[dleviwing]

Farside;
Members need only to check our profiles to decide who they should listen to. The text book description seems to have worked very well for my students; it would appear that you were not one of them.

[Farsight]

No, I wasn't.

And readers will not find the theory of everything in your textbook.

Now go and look up the relationship between an electric field and a magnetic field. If you move through an electric field it appears to be a magnetic field. If you move through a magnetic field it appears to be an electric field. It's regular physics. It's basic stuff. This is why we have electric motors and dynamos. That's why it's called an electromagnetic field.

[dleviwing]

John;
You are referring to the EM fields of radiant energy in your posts but giving views of the separate phenomena of charge and magnetism. Let’s separate the apples, oranges and grapes John. A moving electrical field (current) will produce a magnetic field; a moving magnetic field will produce moving electrons. Moving through a magnetic field will NOT produce charge (electric field) it can only produce voltage differential no matter how one may view it. You are being ambiguous by mixing EM phenomena with the separate phenomena of charge and magnetism!

It would appear that you are viewing electrical differential (voltage) as a field whereas I view the charge of a particle as being an electrical field. Unless you are interpreting EM as ElectroMotive force, it has nothing to do with motors and dynamos. Radio, lasers, solar cells and so on, may be better examples.

Let’s not disrupt Profpat’s thread anymore than we have already.

Profpat;
If you like, I'll remove these posts from your thread.

[Profpat]

Thanks for the offer David but open discussions are always helpful. Thanks for the input gentlemen.

Best to you both,

Pat

[Farsight]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

You are referring to the EM fields of radiant energy in your posts but giving views of the separate phenomena of charge and magnetism. Let’s separate the apples, oranges and grapes John. A moving electrical field (current) will produce a magnetic field;

Look to your relativity. Motion is relative. You can't say whether it's you moving or the electric field. So when you move through an electric field but don't know it you perceive yourself to be in a magnetic field. An electric field moving through you is an identical situation. It doesn't produce a magnetic field. It is a magnetic field if you're moving relative to it. The difference is merely down to your frame of reference.

A moving magnetic field will produce moving electrons. Moving through a magnetic field will NOT produce charge (electric field) it can only produce voltage differential no matter how one may view it. You are being ambiguous by mixing EM phenomena with the separate phenomena of charge and magnetism!

Wrong. If you are moving through an electric field at say 10m/s but don't know it, you would claim you were at rest in a magnetic field. Assume I'm moving along with you. Then assume that I move at 10ms in an opposite direction. I would then assert that I'm at rest in an electric field. This electric field and the charge that caused it were already there. I didn't "create it" by moving through what you assert to be a magnetic field.

It would appear that you are viewing electrical differential (voltage) as a field whereas I view the charge of a particle as being an electrical field. Unless you are interpreting EM as ElectroMotive force, it has nothing to do with motors and dynamos. Radio, lasers, solar cells and so on, may be better examples.

I understand charge and magnetism along with all electromagnetic phenomena. Totally and absolutely. If you actually read what I've offered instead of sniping your refusal, you might appreciate this.

Let’s not disrupt Profpat’s thread anymore than we have already.

See Profpat's reply above. Whilst you might not believe it, I'm for real. If you don't believe me, test me on any problem in physics that puzzles you. I can give a logical and coherent response to most. If you'd prefer to take it to the thread I started, that's fine by me.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Profpat

Thanks for the offer David but open discussions are always helpful.

I agree. It's good to get an honest argument going sometimes.

regards
Felix

PS - That diagram of the male brain did not display too well but there appears to be a region labelled 'ironing'. If my interpretation is correct let me say that this sector is completely missing from my (feline) brain.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by austintorn@aol.com

The mind, being of the brain, is of many little minds, minding their own area of focus; some are even simpleton minds or just above reflexes. The conscious mind is a higher, more global, part of the brain, but is the last to know of the brain's smaller minds analyzing their own domains. Then it gets fed back into the brain sometimes for a more creative result.

Hi Austin

Have you read 'Dianetics' by L Ron Hubbard?

His writing style is terrible and much of the content is crackpot but there is much in common with the above.

regards
Felix

[dleviwing]

John;
Electrical fields and magnetic fields are dependent on the physical objects that sustain them; Electromagnetic fields are independent of the physical entity that created them. Relativity has nothing to do with this discussion unless the objects you are referring to are being accelerated to near the speed of light.

It is better to test you on a question in physics that has an answer rather than one that would be a puzzle to me; how would I know if your answer was correct?
Try this:
What happens to the magnetic moment of an electron when it reaches the acceleration of 400Khz pulsing and why?

Another would be: What is the fundamental philosophy of science?

[Farsight]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Electrical fields and magnetic fields are dependent on the physical objects that sustain them; Electromagnetic fields are independent of the physical entity that created them. Relativity has nothing to do with this discussion unless the objects you are referring to are being accelerated to near the speed of light.

No. I suggest you look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism where you can read:

A changing magnetic field produces an electric field... Similarly, a changing electric field generates a magnetic field. Because of this interdependence of the electric and magnetic fields, it makes sense to consider them as a single coherent entity - the electromagnetic field.

Consider the above carefully, and also consider what I said earlier, along with the phrase change is motion. Relativity has everything to do with it.

It is better to test you on a question in physics that has an answer rather than one that would be a puzzle to me; how would I know if your answer was correct? Try this: What happens to the magnetic moment of an electron when it reaches the acceleration of 400Khz pulsing and why?

I don't know.

Another would be: What is the fundamental philosophy of science?

The search for truth. To understand the world.

I'm really surprised to find a moderator on a ToE discussion forum who doesn't want to, and who stubbornly refuses to believe that anybody else can.

[Profpat]

Another would be: What is the fundamental philosophy of science? The search for truth. To understand the world.

Maybe a better question, or a first question should be; What is science? Science is willing to accept constants without knowing why or the truth behind them. To understand the world also requires an understanding of faith ( i.e. We have faith that we and this world actually exist when most philosophers believe it to be an illusion. Even the math of present day physics have our universe breaking down into a infinite number of dimensionless point particles.) We really do take our reality as if it is real without any real proof.