[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Physics of Wireless Transmission
Original poster: Vardan <vardan01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Dave,
At 07:04 AM 4/23/2006, you wrote:
Hi Terry, Bob, and all,
I have found a web page that presents the mathematics behind
relativistic charge:
http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/MRRtalk.html
You will note in equation 3 it says, "The expression in
parentheses must be the magnetic field strength." When you work
out the actual dimensions for the term in the parentheses, you
get mass per time, which is not the unit of magnetic field
strength.
Let's check it out...
http://www.greenfacts.org/power-lines/toolboxes/magnetic-field-units.htm
""""
Magnetic Field Intensity Units
The International System (SI) unit of field
intensity for magnetic fields is Tesla (T). One
tesla (1 T) is defined as the field intensity
generating one newton of force per ampere of current per meter of conductor:
T = Nw · A-1 · m-1 = kg · s-2 · A-1
""""
The part of the equation in parentheses is:
I / (2 x pi x e0 x c^2 x R)
I==A
2 x pi == Dimensionless
e0 == Farad / m = m^-3 x kg^-1 x s^4 x A^2
c^2 == m^2 x s^-2
R == m^1
So the dimensions of the equation are:
A / (m^-3 x kg^-1 x s^4 x A^2 x m^2 x s^-2 x
m) = kg x s^-2 x A-1 = (T)
So the dimensions in the equation are fine.
How can we trust physics where we have to second guess what
nature actually intended to convey? I think if you are rational
about this, you'll agree this is a serious flaw in the theory and
that magnetism has not been proved to be relativistic
electrostatic charge.
It's fine.
This conclusion would also explain why this simple calculation is
not widely known.
Only those involved in precise space flight things would care...
People have a hard time explaining why nature
is so precise with its dimensions in every other calculation, but
makes an exception in this one instance.
Recheck the equation again. The dimensions work out perfectly.
Cheers,
Terry
Dave