Welcome to CollegeHighway.com
Search CollegeHighway.com

Main Menu
  • Home

  • Event Calendar

  • College Critic

  • College Essays

  • New Music

  • News Topics

  • ProfessorRating

  • Recommend Us

  • Submit News

  • Top 10

  • My Account

  • FAQ


  • Login
    Nickname

    Password

    Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

    Free CollegeHighway WebMail
    Username:
    Password:


    Use Frames:
    Yes No

    Forgot Password URL
    Signup URL
    Help Section URL

    Toy Stores
    Looking for toy stores that sell every toy you could possibly want to buy? Check out this online toy store for cool toys like radio control cars, electric rc helicopters, and Hydro-Foam.

    Buy Music

    CDNOW









    Trippin?

    Book your flights and hotels online NOW!

    Check Yourself

    Aptitude, Entrepreneurship and Personality tests

    Ephemerids
    One Day like Today...


    Welcome
    You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here.

     
     Einstein knew that Doppler in Lorentz give asymmetric results so he........
     Contributed by Mathew Orman on Sunday, February 09 @ 14:34:37 PST
    Site News

    The EM wave's propagation speed is infinite at the center of radiation (center of radiating antenna) and gradually decreases into speed of c at the end of near field. For the magnetic field emitted by coil inductor antenna which is substantially smaller than the wavelength, the effect of infinite speed of change of the field gradient shows no decries throughout the near field range. As observed in the experiment ( no variation in signal phase with distance from the center of coil). This spells The End of Einstein's era. The Einstein's theory has now been proven False! Sincerely, Mathew Orman ps.Some detail are listed below ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Franz Heymann wrote: > From Wabnig's last note on the subject, it appears thatgengineers and > physicists have different concepts of "near" and "far" fields. > The physicist's near and far fields are the two field terms associated > with an elementary dipole oscillator, as I indicated. You are right, that there are shades of meaning the the words "near field". I think of it thus: The field around the dipole can be decomposed into two pieces. An evanescent part and the rest of it. Near the dipole, the evanescent part is strong, but it dies out more quickly with distance than the other part. This corresponds roughly to near field and far field. In Ormand's case, the non-propagating evanescent part dominates the rest, so it is no surprise that as he moves his pick up coil around he sees no phase shift. By any definition, he is completely immersed in the near field. -- Thank you for reading and or replying If you are one in a million, there are 6000 people just like you. Local optimization almost never yields global optimization. Opinions expressed here are my own and may not represent those of my employer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Franz Heymann wrote: > You have snipped withoutsaying so. Sorry Franz, I thought it was obvious and did not change the meaning. I've always used the convention that if I only snip from the beginning and the end (no snipping in the middle so as to juxtapose words that weren't) it is not necessary to explicitly say so. I will endeavor to be more careful when I quote you, but let me apologize in advance if my old habits sometimes return. > The part you snipped contains the correct inference that since both > the fields contain the same time-dependence, namely > (t-r/c) > That is sufficient to prove that both fields are propagated with phase > speed c. > No further arguments can change that fact. Franz, you broke the total field into two pieces that you called near field and far field and showed that each when considered separately appears to travel at c. That is a useful but arbitrary separation of the field into components. I broke those components up into more components and showed that some of the apparently propagating components actually canceled each other. I combined them to show that the composite resembled a non propagating field for small r. Or to put it another way, I can also separate the total field into two arbitrary components with one being a non propagating component which I call the near field. The difference is that my near field expression suggests that the phase of the near field is constant and not a linear function of r, whereas a casual examination of your expressions suggest that the phase would be a linearly increasing function of r at all distances. -- Thank you for reading and or replying If you are one in a million, there are 6000 people just like you. Local optimization almost never yields global optimization. Opinions expressed here are my own and may not represent those of my employer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- Franz Heymann wrote: > H_phi = [ lambda A / (2 pi r^2) cos w(t-r/c)] - A/r sin w(t-r/c) > where A depends on the amplitude of the dipole moment looking in Balanis, "Antenna Theory",1997, p207 he has the near field and far field with the same multiplier, so dropping common multiplicative constants and letting w/c = k what is left is = (1/kr) [ 1 / kr] cos(wt-kr) - 1/kr [1 - 1/(kr)^2] sin (wt-kr) using trig identities = (1/kr) [ 1 / kr ] [ cos(wt) cos(kr) + sin(wt)sin(kr)] - 1/kr [1 - 1/(kr)^2] [ sin (wt)cos(kr) - cos(wr)sin(kr)] = (1/kr) [ 1 / kr ] [ cos(wt) cos(kr) + sin(wt)sin(kr)] 1/kr [1 - 1/(kr)^2] [-sin (wt)cos(kr) + cos(wr)sin(kr)] gather similar terms = (1/kr) cos(wt) [cos(kr)/kr + (1 - 1/(kr)^2)sin(kr) ] +(1/kr) sin(wt) [sin(kr)/kr - (1 - 1/(kr)^2)cos(kr) ] assuming r => 0, approximate cos(kr) = 1 - (kr)^2 sin(kr) = kr = (1/kr) cos(wt) [(1 - (kr)^2)/kr + (1 - 1/(kr)^2)(kr) ] +(1/kr) sin(wt) [(kr)/kr - (1 - 1/(kr)^2)(1 - (kr)^2) ] = (1/kr) cos(wt) [1/kr - kr + kr - 1/kr ] +(1/kr) sin(wt) [-1 +(kr)^2 + 1/(kr)^2 ] = (1/kr) sin(wt) [-1 +(kr)^2 + 1/(kr)^2 ] and since we've lost the cos(wt) term, what is left looks like a non propagating constant phase field. -- Thank you for reading and or replying If you are one in a million, there are 6000 people just like you. Local optimization almost never yields global optimization. Opinions expressed here are my own and may not represent those of my employer. //========================================================================== One 20 cm 5 turns rectangular coil driven with ac low impedance power source (HP 33120A waveform generator plus CMOS high current pushpull driver). One sensing coil 10uH connected to the input of high speed comparator 500ps rise/fall time. The driving power source frequency set at 1MHz. Osciloscope HP 54602A channel 1 mentors the ac power waveform and triggers the scope. The channel 2 is connected to the output of the comparator. Set the sensing coil 33 cm from the rectangular coil on axis maximum coupling. Store the sensed waveform. No move the sensing coil to the distance of 3 cm. Rotate the coil and observe the signal from it. When you match the amplitude with the stored waveform press the store button again. It stores the second waveform. According to Einstein the should be about 1ns delay between the two waveforms. I didn't see the delay. Mathew Orman ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Related Links
  • Academics
  • Automotive
  • Entertainment
  • Fashion
  • Food
  • Legal Help
  • Night Life
  • Party Supplies
  • Real Estate
  • Relocation
  • Travel
  • More about Site News
  • News by sorce


    Most read story about Site News:
    Einstein knew that Doppler in Lorentz give asymmetric results so he........


    Last news about Site News:


    Printer Friendly Page  Send this Story to a Friend

  • 0
    "Einstein knew that Doppler in Lorentz give asymmetric results so he........" | Login/Create Account | 0 comments
    Threshold
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.


    All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001 by CollegeHighway.com