 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / April 2006Do the peeks of an EM wave move forward or only up and down?
This would be an absurd question to one that knows the answer. If say the peeks of an EM wave are mountains: 1. Do these mountains move forward with time and remain the same distance apart (= frequency)? 2. Or do these mountains(wave peeks) remain in place and only move up and down with time? ----------------------------------------------------------------- As a better visual, say the mountains move through a larger tunnel opening, therefore do these mountains move say 10 feet away, then 9 feet away, then 8 feet, etc.... or do these mountain peeks always remain the same distance from the tunnel opening and instead simply go up and down with time (meaning the wave peeks go up and down with time)?? | This would be an absurd question to one that knows the answer. | | If say the peeks of an EM wave are mountains: | | 1. Do these mountains move forward with time and remain the same | distance apart (= frequency)? No no... remain the same distance apart does equal frequency. How often a give a peak reaches a particular reference point is frequency, take a peek at it. | 2. Or do these mountains(wave peeks) remain in place and only move up | and down with time? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | up and down with time (meaning the wave peeks go up and down with | time)?? Here's a better visual. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Catalina/Drive.htm Notice that the car has frequency, the road has wavelength. Also notice that the road moves, the car stays in the middle of the screen. Androcles > | This would be an absurd question to one that knows the answer. > | [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No no... remain the same distance apart does equal frequency. Your very brief, you seem to only be repeating what I already wrote? Are you saying No the mountains do not move forward and only remain the same distance apart? > How often a give a peak reaches a particular reference point is > frequency, take a peek at it. Ok but does the peek move forward(horizontaly) or only up and down? > | 2. Or do these mountains(wave peeks) remain in place and only move up > | and down with time? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Also notice that the road moves, the car stays in the middle of the screen. > Androcles Ok, you have two entities, where as wave is only one entity. I believe your saying the wave peeks do not move forward with time and instead only vibrate up and down? You don't exactly find this info in regular text books, so could a few more people add there input to validate which ever is the answer??? | > | This would be an absurd question to one that knows the answer. | > | [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | | Your very brief, you seem to only be repeating what I already wrote? Sorry, my boo boo, remain the same distance apart does NOT equal frequency. | Are you saying No the mountains do not move forward and only remain the | same distance apart? Not at all. I'm saying there is no such animal as wavelength for a pulse. | > How often a give a peak reaches a particular reference point is | > frequency, take a peek at it. | | Ok but does the peek move forward(horizontaly) or only up and down? Think of a tsumani crossing the ocean. Does the water move thousands of miles carrying a cork with it, or only up and down? Or try cracking a whip. | > | 2. Or do these mountains(wave peeks) remain in place and only move up | > | and down with time? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] | | Ok, you have two entities, where as wave is only one entity. Actually a photon is one "entity" made of two components. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm That's why we speak of "electromagnetic" waves, but remember a light beam can be focussed, usually with a parabolic mirror as in a car headlight. | I believe your saying the wave peeks do not move forward with time and | instead only vibrate up and down? Hmmm... let's not confuse time with distance. Moving in *time*, this oscillator http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html "moves" forward, but it stays still in space. Now I *could* move it forward in space *as well*, but I don't have to. If I did move it, I could say it has a "wavelength", but that "wavelength" doesn't exist in the sense that the oscillator can't be in two places at once. My car is just a mass on a spring anyway. I'd need another oscillator (same frequency) moving along at the same speed, and then the "wavelength" if they are in phase is simply the distance they are apart. A photon doesn't have to be in phase with another, of course, even if it has the same frequency, and in general two ions in a star will emit two photons. Wavelength for one photon is pretty meaningless, it depends on speed, and all speeds are relative. If it doesn't move, the "wavelength" is zero. | You don't exactly find this info in regular text books, so could a few | more people add there input to validate which ever is the answer??? Regular books don't have GIFs in them, you have imagine the motion, and many are written by idiots making money out of garbage. This should help you understand SR, http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm but what you really need to fully understand it is a course in criminal psychology. I can't help you there. I've no special knowledge of criminal behaviour, I just know it when I see it. Androcles. [snip] > Actually a photon is one "entity" made of two components. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm > That's why we speak of "electromagnetic" waves, but remember > a light beam can be focussed, usually with a parabolic mirror > as in a car headlight. Androcles, the "Electronic engineer, professionally", http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Engineer.html teaches about electromagnetic waves: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EMWaves.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EMWaves2.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MoreEM.html Dirk Vdm > Actually a photon is one "entity" made of two components. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm From where I quote: << This is in agreement with Faraday's Law for induction embodied in Maxwell's equations, E = -dB/dt which says the electric field is proportional to the change in the magnetic field. >> end quote I suppose that's why the E and B fields in an EM-wave have a 90 degrees phase difference. Well done, Androcles. Paul, trying not to laugh (Oooops. I failed.) | > Actually a photon is one "entity" made of two components. | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | I suppose that's why the E and B fields in an EM-wave | have a 90 degrees phase difference. Yep. | Well done, Androcles. Thank you. | Paul, trying not to laugh Cool. Do I get another diploma? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Diploma.JPG | (Oooops. I failed.) Farted, did you? Oh dear... I suggest you attempt to disprove your own supposition then and make the B-field simultaneously zero with the E-field. ROFLMAO! Ooops.. now I farted too. What a jolly time we are having. Androcles > | > Actually a photon is one "entity" made of two components. > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Ooops.. now I farted too. What a jolly time we are having. > Androcles http://www.schulphysik.de/ntnujava/emWave/emWave.html http://webphysics.davidson.edu/physlet_resources/bu_semester2/c22_EM.html Paul | > | > Actually a photon is one "entity" made of two components. | > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] | > | http://www.schulphysik.de/ntnujava/emWave/emWave.html There you are, see. Another Viking moron that starts out at the "origo" putting the E and M fields in phase. Little wonder you Quisling shitheads never made anything but rowboats to invade Britain and paper clips. Look at a capacitor, the current is NEVER in phase with the voltage. | http://webphysics.davidson.edu/physlet_resources/bu_semester2/c22_EM.html "E(x,t) = Emax cos(kx - omega.t) B(x,t) = Bmax cos(kx - omega.t) " That's where the guy f.cks up. E(x,t) = Emax cos(kx - omega.t) B(x,t) = Bmax -sin(kx - omega.t) BECAUSE sin^2 + cos^2 = 1^2 = 1 (by Pythagoras) the energy is constant for all t and all x, and a photon IS energy, the energy is contained in the fields. It is never zero at any x or t, which is what has been drawn. Making it zero violates conservation of energy, the photon would cease to exist. That is basic physics and basic math, boy, conservation of energy and Pythagoras. Have a good fart while you deny it. The "circular em wave" (shown with one component missing) actually is a demonstration of the energy vector (which is constant in length for all x) for plane wave. A real circular wave would rotate the green y-z plane (wrong labelled as x-y) as well. Even the fact that the guy labels his axes incorrectly tells me he is a halfwit, tho' he is smarter than you, he does draw pretty pictures. Androcles > | > | > Actually a photon is one "entity" made of two components. > | > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > halfwit, tho' he is smarter than you, he does draw pretty pictures. > Androcles Nice new series: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras3.html We already had your Pythagoras 3 times: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras2.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PythagoRescue.html You are getting more boring each day. When exactly was your euthanasia session scheduled? Dirk Vdm | > | > | > Actually a photon is one "entity" made of two components. | > | > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] | > never made anything but rowboats to invade Britain and paper clips. | > Look at a capacitor, the current is NEVER in phase with the voltage. http://webphysics.davidson.edu/physlet_resources/bu_semester2/c22_EM.html | > "E(x,t) = Emax cos(kx - omega.t) | > B(x,t) = Bmax cos(kx - omega.t) " [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] | > halfwit, tho' he is smarter than you, he does draw pretty pictures. | > Androcles Yawn... http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/classic.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/closingspeed.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/closingspeed2.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/trojan.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/human.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/zeroone.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/falsetrue.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/sloppy.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/badevents.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/inertialacc.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/insignificantgravity.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/PartialDerivative.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/mumble.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/stooges.htm Androcles > | > | > Actually a photon is one "entity" made of two components. > | > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > halfwit, tho' he is smarter than you, he does draw pretty pictures. > Androcles You goofball. The energy in the fields as a function of time is the space-integral (over all space) of the field-magnitude-squared. Do that calculation for fields in phase and show that it varies as a function of time. You seem to want to insist that the energy density at *every point in space* is constant as a function of time, as though energy conservation requires that. What on *earth* gave you that idea? You bozo. PD | > | > | > Actually a photon is one "entity" made of two components. | > | > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] | > never made anything but rowboats to invade Britain and paper clips. | > Look at a capacitor, the current is NEVER in phase with the voltage. http://webphysics.davidson.edu/physlet_resources/bu_semester2/c22_EM.html | > "E(x,t) = Emax cos(kx - omega.t) | > B(x,t) = Bmax cos(kx - omega.t) " [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] | | You goofball. You c.nt. Androcles > | > | > Actually a photon is one "entity" made of two components. > | > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > halfwit, tho' he is smarter than you, he does draw pretty pictures. > Androcles I find this very entertaining, Androcles. :-) BTW, here are a number of other screw ups: http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/websumm122/node115.html http://hypertextbook.com/physics/electricity/em-waves/ http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2000spring/PHY232/lectures/emwaves/maxwell.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node100.html http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/waves/emwv.html http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/electromagintro.html http://physics.ucsd.edu/~fogler/2C/Maxwell%2006%202.pdf http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node48.html http://www.physics.unomaha.edu/Sowell/phys2120/Lectures/EMWaves/EMWaves.pdf http://www.shef.ac.uk/physics/teaching/phy205/lecture_18.htm The world seems to be full of idiots with the delusion that the E and B fields in an EM-wave are in phase. You have an important mission, educating the world. Keep rolling and farting, Androcles! Paul | > | > | > Actually a photon is one "entity" made of two components. | > | > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] | > never made anything but rowboats to invade Britain and paper clips. | > Look at a capacitor, the current is NEVER in phase with the voltage. http://webphysics.davidson.edu/physlet_resources/bu_semester2/c22_EM.html | > "E(x,t) = Emax cos(kx - omega.t) | > B(x,t) = Bmax cos(kx - omega.t) " [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] | http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/websumm122/node115.html | http://hypertextbook.com/physics/electricity/em-waves/ http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2000spring/PHY232/lectures/emwaves/maxwell.html | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation | http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node100.html | http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/waves/emwv.html | http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/electromagintro.html | http://physics.ucsd.edu/~fogler/2C/Maxwell%2006%202.pdf | http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node48.html http://www.physics.unomaha.edu/Sowell/phys2120/Lectures/EMWaves/EMWaves.pdf | http://www.shef.ac.uk/physics/teaching/phy205/lecture_18.htm | | The world seems to be full of idiots with the delusion | that the E and B fields in an EM-wave are in phase. Yep. Like parrots, they squawk in tune but have no understanding of what that are saying, each repeating what they hear. | You have an important mission, educating the world. | | Keep rolling and farting, Androcles! Did you have any mathematical or physical argument to offer? No? The world seems to be full of idiots with the delusion that the E and B fields in an EM-wave are in phase. I find this very entertaining, proven lying c.nt. :-) ROFLMAO! Androcles. > | > | > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in > message [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > Yep. Like parrots, they squawk in tune but have no understanding of what > that are saying, each repeating what they hear. Indeed. They are all parroting the idiot Maxwell. > | You have an important mission, educating the world. > | > | Keep rolling and farting, Androcles! > > Did you have any mathematical or physical argument to offer? > No? I am afraid I can contribute with nothing new. A conventionalist like me can only parrot Maxwell. As opposed to you I am not inventing new physics. Assume we have a plane EM-wave propagating along the x-axis with the E-field: Ex = 0 Ey = Eo*sin(wt - kx) Ez = 0 Now we can ask which B-field this E-field will induce. (curl E)_x = 0 (the x-component of the vector curl E) (curl E)_y = -@Ez/@x = 0 (the y component - etc) (curl E)_z = @Ey/@x = -k*Eo*cos(wt - kx) According to Maxwell: curl E = -@B/@t Thus: -@Bx/@t = 0 -@By/@t = 0 -@Bz/@t = -k*Eo*cos(wt - kx) Integrating: Bx = 0 By = 0 Bz = (k/w)*Eo*sin(wt - kx) = (Eo/c)*sin(wt - kx) So according to Maxwell, the induced magnetic field is perpendicular to the E-field, and in phase with the E-field. Now we could ask which E-field this B field will induce. We have: (curl B)_x = 0 (curl B)_y = -@Bz/@x = k*(Eo/c)*cos(wt - kx) (curl B)_z = @By/@x = 0 According to Maxwell: curl H = @D/@t or c^2*curl B = @E/@t Thus: @Ex/@t = 0 @Ey/@t = c^2*k*(Eo/c)*cos(wt - kx) @Bz/@t = 0 Integrating: Ex = 0 Ey = (c^2*k*(Eo/c)/w)*sin(wt - kx)=Eo*sin(wt-kx) Ez = 0 So according to Maxwell, the induced E-field is perpendicular to the B-field, and in phase with the B-field. > The world seems to be full of idiots with the delusion > that the E and B fields in an EM-wave are in phase. > I find this very entertaining, proven lying c.nt. :-) > ROFLMAO! > Androcles. Indeed. The world is full of idiots with the delusion that Maxwell's equation curl E = -@B/@t is correct, and that the E and B fields thus are in phase. You, OTOH, is the one and only person in the whole world knowing that the correct equation is E = -@B/@t, and that the E and B fields thus not are in phase. You are not like a parrot repeating what you have learned, because you never learned anything but invented it all yourself. You are definitely not brainwashed by education, but are a true autodidact. You have indeed an important mission educating the world about your new and revolutionary physics. Paul, stunned by admiration of the unicum Androcles > > | > | > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in > > message [quoted text clipped - 169 lines] > knowing that the correct equation is E = -@B/@t, > and that the E and B fields thus not are in phase. See also: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ACTeachings.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ACTeachingsRev.html > You are not like a parrot repeating what you have learned, > because you never learned anything but invented it all yourself. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Paul, stunned by admiration of the unicum Androcles Still stunned? After all these years? Dirk Vdm | > Paul, stunned by admiration of the unicum Androcles | | Still stunned? | After all these years? | | Dirk Vdm You should be writing up a fumble, local village psychopath. The shithead Andersen is claiming y.sin(x) = z.cos(x) with cos(x) = sin(x). But you are out of your depth. Those short legs will do it every time. http://tinyurl.com/j8o5q Androcles. | > | > | > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in | > message [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] | > | > never made anything but rowboats to invade Britain and paper clips. | > | > Look at a capacitor, the current is NEVER in phase with the voltage. http://webphysics.davidson.edu/physlet_resources/bu_semester2/c22_EM.html | > | > "E(x,t) = Emax cos(kx - omega.t) | > | > B(x,t) = Bmax cos(kx - omega.t) " [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] | > | http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/websumm122/node115.html | > | http://hypertextbook.com/physics/electricity/em-waves/ http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2000spring/PHY232/lectures/emwaves/maxwell.html | > | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation | > | http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node100.html | > | http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/waves/emwv.html | > | http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/electromagintro.html | > | http://physics.ucsd.edu/~fogler/2C/Maxwell%2006%202.pdf | > | http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node48.html http://www.physics.unomaha.edu/Sowell/phys2120/Lectures/EMWaves/EMWaves.pdf | > | http://www.shef.ac.uk/physics/teaching/phy205/lecture_18.htm | > | [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] | | Paul, stunned by admiration of the unicum Androcles If I'm an autodidact, then I invented the wheel. | According to Maxwell: | curl E = -@B/@t According to the proven lying c.nt, Ey = Eo*sin(wt - kx) (correct) and B is in phase with E (incorrect), Thus Bz = Bo*cos(wt - kx) and sin(x) = cos(x) where x is the direction of propagation and y and z are the directions of the field vectors. I happen to know that sin(x) does not equal cos(x), but maybe it does in Norway. Androcles, not stunned at all by the stupidity of a lying tusselad who integrates twice and even then doesn't claim a phase shift of pi. > | > Did you have any mathematical or physical argument to offer? > | > No? [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > integrates > twice and even then doesn't claim a phase shift of pi. Well, Androcles. Maybe you can point out exactly where I go wrong? Let's start with the basics. Do you claim that this equation of Maxwell is wrong? curl E = -@B/@t If your answer is yes, it is wrong, will you then please show us the correct equation? If your answer is no, it is correct, will you then please point out exactly where I go wrong when I apply this equation? I will make it simple for you: In our case the equation: curl E = -@B/@t simplifies to: @Ey/@x = -@Bz/@t If Ey = Eo*sin(wt - kx) we have: @Ey/@x = -k*Eo*cos(wt - kx) so: -@Bz/@t = -k*Eo*cos(wt - kx) integrating: Bz = (k/w)*Eo*sin(wt - kx) So: Ey = Eo*sin(wt - kx) Bz = Bo*sin(wt - kz) where Bo = Eo/c Where did I go wrong, Androcles? I am not really serious, of course. :-) This simple math is way beyond your abilities. Which I am sure your response to this posting will demonstrate. That's why I am doing this; your responses are so entertaining. Paul, expecting to be entertained | > | > Did you have any mathematical or physical argument to offer? | > | > No? [quoted text clipped - 128 lines] | | Where did I go wrong, Androcles? When you confused x with t for the domain and put in c. Transformers, motors and generators don't care about x, and partial derivatives require all other parameters constant. And of course there is this: "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. " -- Einstein. | I am not really serious, of course. :-) Idiots like you never are. | This simple math is way beyond your abilities. Is it? | Which I am sure your response to this posting will demonstrate. | That's why I am doing this; your responses are so entertaining. | | Paul, expecting to be entertained You are simply making a fool of yourself. But then, that's what you are, so ... <shrug> Androcles > | Maybe you can point out exactly where I go wrong? > | Let's start with the basics. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > | > | If your answer is Since you are trying to point out where I go wrong, I suppose your answer to the question above is: > | no, it is correct, will you then > | please point out exactly where I go wrong when I apply [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > When you confused x with t for the domain and put in c. You mean somewhere here? In our case the equation: curl E = -@B/@t simplifies to: @Ey/@x = -@Bz/@t If Ey = Eo*sin(wt - kx) we have: @Ey/@x = -k*Eo*cos(wt - kx) so: -@Bz/@t = -k*Eo*cos(wt - kx) integrating: Bz = (k/w)*Eo*sin(wt - kx) Please point out exactly where I "confuse x with t". "put in c"? I suppose you know that w/k = c. You ARE an electrical engineer, aren't you? :-) > Transformers, motors and generators don't care about x, > and partial derivatives require all other parameters constant. So @f(x,t)/@x is impossible because t is no constant? :-) You were joking, of course. You DO have a degree in mathematics, don't you? So maybe you can show us the correct derivation? We have: curl E = - @B/@t and Ey = Eo*sin(wt - kx) B = ? An alternative approach is starting with: curl H = @D/@t or (in vacuum): curl B = c^-2*@E/@t and: Ey = Eo*sin(wt - kx) B = ? This is easy for someone with a degree in mathematics, isn't it? > | This simple math is way beyond your abilities. > > Is it? We'll see. >| Which I am sure your response to this posting will demonstrate. >| That's why I am doing this; your responses are so entertaining. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But then, that's what you are, so ... <shrug> > Androcles Quite. And you can make an ever bigger fool of me by showing that the correct derivation is different from mine. Paul, having fun > > | > | > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in > > message [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > Indeed. > They are all parroting the idiot Maxwell. no, idiot you maxwell himself said that he can be wrong he modeled the space consisting by nothing but rigid rotating hexagons this is stupid, and so you are > > | You have an important mission, educating the world. > > | [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > So according to Maxwell, the induced magnetic field is > perpendicular to the E-field, and in phase with the E-field. bullshit since when sin and cos are in phase!? depending on the direction of propagation, there are 90* phase difference betwwen them > Now we could ask which E-field this B field will induce. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > So according to Maxwell, the induced E-field is > perpendicular to the B-field, and in phase with the B-field. wrong > > The world seems to be full of idiots with the delusion > > that the E and B fields in an EM-wave are in phase. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Paul, stunned by admiration of the unicum Androcles > | > | This would be an absurd question to one that knows the answer. > | > | [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > of miles carrying a cork with it, or only up and down? > Or try cracking a whip. Ok thanks, so the EM waves move horizontally like water waves. I thought perhaps there was chance they pop up vertically along a horizontal path one wave at a time, and as each new wave forms the previous waves bop up and down only. > | > | 2. Or do these mountains(wave peeks) remain in place and only move up > | > | and down with time? [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Androcles. | > | > | This would be an absurd question to one that knows the answer. | > | > | [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] | | Ok thanks, so the EM waves move horizontally like water waves. The pulse moves horizontally, the water moves up and down. | I thought perhaps there was chance they pop up vertically along a | horizontal path one wave at a time, and as each new wave forms the | previous waves bop up and down only. Perhaps you mean a "standing" wave. Here are two examples. http://tinyurl.com/cugpd http://tinyurl.com/h2g7z In the second example we see two travelling waves combining, but the aether wind blowing by has no effect. This is the now famous Michelson-Morley experiment that concluded there was no aether. Androcles | > | > | 2. Or do these mountains(wave peeks) remain in place and only move up | > | > | and down with time? [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] | > | > Androcles. > | > | > | This would be an absurd question to one that knows the answer. > | > | > | [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > In the second example we see two travelling waves combining, > but the aether wind blowing by has no effect. Ok thanks, in the first example are you saying sound waves don't propagate horizontally since guitar strings produce sound waves?? >This is the now famous > Michelson-Morley experiment that concluded there was no aether. [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > | > > | > Androcles. | > | > | > | This would be an absurd question to one that knows the answer. | > | > | > | [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] | Ok thanks, in the first example are you saying sound waves don't | propagate horizontally since guitar strings produce sound waves?? I can hear my grandson in his bedroom upstairs when he's using his Play Station 2 and I'm visiting my daughter. I'd say sound travels vertically, just as sunlight does. :-) Actually sound is a "longitudinal" wave, http://tinyurl.com/jnqpv meaning it is compression and rarification of air, (same as seismic waves from earthquakes). You can see the compression going one way an the rarification going the other. Watch a single dot. It only moves a little. Water waves are "transverse" waves, http://tinyurl.com/fxp46 the water moves above and below the mean water level. Wave motion is really more complex than most people realise. Here's another: http://tinyurl.com/eecnj Watch the pulse reflect. Remember this is a mathematical *representation* of a wave, the height is actually compression as in a longitudinal wave. The pulse can also be thought of as photon. The diagram doesn't actually make any sense for a photon. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photonwave.gif The ball (height representing the field strength of a photon) is bouncing and traces out the FIXED green wave, not a moving red wave, so if anyone tells you about wave-particle duality, point out to them that light waves don't move, they are the history of a photon. There are no light "waves". Androcles. | >This is the now famous | > Michelson-Morley experiment that concluded there was no aether. [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] | > | > | > | > Androcles. > | > | > | > | This would be an absurd question to one that knows the answer. > | > | > | > | [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > http://tinyurl.com/fxp46 Ok thanks > the water moves above and below the mean > water level. Wave motion is really more complex than most people realise. [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > | > | > > | > | > Androcles. why are you comparing waves to mountains > This would be an absurd question to one that knows the answer. > If say the peeks of an EM wave are mountains: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > up and down with time (meaning the wave peeks go up and down with > time)?? Well, I think it's a pretty good question. I've been thinking about it for the last couple of days myself. I've been thinking about running over to the nearest library and checking what Faraday or Maxwell had to say on the subject. If you have a positive charge moving up and down and up and down, the electric field should point directly away from it. So as that electric field arrives at its destination, it will still be going up and down and up and down, but mostly straight away from the source. If you look at the vectors, you'll find this is enough to apply a torque to a dipole. But there is a delay of the speed of light, and I believe it probably maintains the shape of the electric fields, except that they spread out. I think this idea is compatible with polarization and circular polarization you seem to get from Karo syrup and that kind of stuff. > This would be an absurd question to one that knows the answer. amazingly no hipnotists can answer your question lets see the problem is the way the wave is depicted, everywhere, on internet etc if the direction of propagation is alon z-axis for instance, then they depict a liniar polarized EM wave as having the amplitude oscilating up an down along y axis or x, which is wrong why? becouse look into yourself, dont listen and look to everybody turn on a light bulb, the light propagates spherical, how could the amplitude oscilate perpendicular to any direction of propagation this is stooopid, and gay the amplitude oscillate in the direction of propagation i do like jesus and give you an example to understand take the wave as being a ballon surface, how can it oscillate, of course only in the direction of propagate, back and forward even a colimated coherent laser beam, consider it as a steradian part cutten out from the big spherical wave, yes, it is not 100% plane frontwave now you need to give me 10 poings for the good answer > If say the peeks of an EM wave are mountains: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > up and down with time (meaning the wave peeks go up and down with > time)?? Both you and spoonfed didn't exactly reply to my question which is do the peeks of these EM waves: 1. only vibrate up and down 2. or as well if they move forward. In case of #1, the wave simply emerges along the vertical axis as each new wave is formed along it's horizontal trajectory at the velocity of light.... > > This would be an absurd question to one that knows the answer. > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > up and down with time (meaning the wave peeks go up and down with > > time)?? > Both you and spoonfed didn't exactly reply to my question which is do > the peeks of these EM waves: oh sorry man, i just realized that you are completly braindead yo are the guy takin evaporation/condension as bein electrolyse yo fool if it has a speed, of course they are moving with that speed what a foken moron yo are and again, is nothen wrong in being stooped, but when you learn somthin from anybody, just say thank you yo piece of sh.t > 1. only vibrate up and down > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > > up and down with time (meaning the wave peeks go up and down with > > > time)?? > > Both you and spoonfed didn't exactly reply to my question which is do > > the peeks of these EM waves: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > yo are the guy takin evaporation/condension as bein > electrolyse yo how is going. No one is talking about electrolyse, bad dreams again? > yo fool are ya black? ya casa su casa. > if it has a speed, of course they are moving with that > speed I didn't know that I don't spend my days visualizing em waves. I thought there's a "chance" they might be different and that new lumps simply appear (gradually increase vertically) in front of the past lumps as the wave moves forward.... > what a foken moron yo are > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > yo piece of sh.t such foul language, how many years of prison have yo spent before they released yo? > > 1. only vibrate up and down > > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > > > up and down with time (meaning the wave peeks go up and down with > > > > time)?? | > Both you and spoonfed didn't exactly reply to my question which is do | > the peeks of these EM waves: | | oh sorry man, i just realized that you are completly | braindead f.ck off, you dumb c.nt, he's go more brain than you've got arse, and that's a lot. Androcles. > If say the peeks of an EM wave are mountains: > 1. Do these mountains move forward with time and remain the same > distance apart (= frequency)? For an infinite plane wave, yes. But their distance apart is their wavelength, not frequency. wavelength = c/frequency. Such a wave traveling along the z axis is described mathematically: Ez = Bz = Ey = Bx = 0 Ex = E0 sin(w t - (w/c) z) By = B0 cos(w t - (w/c) z) w = 2 pi f, where f is the frequency of the wave. There is a relationship between E0 and B0 you can look up; both are constant. Since the peaks of cos(x) occur when x=2 n pi (n an integer), the wave is traveling in the +z direction. > 2. Or do these mountains(wave peeks) remain in place and only move up > and down with time? No. But for water waves, the individual molecules of water do (approximately) stay in one place horizontally and opnly move up and down with time. For an EM wave, the E and B fields at a given point oscillate between their max and min values; attempting to discuss a field "moving" does not make sense. Tom Roberts > > If say the peeks of an EM wave are mountains: > > 1. Do these mountains move forward with time and remain the same [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Such a wave traveling along the z axis is described mathematically: I used to and prefer to use x as a horizontal traveling axis and y as the vertical axis for the wave... > Ez = Bz = Ey = Bx = 0 > Ex = E0 sin(w t - (w/c) z) > By = B0 cos(w t - (w/c) z) > w = 2 pi f, where f is the frequency of the wave. Is w the angular velocity and how come the amplitude is not in the equation, meaning w = 2pi A F > There is a relationship between E0 and B0 you can look > up; both are constant. > > Since the peaks of cos(x) occur when x=2 n pi (n an integer), the wave Ok, but the peaks travel all along the z axis, meaning at any variable value along the z axis, correct? > is traveling in the +z direction. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (approximately) stay in one place horizontally and opnly move up and > down with time. Are you sure, I thought that water waves created by a moving boat do travel horizontally(I thought EM waves where the exception not water waves) otherwise wouldn't a cork on these waves remain in the same location (bopping up and down) instead of moving forward with the waves? >For an EM wave, the E and B fields at a given point > oscillate between their max and min values; attempting to discuss a > field "moving" does not make sense. I'm not sure what you mean, unless you mean an EM wave surrounding an electron (oscillates around the electron) as it moves in a wire where as I'm talking about for example about a Radio EM wave emitted by an antenna (as the wave propagates away from the antenna)? > Tom Roberts > This would be an absurd question to one that knows the answer. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 2. Or do these mountains(wave peeks) remain in place and only move up > and down with time? It's not either/or. It's both. A traveling wave is a function of both space and time. When one wants to look at a function of two variables, one takes a "slice" (holding one variable constant) and looks at the behavior of the function in terms of the other variable. If you take a "time slice" (holding time constant), you see that the EM field is a wave in space, with "peak moments" separated in space. If you take a later time slice, you will see that the peaks have shifted in one direction or the other. If you take a "space slice" (holding space constant), you will see that the EM field at a given place oscillates back and forth with the "peak moments" separated in time. It is an oscillation in *both* time and space. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > up and down with time (meaning the wave peeks go up and down with > time)?? Just one additional clarification: If you take the time slice for t=0 and then look at the next time slice for t=1, does the wave form look exactly the same, just shifted over? I would say yes, the electric fields are in the exact same configuration, except for the minor detail that the different waves may have vector's slightly at angles to one another, so what may have overlapped before may split apart, or vice versa. Now as for whether or not this means that the electric field "moved" may be as important a question as whether a tree falling makes a sound with no one to hear it. | Just one additional clarification: | | If you take the time slice for t=0 and then look at the next time slice | for t=1, does the wave form look exactly the same, just shifted over? The wave form looks like this " ( " at t = 0, like this " / " at t =1, like this ") " at t = pi and like this "(" at t = 2pi. | I would say yes, Idiot. Androcles. > > This would be an absurd question to one that knows the answer. > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > It is an oscillation in *both* time and space. I'm talking about the visual aspect, meaning either one of the following two cases below here, where the mountain peeks represent a radio signal's EM wave peeks, for metaphoric example lets pretend the mountains are on a road: #1. Do the mountains move forward exactly like a car on the road? or #2. Do the mountains remain stationary AND INSTEAD EACH new mountain gradually pops up vertically out of the road in front of the previous other mountains? Lets pretend the wavelength is a distance = 30 and pretend the 1st mountain peek (wave peek) was at a horizontal distance x=10 In case #1 above this mountains peek would occupy all distances along the x axis meaning x=10 then x=10.0001 then x=10.0002, etc.... In case #2 the wave always remains at the same phase with the source, meaning: the 1st mountain always remains at x = 10 and instead a new mountain ***gradually*** grows upwards vertically(from a flat road) in front of the 1st mountain with it's peek at location x = 10 + wavelength = 40, etc.... (therefore in case #2 there is *never* a mountain peek anywere between x=10 and x=40 where as in case #1 the mountain peeks travels horizontally all along the x axis including between x=10 and x= 40) > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > up and down with time (meaning the wave peeks go up and down with > > time)?? > > > This would be an absurd question to one that knows the answer. > > > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > mountain peeks travels horizontally all along the x axis including > between x=10 and x= 40) Visually, you can look at it either way. http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2000spring/PHY232/lectures/emwaves/maxwell.html Focus your eyes on one red hump and you'll see the same hump moving to the right. Focus your eyes on the origin and you'll see a mountain growing, then falling, then making a valley, then rising again. It is *both*, not one or the other. PD > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > up and down with time (meaning the wave peeks go up and down with > > > time)?? > > > > This would be an absurd question to one that knows the answer. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > PD All right, thanks. > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > up and down with time (meaning the wave peeks go up and down with > > > > time)?? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.