is exactly? Wikipedia and a few other sources seem to avoid the question and only ramble on about magnetic vectors etc..., but never really answer the main question.

    What I do not understand, is how can it only want materials like steel and Iron, but not aluminum and copper? Magnets attract and repel themselves to electron currents which insinuates that it is trying to fulfill a depletion zone.......could it only be that the the negative side is only a large accumulation of electrons, and the positive side is merely the will to regain what it lost? But then, why wouldn't it automatically equalize out? We also arbitrarily decided on which side is positive and which is negative; I find that extremely sloppy, physicists need to empirically find that out before we can truly progress any farther into the field(npi) of magnetics.

    npi=no pun intended- because saying that is way too cliche.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I am not sure what you mean by charges that are monopole?
    That is simple. Charges are either positive or negative. In the particle world, they can be provided by ions and electrons, for example. But there has never been found a magnet that is only polarised "north" or "south".

    I am no flight engineer, but I suspect that the magnetic shielding is not perfect. The field is probably only strongly attenuated. There is nothing comparable in magnetism as a Faraday cage in electricity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
    Does anyone know what a magnetic field is exactly? Wikipedia and a few other sources seem to avoid the question and only ramble on about magnetic vectors etc..., but never really answer the main question.

    What I do not understand, is how can it only want materials like steel and Iron, but not aluminum and copper? Magnets attract and repel themselves to electron currents which insinuates that it is trying to fulfill a depletion zone.......could it only be that the the negative side is only a large accumulation of electrons, and the positive side is merely the will to regain what it lost? But then, why wouldn't it automatically equalize out? We also arbitrarily decided on which side is positive and which is negative; I find that extremely sloppy, physicists need to empirically find that out before we can truly progress any farther into the field(npi) of magnetics.
    Magnetism and electricity are closely related. As far as physics know at the moment, there are no such simple particles in magnetism that produce a magnetic field as in electricity. But whenever you have a changing electric field, you automatically get a magnetic field. So, e.g. every power line produces a magnetic field. In particle physics, it is much more complicated, because there magnetism is a quantum mechanical effect. But you can imagine (only as a model, not too seriously taken) electrons as spinning particles. This can be interpreted as a rotating and thereby variable charge, hence it produces a magnetic field that is orientated according to the spin axis. This can react to external magnets. So why do some metals react and some don't? It depends on the atomic structure of these metals. They all have more than just one electron per atom. And in some cases, two electrons can be orientated in such a way to another that their magnetic force cancels out. But you can "induce" a magnetic field by external magnets. If such a magnet is strong enough, you can affect the aluminium, if you move the magnet along it (rapidly and repeatedly).

    Free electric charges can also react on magnetic fields. There is the phenomenon of synchrotron radiation. This is produced whenever a charged particle (e.g. electron) moves through a magnetic field. If the direction is right, the particle starts to spiral around. This leads to radiation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I am not sure what you mean by charges that are monopole?
    That is simple. Charges are either positive or negative. In the particle world, they can be provided by ions and electrons, for example. But there has never been found a magnet that is only polarised "north" or "south".

    I am no flight engineer, but I suspect that the magnetic shielding is not perfect. The field is probably only strongly attenuated. There is nothing comparable in magnetism as a Faraday cage in electricity.
    You can stop magnetism. Very easily. Three walls of steel and air gaps.

    Often after someone has suffered a severe loss. They don't always want to know the simplicity of it.

    So sometimes you get into arguments. Like there is no bullet that cannot be stopped and no bullet proofing that a bullet cannot penetrate.
    In some cases if the round was large enough even though it would not penetrate the bullet proofing, it would kill all in side the plane, because of its tremendous size and impact.

    If you can create a huge enough magnetic field, you could of course effect something protected inside of the field with enough power. However with more walls of steel and more air gaps at some point it will nullify the gigantic field. Even just more air gap would do it.

    To me magnetism is electron flow, electricity. Electricity cannot be created as a single pole in my understanding. And neither can a magnet.

    But I can block either of them. By creating a similar effect, that repels them. The new effect is not quite as powerful. If I do that a couple times I can get it to where it is either undetectable, or at a level that is within acceptable standards. Or standards that do the job.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
    Does anyone know what a magnetic field is exactly? Wikipedia and a few other sources seem to avoid the question and only ramble on about magnetic vectors etc..., but never really answer the main question.

    What I do not understand, is how can it only want materials like steel and Iron, but not aluminum and copper? Magnets attract and repel themselves to electron currents which insinuates that it is trying to fulfill a depletion zone.......could it only be that the the negative side is only a large accumulation of electrons, and the positive side is merely the will to regain what it lost? But then, why wouldn't it automatically equalize out? We also arbitrarily decided on which side is positive and which is negative; I find that extremely sloppy, physicists need to empirically find that out before we can truly progress any farther into the field(npi) of magnetics.
    Magnetism and electricity are closely related. As far as physics know at the moment, there are no such simple particles in magnetism that produce a magnetic field as in electricity. But whenever you have a changing electric field, you automatically get a magnetic field. So, e.g. every power line produces a magnetic field. In particle physics, it is much more complicated, because there magnetism is a quantum mechanical effect. But you can imagine (only as a model, not too seriously taken) electrons as spinning particles. This can be interpreted as a rotating and thereby variable charge, hence it produces a magnetic field that is orientated according to the spin axis. This can react to external magnets. So why do some metals react and some don't? It depends on the atomic structure of these metals. They all have more than just one electron per atom. And in some cases, two electrons can be orientated in such a way to another that their magnetic force cancels out. But you can "induce" a magnetic field by external magnets. If such a magnet is strong enough, you can affect the aluminium, if you move the magnet along it (rapidly and repeatedly).

    Free electric charges can also react on magnetic fields. There is the phenomenon of synchrotron radiation. This is produced whenever a charged particle (e.g. electron) moves through a magnetic field. If the direction is right, the particle starts to spiral around. This leads to radiation.
    You should seriously take a look at ambient radiation doing everything. An all electron world.

    I cannot believe that others did not learn the eye as an electrical device. That detects different voltages, from rays of electrons that are bombarding the eye. And we just call this stimulation light.

    I hear others talk about light like it is some far out, unknown thing, rather then just rays of electrons. The same as magnetism, radiation.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I hear others talk about light like it is some far out, unknown thing, rather then just rays of electrons.
    ???????????????????????????

    You mean: light is made of electrons? How did you come up with this nonsense? Have you ever tried to deflect a ray of light (e.g. laser) with an electric or magnetic field as you can with electrons (cyclotron, synchrotron)? Guess what, it does not work.

    Furthermore, beta radiation is made of electrons. They don't come very far and get absorbed by the air (mostly the water vapour in it). Only at very high voltages (e.g during a thunderstorm), electrons can travel a long way. They ionise the air. The recombination of the ions leads to the emission of photons which can be observed as lightnings.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I hear others talk about light like it is some far out, unknown thing, rather then just rays of electrons.
    ???????????????????????????

    You mean: light is made of electrons? How did you come up with this nonsense? Have you ever tried to deflect a ray of light (e.g. laser) with an electric or magnetic field as you can with electrons (cyclotron, synchrotron)? Guess what, it does not work.

    Furthermore, beta radiation is made of electrons. They don't come very far and get absorbed by the air (mostly the water vapour in it). Only at very high voltages (e.g during a thunderstorm), electrons can travel a long way. They ionise the air. The recombination of the ions leads to the emission of photons which can be observed as lightnings.
    Light is electrons, it is the velocity, that keeps them going straight. If you slow them down some, they will turn. Part of reason why light does not turn, is because of the excited path created in the air light travels in. By rather fast moving electrons, that keeps them flying straight. Apply heat rays/electrons to the air they are traveling in and you can see the light deflect nicely.

    We often forget that light/electrons are traveling through air most of the time. Affect that air and you can bend the light. Ask the Dessert troops about bent light.

    That is all that is happening when you see what they think is a black hole. It is just a huge dark planet. And the gas in space that is lit or slightly glowing, over powers the black holes emission over great distances. Almost like a mirage.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman Euclidean-Paradox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NH/MA
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    Light is electrons, it is the velocity, that keeps them going straight. If you slow them down some, they will turn. Part of reason why light does not turn, is because of the excited path created in the air light travels in. By rather fast moving electrons, that keeps them flying straight. Apply heat rays/electrons to the air they are traveling in and you can see the light deflect nicely.
    Light is not made of electrons. Light, and for that matter all of the radiation on the electromagnetic spectrum, comes from energetic photons at specific wavelengths.

    We often forget that light/electrons are traveling through air most of the time. Affect that air and you can bend the light. Ask the Dessert troops about bent light.
    That's not correct. First of, light mostly travels through the vacuum of space. And, light is only bent when it passes between mediums. How much it is bent by depends on the index of refraction of the material; for air, the index of refraction is about 1.0003.
    "I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them."
    --Issac Asimov
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Apply heat rays/electrons to the air they are traveling in and you can see the light deflect nicely.
    No, this is because the air boils and the refraction index changes. You wouldn't see anything of this in space. Otherwise, how can you explain that stars located on a line of sight close to the sun's direction are not blurred? You can try to observe this during a solar eclipse.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    We often forget that light/electrons are traveling through air most of the time. Affect that air and you can bend the light. Ask the Dessert troops about bent light.
    Haha, for someone, who is so proud about his English language, the expression "dessert troops" is really a big joke. I reckon you meant "desert troops".

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    That is all that is happening when you see what they think is a black hole. It is just a huge dark planet. And the gas in space that is lit or slightly glowing, over powers the black holes emission over great distances. Almost like a mirage.
    Now this is really funny. Black holes don't emit. (Yeah yeah, don't bother me with this infamous Hawking radiation. Not detected up to now!) But you can detect X rays coming from its accretion disc. I have never seen anything even close to what you describe. A mirage? Are you talking about the light deflection of stars (even observed for a comparably small mass like the sun) due to gravity? A drak planet - regardless of how dark it is - will always emit some radiation because of its heat (Planck radiation). But it has never been observed.

    Say, where do you get all these strange ideas from. Is there a book, some teacher, or do you breed this all out by yourself?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    How can it be that light is made of electrons, when light easily passes glass while an electric current cannot? Glass is a very good insulator. On the other hand, why do metals allow current (electrons) to flow while light cannot shine through (except for IR)? You see, their properties are very different.

    I think you are obsessed with electricity, because you believe that Franklin was the most brilliant scientist in human history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 MAGNETIC FIELD MEANS MOVING CHARGES 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    india
    Posts
    5
    MAGNETIC FIELDS IS PRODUCED ONLY WHEN CHARGES ARE IN MOTION.

    BUT ELECTRIC FIEDS ARE ALWAYS THERE WITH CHARGES.. MOVING OR STATIONARY...

    THATS THE BIGGGGGGGEST DIFFERENCE
    I won't die until i find out where i m gonna go after dying..... and I KNOW PHYSICS IS GONNA HELP ME FIND IT OUT.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: MAGNETIC FIELD MEANS MOVING CHARGES 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by siddhant
    MAGNETIC FIELDS IS PRODUCED ONLY WHEN CHARGES ARE IN MOTION.

    BUT ELECTRIC FIEDS ARE ALWAYS THERE WITH CHARGES.. MOVING OR STATIONARY...

    THATS THE BIGGGGGGGEST DIFFERENCE
    Partly true. You can also produce electricity by varying magnetic fields. This is used in a dynamo for example. Every power plant has one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: MAGNETIC FIELD MEANS MOVING CHARGES 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by siddhant
    MAGNETIC FIELDS IS PRODUCED ONLY WHEN CHARGES ARE IN MOTION.

    BUT ELECTRIC FIEDS ARE ALWAYS THERE WITH CHARGES.. MOVING OR STATIONARY...

    THATS THE BIGGGGGGGEST DIFFERENCE
    Isn't that related to the fact that isolated electric charges exist but not isolated magnetic monopoles?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Yes. This part of the so called "Maxwell's laws":
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations

    In fact, it is Gauss's law for magnetism:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%2..._for_magnetism
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: MAGNETIC FIELD MEANS MOVING CHARGES 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by algebraic topology
    Quote Originally Posted by siddhant
    MAGNETIC FIELDS IS PRODUCED ONLY WHEN CHARGES ARE IN MOTION.

    BUT ELECTRIC FIEDS ARE ALWAYS THERE WITH CHARGES.. MOVING OR STATIONARY...

    THATS THE BIGGGGGGGEST DIFFERENCE
    Isn't that related to the fact that isolated electric charges exist but not isolated magnetic monopoles?
    You can block magnetism though. Turn it on and off. We use magnetic machining clamps that do this all the time. They mechanically disengage a permanent magnet. Really amazing to see if you have never seen one.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    I'm pretty sure that IR cannot pass through metal. I think you mean that the heat that is emitting the IR goes through the metal and allows for the continued emission of IR once it penetrates it.

    I'm confused about this; people claim that photons do not have mass, yet say "Apart from having energy, a photon also carries momentum and has a polarization." -(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon) things like this. SOMETHING MUST HAVE MASS IN ORDER TO HAVE MOMENTUM.

    I thought of what a magnetic field could be. Instead of it consisting of actual particles, what if it is only a "will" field? As in a field that has a desire to accomplish its task?

    About refraction through medium change, how exactly does it work? My physics teacher only told me that the light wants to follow the path of least resistance. There must be more to it than that.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
    I'm pretty sure that IR cannot pass through metal. I think you mean that the heat that is emitting the IR goes through the metal and allows for the continued emission of IR once it penetrates it.

    I'm confused about this; people claim that photons do not have mass, yet say "Apart from having energy, a photon also carries momentum and has a polarization." -(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon) things like this. SOMETHING MUST HAVE MASS IN ORDER TO HAVE MOMENTUM.

    I thought of what a magnetic field could be. Instead of it consisting of actual particles, what if it is only a "will" field? As in a field that has a desire to accomplish its task?

    About refraction through medium change, how exactly does it work? My physics teacher only told me that the light wants to follow the path of least resistance. There must be more to it than that.
    I learned the electron in my day as a massless particle, of electricity. This never used to be debated. Because there were easy simple tests to show that electricity was not influenced by gravity.

    The velocity though, is what it is. I believe it is mixing into the terminology, and being called, anything from stored mechanical energy, inertia, velocity mass effects, to kinetic energy.

    The truth is velocity sets the stage for how the repulsive charge of the electron will effect the area it is passing through.

    If you have ever done any ballistic testing. You know that at certain velocities a bullet can penetrate metal and not even move the metal. It is actually pretty cool to see and do. But you can see that although the bullet punched a hole through the plate, a feat that would require a punch press, to do normally. It is amazing.

    It proves something though, because we know that a common rifle bullets kinetic energy is not really that high. Or you wold be moved back as the gun fired a lot more.

    It does show that the bullet does not even have time to expend all the energy it has, in that short period of time, at a high velocity as it passes through a plate.

    That is how ambient radiation and electrons work. If they are going fast enough, they penetrate right through things, and you, and current equipment does not even detect them. They used to have such equipment.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman Euclidean-Paradox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NH/MA
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I learned the electron in my day as a massless particle, of electricity. This never used to be debated. Because there were easy simple tests to show that electricity was not influenced by gravity.
    What the hell are you talking about? It has been known for a long time that the electron has a mass of 9.11 x 10^-31 kg. Everything else that follows from this post is complete bullocks.

    The velocity though, is what it is. I believe it is mixing into the terminology, and being called, anything from stored mechanical energy, inertia, velocity mass effects, to kinetic energy.
    And this is all meaningless rhetorical jargon. Velocity is the speed AND direction of an object. Kinetic energy can be calculated by it's velocity squared multiplied by 1/2 it's mass. Gee, for someone who behaves as if you know something about science, you do seem to make a bunch of conceptual mistakes, especially on extremely basic concepts.


    It proves something though, because we know that a common rifle bullets kinetic energy is not really that high. Or you wold be moved back as the gun fired a lot more.

    It does show that the bullet does not even have time to expend all the energy it has, in that short period of time, at a high velocity as it passes through a plate.
    Not really that high?! A bullet fired from an assault rifle, for example, has a kinetic energy of >2100 J. Simply put, that's the equivalent of a 20 pound weight dropping on you from the third floor. That kind of energy can punch through brick walls, and still keep on going! That's quite a bit of kinetic energy right there.

    That is how ambient radiation and electrons work.....
    No it isn't.



    If you don't know anything about a particular subject, just admit it and allow someone more qualified to answer those questions. Don't try to bullshit any of us, you certainly are not fooling anyone by pretending to know something you don't have a clue about.
    "I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them."
    --Issac Asimov
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Euclidean-Paradox
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I learned the electron in my day as a massless particle, of electricity. This never used to be debated. Because there were easy simple tests to show that electricity was not influenced by gravity.
    What the hell are you talking about? It has been known for a long time that the electron has a mass of 9.11 x 10^-31 kg. Everything else that follows from this post is complete bullocks.

    The velocity though, is what it is. I believe it is mixing into the terminology, and being called, anything from stored mechanical energy, inertia, velocity mass effects, to kinetic energy.
    And this is all meaningless rhetorical jargon. Velocity is the speed AND direction of an object. Kinetic energy can be calculated by it's velocity squared multiplied by 1/2 it's mass. Gee, for someone who behaves as if you know something about science, you do seem to make a bunch of conceptual mistakes, especially on extremely basic concepts.


    It proves something though, because we know that a common rifle bullets kinetic energy is not really that high. Or you wold be moved back as the gun fired a lot more.

    It does show that the bullet does not even have time to expend all the energy it has, in that short period of time, at a high velocity as it passes through a plate.
    Not really that high?! A bullet fired from an assault rifle, for example, has a kinetic energy of >2100 J. Simply put, that's the equivalent of a 20 pound weight dropping on you from the third floor. That kind of energy can punch through brick walls, and still keep on going! That's quite a bit of kinetic energy right there.

    That is how ambient radiation and electrons work.....
    No it isn't.



    If you don't know anything about a particular subject, just admit it and allow someone more qualified to answer those questions. Don't try to bullshit any of us, you certainly are not fooling anyone by pretending to know something you don't have a clue about.
    It has not been known that electrons have mass. It has been taught. Speculated about. And may even be in the most sacred doctrine of science at the moment. To me that just proves my point.

    Fooling anyone is not my game, there are apparently experts out there though.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/WMV/Magnet...gnetClamp.html

    Here is that magnetic block I promised. I believe what they did with the brass separating plate in between the two main pieces of steel that make up the block, allows this. I believe the brass electrically bonds the two pieces of steel. The magnet through air, cannot cause the steel to become magnetic.

    But that is just my theory. You can see that there are no filings or debris stuck to that block. In a shop like that, that is amazing. So you can see there is no difference between all electricity that is always dual pole, and all magnets that are always dual pole.

    If you saw the movie, you would know that I got out of trouble with this magnet, I brought in. I showed it to the principle and acted like I was dumbfounded by it. And he sat with it all day, and enjoyed it. He said that "maybe it is plutonium battery powered". I said, "Yea! Could be. Wow you are smart" Let me right off.

    This principle was also the head of the science department.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Here is the force of one bullet fired from an assault rifle.


    This is very old stuff. Revolutionary War stuff.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/Forc...OneBullet.html

    You can see that there is almost no kinetic energy in a bullet. That fluff is actually the product of several thousand pounds of air pressure being fired at the vest, along with the bullets penetration. And destruction of some of the fibers.

    Those vests absorb heat rays and convert them to Ultra Violet rays, or x-rays. And you can see that the kinetic energy is nothing. The heat and plasma energy are absorbed. Accelerated in my world. So that the bullets normal plasma cutting rays are nullified.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
    Does anyone know what a magnetic field is exactly? Wikipedia and a few other sources seem to avoid the question and only ramble on about magnetic vectors etc..., but never really answer the main question.

    What I do not understand, is how can it only want materials like steel and Iron, but not aluminum and copper? Magnets attract and repel themselves to electron currents which insinuates that it is trying to fulfill a depletion zone.......could it only be that the the negative side is only a large accumulation of electrons, and the positive side is merely the will to regain what it lost? But then, why wouldn't it automatically equalize out? We also arbitrarily decided on which side is positive and which is negative; I find that extremely sloppy, physicists need to empirically find that out before we can truly progress any farther into the field(npi) of magnetics.

    npi=no pun intended- because saying that is way too cliche.
    Here is some magnetic force being put to use on aluminum.



    Magnetism is partial, however no substance is not effected. It is just to what degree.

    I did not mean to post this link below.
    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/magnets/magnets.html
    I meant to post this link.
    http://www.Rockwelder.com/WMV/Magnetism/Magnetism.html

    This link just below is of an aluminum washer being lifted up.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/WMV/AlumEl...tromagent.html

    There are ways to neutralize some of these effects. It is by creating capacitors that reduce the flow of electrons. All magnets induce electron flow in other objects to cause them to become apparently attracted to one another.
    However magnets do not attract one another. They are pushed together. There is a shortage of repulsion created by the magnet between the magnet and another magnet or iron body.

    The brass in the machinists hold down magnet, may actually do something like that to shut it off.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    It has not been known that electrons have mass. It has been taught.
    Ever heard of Milikan's experiment?
    http://library.thinkquest.org/19662/...-millikan.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    You can see that there is almost no kinetic energy in a bullet.
    Where did you learn physics? In Disney world? The kinetic energy is a solid definition:

    E_kin = 1/2*m*v^2

    So, everything having a mass and a velocity has kinetic energy by definition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    You can see that there is almost no kinetic energy in a bullet.
    Where did you learn physics? In Disney world? The kinetic energy is a solid definition:

    E_kin = 1/2*m*v^2

    So, everything having a mass and a velocity has kinetic energy by definition.
    You claim that formula describes kinetic energy.

    I say if it works, it describes the repulsive force a certain size and density object, at a certain velocity, can cause velocity, in another object.

    We know that an explosion of a certain speed explosive. If kept to a certain size will apparently not effect an object, in the same way, it will, if the explosion encompasses the individual, or the object.

    It is strange because at one level you get almost no effect, slightly more and you notice a desire or slight movement. And then suddenly the object is hurled, as if it has no weight. What the object has is its ability to create an equal and opposite electrical force. Until it is totally engulfed in the explosion. And similarly polarized.

    I am aware that very high speed shaped charges work slightly differently, I am not referring to them.

    If they really wanted to stop the explosive damage to the vehicles in Iraq, in my opinion, they would mount small six inch long fiberglass, rods or antenna upon the bottom of their vehicles. The fiberglass rod would be mounted in metal that was grounded to the vehicles chassis and battery. This would create an unbelievable ability to repel powerful explosives.

    The fiberglass cannot just disintegrate, it first puts up a counter ray, an ARC against the incoming explosion. This ARC guards the rest of the area around the antenna in a cone shape, back to the vehicle. Keeping high pressure from getting to the tank.

    Years ago they used a similar principle on boats. They were called out riggers. Two fiberglass poles, with a single wire from each, that was grounded to the boats bow rails, engine and battery. It would keep the boat from being struck by lightning. By raising in voltage when first targeted by a charged cloud, and then repelling the lightning strike itself.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    William, I am really getting tired of your shit! NOBODY with the even basic science knowledge take your nonsense for fact. Please stop posting your theories and delusions as such. You are beyond making a fool of yourself. I implore you.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    William, I am really getting tired of your shit! NOBODY with the even basic science knowledge take your nonsense for fact. Please stop posting your theories and delusions as such. You are beyond making a fool of yourself. I implore you.
    I noticed the antenna effect while standing in an explosion once. The affect taking place is not what most people beleive. I can attest to this. Having stood in an explosion created by two cubic feet of oxygen and acetylene, perfectly mixed.

    My being grounded, the extension of my arms, towards the explosion, created some kind of anti-explosion. Because I have seen the same explosion hurl things even farther away with more energy.

    So say what you like. I have been there did that.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Having stood in an explosion
    That does not surprise me.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    You can see that there is almost no kinetic energy in a bullet.
    Where did you learn physics? In Disney world? The kinetic energy is a solid definition:

    E_kin = 1/2*m*v^2

    So, everything having a mass and a velocity has kinetic energy by definition.
    You claim that formula describes kinetic energy.
    Well, me and millions of other people around the world. It is a definition.
    The formula can also be deduced with theoretical classical physics. It is taught to physics students in their third semester the latest. Ever heard of transformation of energy? Energy is always conserved, but it can be transformed into - yes - the movement of other particles, into heat, radiation and gravitational potential energy. I don't know why you are so obsessed with destruction (rifles, explosions), but an explosion for example produces a shock wave. This wave contains kinetic energy and heat. And what in the beginning causes the explosion? It is chemical energy stored in the components. So, there are many ways to reduce the impact of an explosion or a hit with a bullet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    William,

    Just because our eyes translate the light into electrons that get sent to our brain does not mean light is made out of electrons before it hits our eyes!

    Our eyes are effected by the light and then translates this into an electrical signal our brain can interpret.

    Where do you come up with your theories man!
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    You can see that there is almost no kinetic energy in a bullet.
    Where did you learn physics? In Disney world? The kinetic energy is a solid definition:

    E_kin = 1/2*m*v^2

    So, everything having a mass and a velocity has kinetic energy by definition.
    You claim that formula describes kinetic energy.
    Well, me and millions of other people around the world. It is a definition.
    The formula can also be deduced with theoretical classical physics. It is taught to physics students in their third semester the latest. Ever heard of transformation of energy? Energy is always conserved, but it can be transformed into - yes - the movement of other particles, into heat, radiation and gravitational potential energy. I don't know why you are so obsessed with destruction (rifles, explosions), but an explosion for example produces a shock wave. This wave contains kinetic energy and heat. And what in the beginning causes the explosion? It is chemical energy stored in the components. So, there are many ways to reduce the impact of an explosion or a hit with a bullet.
    Your reply "Well, me and millions of other people around the world. It is a definition."

    Would have removed your Universal Scientist status. That statement belongs on a childrens forum. And the child should be reprimanded.

    I am not being rude either. Or trying to beat you. I am as a friend just highlighting the state of science. And stating that you are caught up in that state.

    The last real scientists before the end of school in America. After the announcement of the end of school in America, that came from representatives of the United States.
    These scientists did state that future students will have no basis to stand on. Much like Chadwick. Chadwick was known to flip flop back and forth. And play the audience for the popular vote.

    Chadwick was a politician, not a scientist.

    I have posted information from the past stating that the atom bomb would be kept a secret. And of course it could only be kept a secret from uneducated fifth world morons. To keep the atom bomb a secret is to openly claim that your citizens do not understand the atom. Or the universe.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    William,

    Just because our eyes translate the light into electrons that get sent to our brain does not mean light is made out of electrons before it hits our eyes!

    Our eyes are effected by the light and then translates this into an electrical signal our brain can interpret.

    Where do you come up with your theories man!
    Your eyes do not translate anything but the electrons hitting the lens of the eye, the fluid in the eye and then the retina.

    That is how I learned it in school.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Your reply "Well, me and millions of other people around the world. It is a definition."

    ...

    The last real scientists before the end of school in America. After the announcement of the end of school in America, that came from representatives of the United States.
    These scientists did state that future students will have no basis to stand on. Much like Chadwick. Chadwick was known to flip flop back and forth. And play the audience for the popular vote.

    Chadwick was a politician, not a scientist.

    I have posted information from the past stating that the atom bomb would be kept a secret. And of course it could only be kept a secret from uneducated fifth world morons. To keep the atom bomb a secret is to openly claim that your citizens do not understand the atom. Or the universe.
    What are you trying to say? There is no science right now going on? Very interesting idea. I have no idea what that story about the end of school in America is referring to. But I assure you: there are currently millions of students around the word learning all sorts of science - and most of it is not from the US. I more and more get the impression that you have some very disturbing nationalistic ideas and think the rest of the world is just crap.

    Well, in physics, the expression "kinetic energy" is uniquely defined. You cannot say, "well I think it's something else". It is like you would claim a ball is not a ball. It's a name for something.

    So, you think the following achievements are not science or just wrong?

    1. the discovery of Penicillin (discovered in England)
    2. GPS (manufactured in the US, based on Relativity, Einstein, Germany/Switzerland)
    3. radio (developed by Marconi, Italy)
    4. telescopes (developed by Galilei, Italy)
    5. scanning tunneling microscope (imaging single atoms, developed in Switzerland)
    6. supraconductors (discovered by Onnes, the Netherlands)

    And many more.

    So, what is science in your view? I agree that submitting ones own scientific career under the cause of a country is morally questionable, as well as I believe that science in the first place only has the purpose to improve knowledge. Whether this knowledge can be applied to any commercial, political or militaristic use is not interesting for me. This does not mean that I don't care about how scientific achievements can be (ab)used. The German word for scientist is "Wissenschaftler" (i.e. knowledge creator) which means a person who creates knowledge. I think this is exactly what a scientist should do. I am one of those and I sincerely hope that I don't fail in this sense. It's just the problem that most of them don't make it into the news.

    PS: Could you please try to formulate full sentences? It is difficult for me to understand, what you are trying to say.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Your eyes do not translate anything but the electrons hitting the lens of the eye, the fluid in the eye and then the retina.

    That is how I learned it in school.
    Then your school was crap. Or you didn't understand it. Do you read books in order to improve your knowledge? Have you ever found the same claim you are making?

    Once and for all: Photons are not electrons. Photons belong to the particle class of bosons. Electrons are fermions. Both particles differ in mass, spin, velocity, charge, magnetic moment. Photons like all bosons do not follow the Pauli principle, electrons do. This is why you can create a laser: you need many photons having the same energy. This is impossible for electrons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Your eyes do not translate anything but the electrons hitting the lens of the eye, the fluid in the eye and then the retina.

    That is how I learned it in school.
    Then your school was crap. Or you didn't understand it. Do you read books in order to improve your knowledge? Have you ever found the same claim you are making?

    Once and for all: Photons are not electrons. Photons belong to the particle class of bosons. Electrons are fermions. Both particles differ in mass, spin, velocity, charge, magnetic moment. Photons like all bosons do not follow the Pauli principle, electrons do. This is why you can create a laser: you need many photons having the same energy. This is impossible for electrons.
    A photon is a rather new word. It meant an effect of light created by electrons. In my day. In the sixties.




    This is the definition. As time went on we saw the definitions becoming skewed. But there is not a bunch I can do about it. As soon as I would raise an objection someone would say I was stomping on the new science. When we already had all the old science we could possibly use in a lifetime. And we could demonstrate old science.

    The only thing we could not do was show you an electron. Or alter time.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    [quote="Dishmaster"]
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Could you please try to formulate full sentences? It is difficult for me to understand, what you are trying to say.
    I was saying that in the sixties the Government of the United States of America. Came out in favor of ending school in America. Rather then to take a chance that violent inner city minorities would slip world ending science to the Russians. Of course the Russians already had this ability.

    So it was really a police action against the citizens of America.

    At the time real scientists the best, the most dedicated in the world were fighting the neutron. The neutron was going to become mandatory learning in 1973 by law. If schools did not teach the neutron they would loose Federal funding.

    What you said about the good scientists, that they do not make it into the news. Is by scientific method proof, the norm. The greatest battles are just not put on the news. Or given credit.
    Or they get a fifteen second spot on the news. And you never hear about it again. Then you listen for a half hour how to remove unsightly facial hair from the news room beauty analyst. While a bunch of spoiled bimbos cackle like chickens about nonsense.

    Today unfortunately it is the same thing. By the time you get enough people together to see what has happened, the generation that might have done something is gone. And we will not make sense to the next generation.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    A photon is a rather new word. It meant an effect of light created by electrons. In my day. In the sixties.
    Yes, this is true: "created by electrons" But they are not identical to electrons. Your version would be similar to claiming that a violin string is the same like sound.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    A photon is a rather new word. It meant an effect of light created by electrons. In my day. In the sixties.
    Yes, this is true: "created by electrons" But they are not identical to electrons. Your version would be similar to claiming that a violin string is the same like sound.
    There was no doubt at the time that the word photons definition was being skewed. However to avoid an all out war in science. In the sixties there was no attempt officially to make the photon a particle. A photon was nothing more then an effect of light. A light effect.

    It was a silly term, however nothing compared to the ridiculous particle the neutron.

    Photons definition never implied that particles called photons were different then the only subatomic particle accepted at the time. The electron. Believe me I do not claim that ridiculous theories did not abound. Or that some Universities were already teaching them. However in my defense. The best colleges did testing on college and non-college trained individuals. And these good colleges recommended ending college, or tear them down from the root and rebuild them.

    These colleges lost government grants and funding. Many of them were closed.

    Today obviously someone took these very poor definitions of the time and construed that other particles existed. They do not by any information I have ever seen.

    The Chadwick types were just too funny. First they want to see an electron. An electron in scale to our solar system would be one atom in the sun.
    And they wanted to look at this one atom in the sun, doing something, or see it moving or see it gyrating. But they could not fathom that they would be trying to look at it, from another galaxy. And that it would take an infinite number of atoms to carry the image of whatever it was doing to the human eye or other apparatus.

    So instead of just being content with studying what they could. They started off on the strangest endeavour to literally destroy science.

    In their destructive path, they created all kinds of unsubstantiated particles. All kinds of rumors and myths. They have started to destroy the hard work that hands on individuals have done. Because, we can easily disprove the phony particles with electrons at various velocities.

    I am saying these bums missed that the electron is certainly small enough to create the effect of light. Pass right through solid objects and create the rays of light, ultra violet, x-rays, radio easily.

    Some small atoms can be pressed through matter. Imagine what electrons can do.

    Electrons are all these tiny effects that they are creating in the accelerators. They just did not want to admit they took all that money from real projects and just wasted the hard work it represented.

    At least according to me, and what I learned.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    There was no doubt at the time that the word photons definition was being skewed. However to avoid an all out war in science. In the sixties there was no attempt officially to make the photon a particle. A photon was nothing more then an effect of light. A light effect.
    Maybe in your outdated dictionary. The photon has been a particle in physics at least since Planck and Einstein.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Today obviously someone took these very poor definitions of the time and construed that other particles existed. They do not by any information I have ever seen.

    The Chadwick types were just too funny. First they want to see an electron. An electron in scale to our solar system would be one atom in the sun.
    And they wanted to look at this one atom in the sun, doing something, or see it moving or see it gyrating. But they could not fathom that they would be trying to look at it, from another galaxy. And that it would take an infinite number of atoms to carry the image of whatever it was doing to the human eye or other apparatus.
    I have absolutely no idea, what you are talking about. This Chadwick guy did not invent modern science. He is hardly known outside the US. In fact, I had look up his name. Okay, he found the neutron. Scientists are not just believers and disciples of some kind of guru. It developed in many was without that person. Don't you think that everything that is common physics today hasn't been tested and verified many times? Today, it is accepted that electrons cannot be imaged like solid particles. Science evolves. But it is also clear from many different experiments that there are many different particles with very different properties (charge, mass, etc.). This is measurable and an undeniable fact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    A photon was nothing more then an effect of light. A light effect.

    At least according to me, and what I learned.
    Hence the problem, Billy. You haven't learned anything. Photons are packets of energy, they are the quanta of light, not the effects.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    A photon was nothing more then an effect of light. A light effect.

    At least according to me, and what I learned.
    Hence the problem, Billy. You haven't learned anything. Photons are packets of energy, they are the quanta of light, not the effects.
    The only subatomic particle is the electron.

    Now I will humor you for fun.

    Photons have a charge now?
    Photons have mass now?
    Quanta means what now?

    I may seem shallow, but I have watched utter fools for thirty years destroy science. All this gibberish is just gibberish to me. But I will humor you, if you define this photon solidly.

    We have only one undefined particle the electron, and the only thing we cannot define is what it exactly looks like. If you add anymore then that electron particle, you are just destroying science.
    An electron is as small as your photon. It is as powerful as the most powerful subatomic particle you have.
    It is the duration that the electron stays in one place that gives it its characteristics. Slow it down enough it will throw a car or truck. Speed it up and I don't think I could detect it.

    The electron is all the subatomic particles.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

    Read it, the whole thing, maybe (probably not) you will learn something.
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

    Read it, the whole thing, maybe (probably not) you will learn something.
    That is the work of the devil. That is selling fairy tales. And a trip to the dark ages.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

    Read it, the whole thing, maybe (probably not) you will learn something.
    That is the work of the devil. That is selling fairy tales. And a trip to the dark ages.
    Hahahahah! Then there must be many thousand of devils around. This is ridiculus. Who are you to decide what is right and wrong, what is "God's science" and what is the "Devil's work". You are so brainwashed!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

    Read it, the whole thing, maybe (probably not) you will learn something.
    That is the work of the devil. That is selling fairy tales. And a trip to the dark ages.
    Hahahahah! Then there must be many thousand of devils around. This is ridiculus. Who are you to decide what is right and wrong, what is "God's science" and what is the "Devil's work". You are so brainwashed!
    Yea, I could see how that could stump you.

    Gods work is full of simple lessons that drive home awesome basics in science.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

    Read it, the whole thing, maybe (probably not) you will learn something.
    That link is garbage. And should be treated as such.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

    Read it, the whole thing, maybe (probably not) you will learn something.
    That link is garbage. And should be treated as such.
    You are really being stubborn and arrogant. This link - as you can see at the and of that page - is based on decades of scientific investigations and at least dozens of publications by peer reviewed, i.e. critically evaluated, journals. This is much more than you can provide with your ideas. Can you show us any publication of your weird ideas endorsed by other scientists? And who are these "Universal Scientists" you are always referring to? Is this an organisation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

    Read it, the whole thing, maybe (probably not) you will learn something.
    That link is garbage. And should be treated as such.
    You are really being stubborn and arrogant. This link - as you can see at the and of that page - is based on decades of scientific investigations and at least dozens of publications by peer reviewed, i.e. critically evaluated, journals. This is much more than you can provide with your ideas. Can you show us any publication of your weird ideas endorsed by other scientists? And who are these "Universal Scientists" you are always referring to? Is this an organisation?
    It is based on lies against the Scientific method. That is why you younger guys do not learn the real scientific method or practice it. Because you are amongst a group that denied it. You are very bad people.

    The neutron particle was the first particle introduced to public school in 1973 by Federal law. It broke the scientific method principles for introduction of knowledge into science, and of course into the education system.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    It is based on lies against the Scientific method. That is why you younger guys do not learn the real scientific method or practice it. Because you are amongst a group that denied it. You are very bad people.
    Would you care to enlighten us what the real scientific method is then? I just won't start to argue about being bad and what agressiveness and obsession with waepons and destruction has to do with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    It is based on lies against the Scientific method. That is why you younger guys do not learn the real scientific method or practice it. Because you are amongst a group that denied it. You are very bad people.
    Would you care to enlighten us what the real scientific method is then? I just won't start to argue about being bad and what agressiveness and obsession with waepons and destruction has to do with it.
    To start you need a purpose. You must be interested in showing something or make something more believable, allow it to be seen, somehow.
    You have to decide what that is, that you wish to make more well known. You are going to be demonstrating something. You will not be doing this experiment to create a theory. If you do that you failed.
    You are going to do something that someone else can rather easily demonstrate. Simplicity is your goal.

    Chadwick the inventor of the neutron particle, made that mistake. He had a failed experiment that went very wrong. Instead of calling it that. He claimed that the experiment proved his knew theory. Out of order experimenting.

    You should check to see if it has already been done. As you will find out that the all electron universe was already thought out. And well documented at one time.
    This does not mean that you just take this persons word or advice no matter who it is. You will have to spot check at least some of his experiments to see if his accuracy is on the money. And this should only be used as a gauge for your own experiments. Especially where things could explode or emit rays or radiation. You want to talk to people that have done it.

    Well from what I remember of it. It was that you must be sure of the components in your experiment. Excluding the electron that we can never see.

    Next the purity of your components have to be checked to 99.99 percent accuracy. This is not getting a certificate from somebody with a certificate from some institution.
    This requires you to go to the place of manufacture and discuss the methods.
    The reason for your purchase. Because often the fellow at the plant will know more about what you are trying to do then you do. And he will just come right out and tell you, "No don't get the scientific grade gas, that is for the weirdos". You want the liquid gas, that we use to fill the bottles for the weirdos.

    After you get all your equipment, bottles, beakers, wire all checked for purity, and listed for their impurities. You have a laboratory.

    Then when you do your first experiment if you thought it out well. You will get results. And these results when compared to tens of thousands of other experiments that you have done or will do, will start to confirm your first experiment.

    That is why you do not see to many "great scientists" today, doing space travel.

    When the younger scientists of the sixties saw the older scientists notes, for their experiments, they thought that the old scientists were crazy. Because all you saw was the beaker was contaminated with, lead, thallium, Uranium. And on and on about the impurities in things.

    In the young scientists mind they were thinking why not get a clean beaker?
    That is how far that generation slipped from the eighth grade scientists of old.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Would you care to enlighten us what the real scientific method is then?
    To start you need a purpose. You must be interested in showing something or make something more believable, allow it to be seen, somehow.
    You have to decide what that is, that you wish to make more well known. You are going to be demonstrating something. You will not be doing this experiment to create a theory. If you do that you failed.
    You are going to do something that someone else can rather easily demonstrate. Simplicity is your goal.
    Now, this is a revelation. Well, I reckon, the overwhelming majority of present-day scientists would disagree with this opinion. This is exactly the attitude that you accuse the modern science of: trying to prove an obsession. This is not how science works. First, there is a phenomenon that needs explaining. You, on the other hand, are trying to find evidence for a principle you already think exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Chadwick the inventor of the neutron particle, made that mistake. He had a failed experiment that went very wrong. Instead of calling it that. He claimed that the experiment proved his knew theory. Out of order experimenting.
    Why do you think it went wrong? His interpretation was based on a previous experiment that was initially interpreted in a wrong way. He repeated these experiments and showed that they found a new radiation of particles without a charge and a mass close to a proton. This was called the neutron.

    How do you think man-made nuclear reactions work? They are all based on chain reactions producing an avalanche of neutrons feeding it.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    You should check to see if it has already been done. As you will find out that the all electron universe was already thought out. And well documented at one time.
    How is this possible without a reference from your side?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Next the purity of your components have to be checked to 99.99 percent accuracy. ...
    Yeah. Do you think us scientists to be stupid? All these uncertainties are carefully examined of course.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Would you care to enlighten us what the real scientific method is then?
    To start you need a purpose. You must be interested in showing something or make something more believable, allow it to be seen, somehow.
    You have to decide what that is, that you wish to make more well known. You are going to be demonstrating something. You will not be doing this experiment to create a theory. If you do that you failed.
    You are going to do something that someone else can rather easily demonstrate. Simplicity is your goal.
    Now, this is a revelation. Well, I reckon, the overwhelming majority of present-day scientists would disagree with this opinion. This is exactly the attitude that you accuse the modern science of: trying to prove an obsession. This is not how science works. First, there is a phenomenon that needs explaining. You, on the other hand, are trying to find evidence for a principle you already think exists.
    For one scientists do not have any obsessions. They have interests. For two they do not try to do anything they just do it.

    A phenomena does not need explaining. The phenomena would probably fair better with an understanding. That is a problem of new scientists, they want to explain things away. Rather then understand them, and enjoy them. The simple things phenomena are.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Why do you think it went wrong? His interpretation was based on a previous experiment that was initially interpreted in a wrong way. He repeated these experiments and showed that they found a new radiation of particles without a charge and a mass close to a proton. This was called the neutron.
    Chargless particles emitting, or repelling particles? Or being repelled without a charge, Outrageous! In fact it is insanity at its highest level.

    No two subatomic particles have ever touched one another. I can pass a lie detector test to that statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    How do you think man-made nuclear reactions work? They are all based on chain reactions producing an avalanche of neutrons feeding it.
    Radioactive substances when piled up, or placed in a geometric pattern that inhibits ambient radiation from passing their abundant with electron area. Slows ambient radiation to heat ray emitting levels.

    We can do the same without radio active substances. Nuclear reactors were the work of very sick men.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    For one scientists do not have any obsessions. They have interests.
    Like what? I consider myself a scientist. But I have no other interests than to discover the secrets of nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    For two they do not try to do anything they just do it.

    A phenomena does not need explaining. The phenomena would probably fair better with an understanding. That is a problem of new scientists, they want to explain things away. Rather then understand them, and enjoy them. The simple things phenomena are.
    Huh? But this is science. People are curious about how nature works. Well, at least I am. If past scientists would have followed your statement, we would still wonder what all these tiny bright dots at the night sky are. You are selling the opposite of science. I see a lot of beauty in nature, when I understand how it works. It has nothing to do with "explaining away" something. Although I am an astrophysicist and I (think I) understand already a lot, I am still touched by the beauty of the starry sky.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •