To DC:
Still don't know what you don't know, I see.
So that poor Ros doesn't get too confused, I'll try to unwind your confused notions.
: E=MC^2
: is a conversion formula developed by Einstein in 1905,
That's correct.
: in a nut shell these are the components of the formula. . . . and a very concise
: history as to its : development. . . .over the course of a few centuries. . . . .
: E
: Faraday(1800's) found a similarity between magnetic fields and electric currents. . .
Not exactly. What Faraday found was a connection between magnetic and electrical
phenomena. The most significant thing he found was that an electric current generates a
thing he called a "magnetic field" and that a moving magnet (presumed to carry along
with it this "field") could generate an electric current. Faraday formulated a
quantitative relation between moving charges (electric current) and "magnetic fields".
Today physicists call this relation "Faraday's law of induction", which states that
the induced voltage in an electric circuit is proportional to the rate of change of
"magnetic flux" through the circuit.
Faraday had no idea about deeper connections that were developed by James Maxwell around
1870, and certainly not about certain similarities between electric and magnetic
fields. Indeed, it was Einstein in 1905 who first postulated the equations that showed
that a magnetic field is actually a relativistic electric field, so that "magnetic
fields" are not real physical fields like electric fields. I.e., while electric charge
exists in the form of positive and negative particles (electric monopoles), there is no
such thing as "magnetic charge" (magnetic monopoles).
: and how they cold be converted
Magnetic fields and electric currents are not "converted" in any sense. They simply
exist. Your fuzzy thinking manifests itself here once again, because you don't specify
what is being "converted" to what.
: lacking formal education he went against the grain of the school of thought at the time
Not really. Faraday was so far ahead of his time that he was continually breaking new
ground. There was no "grain of the school of thought" to go against at that time. At
about the same time that Faraday was developing his ideas in England, Joseph Henry in
the U.S. was developing similar ideas about induction.
: and proposed circular flow as opposed to simply linear flow of current
This is gobble-de-gook. Obviously, if you wind a wire into a circle, you have "circular
flow" of electric charge, not linear flow. Besides, current is a flow -- there
is no such thing as a "flow of current". Current is defined as "flow of electric charge",
so saying "flow of current" is like saying "flow of flow of charge". Completely
meaningless, and it betrays ignorance of the field.
: His contribution connected the way the 2 forces
Magnetic fields and electric currents are not "forces".
: were perceived and established a relationship between the 2 which led to the
: Law of Conservation of Energy
Nonsense. This law was developed independently by a number of people who had nothing
to do with electromagnetic phenomena. They were working with mechanical phenomena
and heat and thermodynamics. Julius Mayer first published his ideas on this law in
Germany around 1842; Hermann von Helmhotlz in Germany in 1853; L. A. Colding in
Denmark in 1842; James Joule in England in 1843.
: which was taught to Einstein in school and to which he disagreed with . . .
More nonsense. Einstein did not disagree either with the law of conservation of
energy or the law of conservation of mass, as understood until his seminal papers
of 1905. He extended and combined them into one law -- the law of conservation of
mass/energy.
The fact is that your entire exposition above has absolutely nothing to do with
clarifying Ros's understanding of energy. It seems clear that you've managed to
pick up a few bits of information and pretty solidly misunderstand what you've
absorbed.
: M
: Lavoiser(late 1700's) based on an experiment that involved weighing metal as it
: collected rust,
Metals don't "collect" rust. Iron simply rusts. It does it when the atoms on
the surface combine with oxygen and the resulting oxide remains in place.
: he pioneered the way for the advancement of the Law of the Conservation of Mass.
"Advancement"? The proper expression is more like, "establishment on solid
scientific principles".
: His contribution helped to show that there was an interconnection between physical
: objects
More fuzzy, meaningless terminology. What is an "interconnection" in the scientific sense?
: and regardless what was done to a substance and how it was disposed of either by burning,
: crushing etc. it would not disappear, though the object changed physically, somehow the
: Mass remained the same.
I suppose this childish explanation is not too far off.
: So during the 1800's everyone was taught that Energy was one thing and Mass was another.
Good!
: if you deleted something in either of the 2 realms then something would pop up to replace
: what was missing. . . .
No. To the limits of experimental error up to the late 19th century, the mass or energy
would appear in another form. This is very different from "deleting" and "popping up".
For example, in 1798 Count Rumford presented a paper in which he described how the
mechanical energy applied to the boring of a cannon barrel seemed to be converted to heat.
He didn't understand the concepts of "energy" or "heat" the way physicists do today, but
he certainly saw that something was being converted from one form to another. That
something is what later investigators called "energy". In such conversion, nothing is
"deleted".
In the above exposition all you've sort of said is that there is a thing called mass
that the Law of Conservation of Mass is involved with, and another thing called energy
that the Law of Conservation of Energy is somehow involved with. Not very helpful with
Ros's question.
: C
: this is simply the speed of light 186,000 mps
: what this means. . .
: London to LA in .05 of a second
: why C? as homage to the Latin word Celeritas.
: During the 1600's science flourished in Italy.
: Galileo was the first to clearly conceive and experiment with the idea of measuring the
: speed of light, Cassini and Roemer figured it out correctly though history favors Roemer. . .
So far so good.
: Forward to Faraday. . . late in life he meets a man by the name of Maxwell who in time
: lfigured out that light "leapfrogged" electricity over magnetic field in a continuous
: cycle. . .
This is out to lunch. An electric field does not 'leapfrog over' a magnetic field nor
vice versa. In some way, they seem to regenerate one another. But because the magnetic
field is actually a relativistic effect due to motion of an electric field, there is not
actually any regeneration going on. But taking a step back, no one has the faintest idea
how these fields actually connect with the propagation of light, since light also appears
to consist of particles called photons. These photons somehow carry a property that is
mysteriously related to electric and magnetic fields, but how this works physically has
not yet been discovered.
What you're describing in your fuzzy way are actually two of Maxwell's equations, which
in differential form and MKS units are:
Curl B = e0 * u0 * d(E)/dt
Curl E = -d(B)/dt
where E is electric field, B is magnetic field, and e0 and u0 are the permittivities of
and permeabilities of free space. These equations state that the magnetic field is related
to the time rate of change of electric field and vice versa. I.e., they are intimately
tied up with one another and so cannot be described as "leapfrogging" over one another.
The 2nd equation, of course, is Faraday's Law of Induction.
Of course, Maxwell's equations simply describe the overall behavior of electromagnetic
fields, not the detailed (and as yet unknown) behavior of the photons that actually
appear to carry electromagnetic radiation.
: because of this effect , light is a physical process that cannot be exceeded,
This is a nonsense statement. What about light cannot be exceeded?
: electricity out of magnetism and then magnetism out of electricity on infinity,
Fuzz, fuzz, fuzz.
: light will shoot away from anything that is trying to catch up with it. . .
More or less.
: Enter Einstein, during the 1890's his professor refused to teach what Maxwell had
: discovered, though Maxell's contribution was already established and taught as truth
: . . .Einstein not pleased with his professors approach began cutting class and
: developing his own theories. . .
Where did you get this information from?
In the above explanation, you've gone off on incorrect tangents about light, and just
generally muddied the waters of clarity with irrelevant comments.
: will continue on the next window. . . .to finalize the explanation hope this helps
: so far. . . will be back shortly
I'm sure that Ros was enlightened by this chunk of fuzz.
You should stick to art. Science is obviously not your schtick.
More generally, a smart person is aware of what he or she does not know. The ignorant are often too ignorant to understand how much they don't know. But they sometimes want to impress others with gobble-de-gook.
AlanF
