Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: should Ohm's law be V=iR or V=i +R Chapt15.34 explaining
Superconductivity from Maxwell Equations #1169 New Physics #1289 ATOM
TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 9   Last Post: Jan 23, 2013 6:41 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
bacle

Posts: 838
From: nyc
Registered: 6/6/10
Re: ATOM TOTALITY Unproven Made-Up Garbage.
Posted: Jan 23, 2013 6:26 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

> On Jan 22, 2:58 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
> <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Should Ohm's law be V = iR or V = i + R Chapt15.34
> explaining
> > Superconductivity from Maxwell Equations #1169 New
> Physics #1289 ATOM
> > TOTALITY 5th ed
> >

>
> Almost as fast as I turned the computer off, that I
> realized


That you're a moron, a fraud, and that you have done nothing with your life, but mooch of others, and trash websites, since no one wants you, no one likes you, and you will die alone.

Too late, we already knew that.

what
> needed to change. The definition of Ohm's law becomes
> a physics law
> once we remove the idea that R is resistance. It is
> not resistance in
> terms of heat or friction or anything else. What R
> is, is the number
> of turns N, the number of windings in the wire in the
> Faraday law. So
> that if we write Ohm's law as V= iN we end up with
> almost the same as
> Faraday's law except the direction of current flow.
>
>

> > Alright, some good news and some bad news. The bad
> news first, in that
> > the facts surround superconductivity are not very
> well known nor
> > taught nor communicated. I have a dozen books on
> purely
> > superconductivity and not able to find facts that I
> need to have to do
> > a theory on superconduction. For example, almost no
> scientist knows
> > when a DC or AC current applies. Does anyone in
> physics even know how
> > Onnes discovered current of no resistance. And,
> does any physicist
> > know when the measuring instruments of current and
> conduction are part
> > of the "coldness temperature applied"?
> >
> > So I am delayed in superconductivity progress

> because of the
> > shoddiness of the physics community of explaining
> what the facts
> > surrounding the experiments of superconductivity
> are. The TV is full
> > of "murder mystery" programs and it seems as though
> people love
> > watching murder mystery shows, and physics is much
> like a murder
> > mystery since it is logic that assembles the facts
> in both cases, but
> > if many of the facts are missing or distorted or
> obfuse, then there
> > cannot be a resolution of superconductivity nor can
> there be a solving
> > of the murder mystery.
> >
> > But, let me get on to the good news. We know

> Faraday's law of the
> > form:
> >
> > E = -N dB/dt
> >
> > which says that the induced emf in a circuit is

> equal to the rate at
> > which the
> > magnetic flux is changing with time.
> >
> > Now, look closely at Ohm's law of V = i R and if

> you look closely and
> > think of V, the voltage or potential difference or
> the compression,
> > well, is it really not just the magnetic flux? In
> other words, voltage
> > is a different word for magnetic flux
> > and that V = i R is just the Faraday law. Except it

> has a problem with
> > the resistance.
> >
> > Now, can we take the -N as the resistance, where

> the negative sign is
> > direction and the N the number of N turns in the
> coil? Not really.
> >
> > So what needs to change? And the answer is that

> Ohm's law is not
> > really a law of physics, but a definition and a
> definition can always
> > change.
> >
> > In a previous chapter I derived the Dirac Equation

> by listing the four
> > Maxwell Equation and then summing all 4 equations
> into one huge
> > equation. I did that with the magnetic monopoles
> included. On January
> >
> > 3, 2013, I wrote:
> >
> > Alright, these are the 4 symmetrical Maxwell

> Equations with magnetic
> > monopoles:
>
> div*E = r_E
>
> div*B = r_B
>
> - curlxE = dB + J_B
>
> curlxB = dE + J_E
>

> > Now to derive the Dirac Equation from the Maxwell
> Equations we add
> > the ?lot together:
>
> div*E = r_E
>
> div*B = r_B
>
> - curlxE = dB + J_B
>
> curlxB = dE + J_E
> ________________
>
> div*E + div*B + (-1)curlxE + curlxB = r_E + r_B + dB
> + dE + J_E + J_B
>
>

> > Now Wikipedia has a good description of how Dirac
> derived his famous
> > equation which gives this:
>
> (Ad_x + Bd_y + Cd_z + (i/c)Dd_t - mc/h) p = 0
>

> > So how is the above summation of Maxwell Equations
> that of a
> > generalized Dirac Equation?
> > Well, the four terms of div and curl are the

> A,B,C,D terms. And the
> > right side of the equation can all be
> ?conglomerated into one term and
> > the negative sign in the Faraday law ?can turn that
> right side into
> > the negative sign.
> >
> > In the Faraday law with magnetic monopoles we have

> a magnetic current
> > density. We have - curlxE = dB + J_B
> >
> > So is the resistance in Ohm's law locked up inside

> the term J_B ?
> >
> > Well, I think so, because we need a temperature

> variable in the
> > Maxwell Equations for that variable must be in the
> Gauss's law of
> > magnetism and must be in the extra term of
> Faraday's law.
> >
>
> Now in the above I realized that N in Faraday's law
> was R in Ohm's law
> and that it has nothing to do with resistance but
> rather how much
> current can flow by the number of windings.
>
> And also, I separated the lines of the 4 Maxwell
> Equations so as to
> make easy to see how adding them together yields the
> Dirac Equation.
> In fact, the 4 Maxwell Equations is a far larger
> generalization than
> the Dirac Equation, and what I mean by that is that
> there are extra
> predictions accruing from the Maxwell Equations of
> true physics that
> the Dirac Equation could never predict.
> --
>
> Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from
> search-engine-
> bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a
> excellent, simple and
> fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as
> seen here:
>
> http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986
>
> Archimedes Plutonium
> http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
>




Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.