On 04/27/2024 10:46 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Is this somehow correct?
(The 'backwards in time wave' is actually no prblem for me, because I
had assumed something similar before.) TH
It only goes backward, if at all: zero, so, ....
What that models is that there is a region, all the region of the
affected course of the wave, that is a "locale", that is a locality, and
that according to observer effect and "real wave collapse", of a superclassical wave of a locale an extended region, that the "real wave collapse" is "superclassical flux", i.e. instantaneous.
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Therefore the Ampere measures the strength of electrical current, which
is therefore the dimension, to which the unit Ampere belongs.
DO look up what physicists mean when they use the word 'dimension'
in the context of unit systems. It is not your fantasy meaning,
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Therefore the Ampere measures the strength of electrical current, which
is therefore the dimension, to which the unit Ampere belongs.
DO look up what physicists mean when they use the word 'dimension'
in the context of unit systems. It is not your fantasy meaning,
both wrong, the strength is actually the Intensity, which is directly
related to space and time. The coulomb is related to space and the second
to time. These physicists are unable to translate units!
Am Montag000006, 06.05.2024 um 19:28 schrieb Ollis Kalakos:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Therefore the Ampere measures the strength of electrical current,DO look up what physicists mean when they use the word 'dimension'
which is therefore the dimension, to which the unit Ampere belongs.
in the context of unit systems. It is not your fantasy meaning,
both wrong, the strength is actually the Intensity, which is directly
related to space and time. The coulomb is related to space and the
second to time. These physicists are unable to translate units!
Apparently you mean 'current density'.
But that is something else, because that quantity contains 'space' and measures the current through an area-unit.
The usual interpretation of 'current' ignores that quantity and sums up
the current over the entire wire in question, while the term current
density does not.
Therefore the Ampere measures the strength of electrical current,DO look up what physicists mean when they use the word 'dimension'
which is therefore the dimension, to which the unit Ampere belongs.
in the context of unit systems. It is not your fantasy meaning,
both wrong, the strength is actually the Intensity, which is directly
related to space and time. The coulomb is related to space and the
second to time. These physicists are unable to translate units!
Apparently you mean 'current density'.
But that is something else, because that quantity contains 'space' and
measures the current through an area-unit.
The usual interpretation of 'current' ignores that quantity and sums up
the current over the entire wire in question, while the term current
density does not.
"entire wire"?? you must be kidding, this usenet user doesn't know what a current is in physics. But that's also related to time, said above, and you cannot "ignore" anything, once directly not related, but connected. Just as
a translation of pig from engilsh to swine in gearmon. It's the same pig,
you eat alot. How many pigs did you eat along your journey?
"entire wire"?? you must be kidding, this usenet user doesn't know what
a current is in physics. But that's also related to time, said above,
and you cannot "ignore" anything, once directly not related, but
connected. Just as a translation of pig from engilsh to swine in
gearmon. It's the same pig,
you eat alot. How many pigs did you eat along your journey?
Well, actually I mean: the Ampere addresses the current in a conductor,
which is usually a wire.
There Ampere does not say, whether the wire is thick or thin, or whether
or not the current distributes evenly within the wire.
If you have a wire with a current of 1 A, you don't mean the
distribution of the current within the conductor, but the sum of all
small partial currents within that wire.
Thomas Heger wrote:
"entire wire"?? you must be kidding, this usenet user doesn't know what
a current is in physics. But that's also related to time, said above,
and you cannot "ignore" anything, once directly not related, but
connected. Just as a translation of pig from engilsh to swine in
gearmon. It's the same pig,
you eat alot. How many pigs did you eat along your journey?
Well, actually I mean: the Ampere addresses the current in a conductor,
which is usually a wire.
There Ampere does not say, whether the wire is thick or thin, or whether
or not the current distributes evenly within the wire.
If you have a wire with a current of 1 A, you don't mean the
distribution of the current within the conductor, but the sum of all
small partial currents within that wire.
me frendo, that's irrelevant for the problem in case, at any point at any time you measure the same current along a wire. That you think that more Coulombs go through a wire "where is thinner", this is false. But that's
not the point. As I remember Q=It, which is charge equals the current times time. I related to space, t related to time.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 36:00:57 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,152 |