Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What has trust got to do with this?In the case of the equations presented by the OP, I refuse to trust any of them unless they are explained.
Been thinking about this ... and I personally find it quite disturbing whenever the blindingly obvious need for more knowledge (or understanding), is somehow supplanted with a need for 'trust' ..(?)sjastro said:What has trust got to do with this?Contenders Edge said:In the case of the equations presented by the OP, I refuse to trust any of them unless they are explained.
It's the case you either understand the equations or you don't.
So done ..
Do you still deny it your trust, given its no longer 'in the blind'?
Been thinking about this ... and I personally find it quite disturbing whenever the blindingly obvious need for more knowledge (or understanding), is somehow supplanted with a need for 'trust' ..(?)
Why is some conspiracy theory, (concerning the use of math), preferred over the possibility of gaining additional knowledge about it?
(Just doesn't make sense to me ..)
Ok then .. thanks .. (glad to see that).No one is supplanting the need for more information and knowledge with trust and there is no conspiracy theory concerning the use of math, but the more information and knowledge we have about the equations presented, the better we are able to make an informed conclusion about the case the OP has presented.
Ok then .. thanks .. (glad to see that).
I take that as a retraction of your implied generalisation of the elitism of educated mathematical thinkers then?
Elitists are those of great influence and power who feel they know better than everyone else, placing their judgment beyond questioning and feel that they do not have to answer to those over whom they wield influence and authority, nor do they believe it to be necessary to explain themselves, thinking that their wealth, fame, academic degrees, professed expertise, and authority is enough to buy the trust of the masses who are stupid and ignorant enough to blindly trust them.
If you think you are that kind of an Elitist, then by all means go ahead and wear that T-Shirt which will proclaim you to be superior to the common man simply because he cannot understand a set of equations unless it is explain to him in a way that he can easily understand.
I never had one of those T-shirts with Maxwell's equations on them, but now I kind of wish I did so I could wear it tomorrow.
.A poll of readers conducted by The Mathematical Intelligencer in 1990 named Euler's identity as the "most beautiful theorem in mathematics".[9] In another poll of readers that was conducted by Physics World in 2004, Euler's identity tied with Maxwell's equations (of electromagnetism) as the "greatest equation ever"
I never had one of those T-shirts with Maxwell's equations on them, but now I kind of wish I did so I could wear it tomorrow.
Doesn’t matter. If someone chooses to take the time to learn about complicated things one will not be expected to be involved in the conversation.And in such cases, you will fail to convince anyone of what you are hoping to convince them of because what you are presenting them will not make any sense unless your evidence can be presented in such a way as to make sense to everyone, and not just to a handful of elitists.
No. Just NO.The equations E and B are solutions to a set of conditions called the Wave Equation - which says the changes in time for the wave function (WF) is proportional to the changes in space for the WF.
The speed of light in a vacuum, for classical phenomena (i.e. non quantum) is considered a constant because of the boundary conditions (constraints) of the Wave finction. We find (through those solutions to the Wave equation) that the speed of light evolves out of the math as a costant and maximum of c ~ 300,000,000 m/s, dependent on magnetic and electric permeability.
Special relativity attempts to juxtaposition general relativity and quantum mechanics. This is where the speed of light c as a constant and maximum begins to break down, and where SR and even basic QM loses some of its substance.
The equations in the OP are evolved from Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic phenomena.
1. The divergence of the fields of a charged particle is equal to the CHARGE (not zero). Think of the electric field as a ball with lines coming out of it. If you measure the volume the lines permeate at a certain radius, it will give you the CHARGE expected in that space.
2. The divergence of the magnetic field is *alegedly* zero. This means the magnetic field curls in spirals as opposed to diverging in straight lines. If you have seen representations of magnetic fields, you can understand why it curls. This also suggests there are no magnetic monopolies (like there exists electric monopoles), but this is also alleged because of the math (if the divergence of a vector is zero, then there exists a vector potential for which the curl of the vector is nonzero; if the curl of a vector is zero, there exists a scalar potential for which the divergence is nonzero. The math tends to explain the physics more.
3. A change in electric field gives a magnetic field
4. A change in magnetic field gives an electric field.
Electrodynamics can be thoroughly proven in the lab, but there are still issues with classical electroydynamics. Depending on your method of information transfer, c can be greater or smaller than the vacuum value.
Entanglement, for example, categorically must exchange information faster than the speed of light (superlunimar).
Doesn’t matter. If someone chooses to take the time to learn about complicated things one will not be expected to be involved in the conversation.
Like how it would be strange to debate Christianity if one could not read the Bible.
If something is easily understood there should be little need to debate it. Most of the debating I am aware of is between individuals and groups who have a different understanding if what it says. (I am speaking only of the differences of opinion amongst those who are Christians.)To the Bible's credit, it is, for the most part, easily understood and more frequently and intensely debated than a bunch of equations that most people do not understand.
If something is easily understood there should be little need to debate it. Most of the debating I am aware of is between individuals and groups who have a different understanding if what it says. (I am speaking only of the differences of opinion amongst those who are Christians.)
So if you can’t understand what it says, you cannot opine on it.But we are involved in the conversation: A conversation about whether or not an obscure equation pattern is enough to prove anything. To the Bible's credit, it is, for the most part, easily understood and more frequently and intensely debated than a bunch of equations that most people do not understand.
So if you can’t understand what it says, you cannot opine on it.
Which was my point.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?