Paul Alsing wrote:

>> The virus of Nazism is rampant in today's #Ukraine. ❓Who is behind
that
>> ❓ Who is responsible fo https://www.bitchute.com/video/98KTKBipqgHt/
>>
>> Proof Of False Flag - Video Shows “Bucha Massacre” Dead Bodies Moving
>> Around https://www.bitchute.com/video/jgK3TvsUoKCk/
> UK
>
> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bitchute/
>
> "Overall, we rate BitChute extreme right and Questionable based on the
> promotion of conspiracy theories, propaganda, hate speech, poor
> sourcing,
> fake news, and a lack of transparency. This source is not credible for

The bitchute is a platform, having nothing to do with the data presented.
It either makes sense or not, it's up to you, a braindead imbecile, not
understanding the data from the paper is printed on. You fucking cretin.

JanPB wrote:

>> Unprepared military is, IMO, a superficial analysis. I see this more as
>> a disagreement between the Kremlin and field officers.
>
> I think this is the classic case of a despot falling into the
> information bubble trap that inevitably results. His advisors know that
> it's more important to please the boss than to tell him the truth.

Saved the europe from the illegal *_bioweapon_labs*, as a minimum, you
stinking nazi fag.

JanPB wrote:

> > You keep snipping evidences, you stinking nazi_excrement. That woman
>> > was published in all newspapers in the "west". Then she came out
>> > telling the truth, no jets, just two bombs outside the hospital,
>> > where after "journalists" were there in 10 minutes, similar the
>> > mercenary "white_helmets" hoaxing the "chemical_atack" in Syria,
>> > being there *in_minutes* "saving" people from the fake attack.
>> >
>> > You stinking excrement, you slavic_germans are all nazi *excrement*.
>
> Are you the person I was talking to or someone else? I'm done with this
> topic,
> you guys are talking to yourselves from now on.

But we can't snip the evidences, you nazi homo. The selected actor playing
"president" in nazi "ukraine" is lying bitch nazi khazar, now knighted to
the "president of europe". Not member of anything, nazi nato, EU etc, but
still the president of europe, in the absolute poorest country, playing
his dick on a piano.

Exclusive - Biological Weapons Expert Exposes Labs In Ukraine And China
Run By U.S. Government https://www.bitchute.com/video/eIHDuMud7LHB/

Fake genocide orchestrated by the "ukrainian" nazis
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ljak1Hdca5sK/

Here it is, the nature of khokhlyatskaya nazi soul (Ukrainian),
lickspittle: in the video, some do not know how to speak Ukrainian at all,
but they try so hard, distorting words. 😂 If only the speech didn’t sound
Russian! They hurry to curry favor, tell where the Russians stood. And a
woman who crossed herself and thanked a policeman – is generally a circus.
If another army comes there tomorrow, they will abruptly forget Ukrainian
and will kiss other shoes, telling how hard life was for them under the
Kiev regime. I’m sure. I know this type of people.

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:35:50 AM UTC-7, Lamar Main wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> >> Unprepared military is, IMO, a superficial analysis. I see this more as
> >> a disagreement between the Kremlin and field officers.
> >
> > I think this is the classic case of a despot falling into the
> > information bubble trap that inevitably results. His advisors know that
> > it's more important to please the boss than to tell him the truth.
> Saved the europe from the illegal *_bioweapon_labs*, as a minimum, you
> stinking nazi fag.

Not even wrong.

--
Jan

On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 10:28:26 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>
> > Am 04.04.2022 um 15:55 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> > > Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> > >> Am 03.04.2022 um 21:42 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> > >>
> > >>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have different
> > >>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not make
> > >>>>>> much
> > >>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
> > >>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
> > >>>>
> > >>>> To subtract E from H would mean [A/m - V/m] =[(A - V)/m].
> > >>>>
> > >>>> (Einstein used only the X-components called 'N' and 'Y', which should
> > >>>> have similar units, nevertheless. The used phrase 'force' instead of
> > >>>> 'field strength' was actually wrong.)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Now ... ..(N - v/c*Y)... contains an illegal operation, because it
> > >>>> requires to subtract Volts from Amps. (sorry: I wrote it the other way
> > >>>> round, but that does not matter, because subtraction is also a form of
> > >>>> addition).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have complained about this operation and you are still not able to
> > >>>> justify that by other means then by referencing to the same units used
> > >>>> in the cgs system.
> > >>>
> > >>> The Gaussian/CGS system uses different definitions for electric and
> > >>> magnetic fields. Both are defined as force per unit charge.
> > >>>
> > >>> The magnetic field also needs a speed/velocity component, but CGS uses a
> > >>> _ratio_ of v/c which is unitless. Since both the magnetic and electric
> > >>> fields have the same units, they can be added or subtracted from each
> > >>> other.
> > >>
> > >> I'm totally speachless!
> > >>
> > >> No!!!
> > >>
> > >> In physics you cannot randomly add or subtract numbers, just because
> > >> they have no or the same units!
> > >
> > > Well, actually, if two numbers have no units, yes, absolutely you can add
> > > or subtract them. As in, 1-v/c.
> >
> > You can add the number of people on the internation space station to the
> > number of holes in your socks, if you like to do that.
> >
> > But the question is, whether such an opreation makes sense.
> >
> > In theoretical physics you are simply not allowed to add random numbers,
> > just because the units match.
> I may surprise you very much to learn this,
> but people who actually do theoretical physics
> never do things at random.
> They know what they are doing. (hint hint)

And when they scream, that "we all are FORCED!!!
To THE BEST WAY!!!" - they know it for sure.

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 04.04.2022 um 15:55 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>> Am 03.04.2022 um 14:38 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>>> Am 01.04.2022 um 09:39 schrieb JanPB:
>>>>>> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 10:37:59 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 31.03.2022 um 09:14 schrieb JanPB:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 11:04:11 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am 30.03.2022 um 20:08 schrieb JanPB:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I have not dealt with these equations, because I disliked Einstein's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtraction of magnetic field strength from electric field strength, anyhow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's nothing peculiar to Einstein, it's the Gaussian system of units.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have actually problems with subtracting electric field strength from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnetic field strength.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is like subtracting 1 V from 1 A.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To me this doesn't make any sense at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's your problem then. If you want to resolve this, you must
>>>>>>>>>>>> learn how various systems of units work.
>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In the cgs system electric field strength and magnetic field strength
>>>>>>>>>>> have the same unit of force, because the fields were equated with the
>>>>>>>>>>> process of measuring them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> These measuring devices contained deformable springs, which measure a force.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Such springs are contained in many analog measuring devices, like a
>>>>>>>>>>> pressure gauge, a cithen balance or a volt-meter.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All of them measure something by a reference to a deformable spring.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But you cannot subtract Volts from psi, just because both were measured
>>>>>>>>>>> with a deformable spring.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To do so would require a physical justification, which was entirely
>>>>>>>>>>> missing in Einstein's text.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, this is how units of systems work (Gaussian, in this case).
>>>>>>>>> I have given you already the example, that many anolg measuring devices
>>>>>>>>> work with deformable springs, which emasure ultimatively a force.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But still you must not add or subtract different units,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They are not different units in the Gaussian system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> like pressure
>>>>>>>>> and weigth,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> N/A. Learn about X if you want to discuss X (esp. if you want to
>>>>>>>> criticise X).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> for instance, even if a pressure gauge and a kitchen scale
>>>>>>>>> work with a spring.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is fantastically stupid nonsese to even advocate such use of values.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. You simply don't understand how this works. Some people, when
>>>>>>>> they don't understand something, tend to blame everyone but themselves
>>>>>>>> for this. I cannot fix this problem for you.
>>>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have different
>>>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not make much
>>>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
>>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
>>>>>
>>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
>>>>
>>>> How about in cgs units? You know about those?
>>>
>>> Do you really want to defend the same idocities as Einstein?
>>
>> I don’t think systems of units are idiocies.
>
> Not the system of units, of course, but the use of these units.

This may come as a shock to you, but combining quantities of the same units
and same transformation properties is commonplace in physics. For example,
the combination of angular kinetic energy and translational kinetic energy
in ordinary energy conservation scenarios.

>
> The cgs system boild the fields down to 'force', which is measured in
> 'dyne'.
>
> This force was meant as real mechanical force like with what we measure
> weight, for instance.
>
> This was justified by measuring a force inside the measuring device,
> which ultimately was a mechanical force.
>
> (Einstein actually wrote so, when he wrote about the connection of an
> electron to a spring balance).
>
> Now the same units 'dyne' are not appropriate for electrical fields of
> different kind, because the dyne is 'not electric'.
>
> The units simply ignore this different origins of the fields and their
> different nature.

I think you’re going to be generally flummoxed by the realization that
there is one electromagnetic field, not physically distinct electric and
magnetic fields.

I’m frankly surprised you were not taught this essential fact in school.

>
> But the differences are real, hence the same untis do not allow
> algebraic operations between them just because the units are similar.
>
>
>
> ...
>
>
> TH
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 04.04.2022 um 15:55 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>> Am 03.04.2022 um 21:42 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>>
>>>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have different
>>>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not make
>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
>>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
>>>>>
>>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
>>>>>
>>>>> To subtract E from H would mean [A/m - V/m] =[(A - V)/m].
>>>>>
>>>>> (Einstein used only the X-components called 'N' and 'Y', which should
>>>>> have similar units, nevertheless. The used phrase 'force' instead of
>>>>> 'field strength' was actually wrong.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Now ... ..(N - v/c*Y)... contains an illegal operation, because it
>>>>> requires to subtract Volts from Amps. (sorry: I wrote it the other way
>>>>> round, but that does not matter, because subtraction is also a form of
>>>>> addition).
>>>>>
>>>>> I have complained about this operation and you are still not able to
>>>>> justify that by other means then by referencing to the same units used
>>>>> in the cgs system.
>>>>
>>>> The Gaussian/CGS system uses different definitions for electric and
>>>> magnetic fields. Both are defined as force per unit charge.
>>>>
>>>> The magnetic field also needs a speed/velocity component, but CGS uses a
>>>> _ratio_ of v/c which is unitless. Since both the magnetic and electric
>>>> fields have the same units, they can be added or subtracted from each
>>>> other.
>>>
>>> I'm totally speachless!
>>>
>>> No!!!
>>>
>>> In physics you cannot randomly add or subtract numbers, just because
>>> they have no or the same units!
>>
>> Well, actually, if two numbers have no units, yes, absolutely you can add
>> or subtract them. As in, 1-v/c.
>
> You can add the number of people on the internation space station to the
> number of holes in your socks, if you like to do that.
>
> But the question is, whether such an opreation makes sense.

It depends on what the quantity denotes. You could take the units to be
people and holes, in which case they are clearly no commensurate.

>
> In theoretical physics you are simply not allowed to add random numbers,
> just because the units match.

Well, they’re not really random.

For example, it’s not particularly surprising that pressure times volume
has dimensions of energy — work if you like. The ideal gas law is an energy
relation. This is even more abundantly clear if you divide the ideal gas
law by Avogadro’s number.

>
>>>
>>> In physics you have always real physical systems, which need to
>>> correspond to the numbers in some way.
>>
>> Yes, and there are different systems of units, which you don’t seem to be
>> familiar with.
>
>
> What had this to do with the question, whether or not electric field
> strength might be subtracted from magnetic field strength?
>
> It where not the units, which caused my concerns, but the physical
> meaning of that operation.
>
> So: what is actually the difference of a magnetic field of -say- 300
> Gauss and an electric field of say 100 V/m?

V/m is an SI unit. Do you want to try to find the electric field units in
the same set of units as have for the magnetic field.

It’s rather stunning that you are wholly incapable of working in any system
of units other than SI. What do you attribute that to?

>
>
>>>
>>> Here we have electric and magnetic field strength, which the cgs-system
>>> unfortunately measures with the same units.
>>>
>>> But to add or subtract these values would require, to add or subtract
>>> those fields, what you cannot do (at least should not do).
>>
>> Depends on the system of units.
>>
>
> In the cgs system 'dyne' were used. And now N should be 100 dynes and
> v/c*Y should be 90 dynes.
>
> the result is 10 dynes.
>
> But is this an electric field or a magnetic field or both combined?
>

Please remember that electric and magnetic fields are not physically
distinct. They are components of a single electromagnetic field tensor. The
fact that there is really only one field is represented clearly by QED
having a *single* coupling strength given by the fine structure constant.
Furthermore, you say you know the 1905 paper by Einstein inside and out,
and yet you seem to have missed the whole point of the section of the paper
about how the electromagnetic field components transform under boosts.

>
> TH
>>
>>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 4/5/2022 2:35 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 04.04.2022 um 15:55 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>> Am 03.04.2022 um 21:42 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>>
>>>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have different
>>>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not make
>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
>>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
>>>>>
>>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
>>>>>
>>>>> To subtract E from H would mean [A/m - V/m] =[(A - V)/m].
>>>>>
>>>>> (Einstein used only the X-components called 'N' and 'Y', which should
>>>>> have similar units, nevertheless. The used phrase 'force' instead of
>>>>> 'field strength' was actually wrong.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Now ... ..(N - v/c*Y)... contains an illegal operation, because it
>>>>> requires to subtract Volts from Amps. (sorry: I wrote it the other way
>>>>> round, but that does not matter, because subtraction is also a form of
>>>>> addition).
>>>>>
>>>>> I have complained about this operation and you are still not able to
>>>>> justify that by other means then by referencing to the same units used
>>>>> in the cgs system.
>>>>
>>>> The Gaussian/CGS system uses different definitions for electric and
>>>> magnetic fields.  Both are defined as force per unit charge.
>>>>
>>>> The magnetic field also needs a speed/velocity component, but CGS
>>>> uses a
>>>> _ratio_ of v/c which is unitless.  Since both the magnetic and electric
>>>> fields have the same units, they can be added or subtracted from each
>>>> other.
>>>
>>> I'm totally speachless!
>>>
>>> No!!!
>>>
>>> In physics you cannot randomly add or subtract numbers, just because
>>> they have no or the same units!
>>
>> Well, actually, if two numbers have no units, yes, absolutely you can add
>> or subtract them. As in, 1-v/c.
>
> You can add the number of people on the internation space station to the
> number of holes in your socks, if you like to do that.
>
> But the question is, whether such an opreation makes sense.

Different units! Humans per space station vs. holes per sock. :-)
>
> In theoretical physics you are simply not allowed to add random numbers,
> just because the units match.
>
>>>
>>> In physics you have always real physical systems, which need to
>>> correspond to the numbers in some way.
>>
>> Yes, and there are different systems of units, which you don’t seem to be
>> familiar with.
>
>
> What had this to do with the question, whether or not electric field
> strength might be subtracted from magnetic field strength?
>
> It where not the units, which caused my concerns, but the physical
> meaning of that operation.
>
> So: what is actually the difference of a magnetic field of -say- 300
> Gauss and an electric field of say 100 V/m?
>
>
>>>
>>> Here we have electric and magnetic field strength, which the cgs-system
>>> unfortunately measures with the same units.
>>>
>>> But to add or subtract these values would require, to add or subtract
>>> those fields, what you cannot do (at least should not do).
>>
>> Depends on the system of units.
>>
>
> In the cgs system 'dyne' were used. And now N should be 100 dynes and
> v/c*Y should be 90 dynes.
>
> the result is 10 dynes.
>
> But is this an electric field or a magnetic field or both combined?

There really is a single electromagnetic field, which manifests itself
as electric and magnetic fields depending on the SR frame referenced.

Electric and magnetic fields have units of dynes/ESU (or
dynes/statcoulomb or dynes/franklin if you prefer). A force due to
gravity cannot be added to that (dynes/gram) If there is a fixed charge
on an object, the dynes/ESU will produce a force in dynes, and if the
mass is known the force due to gravity can be added to the
electromagnetic force. (dynes+dynes)

On 4/5/2022 10:56 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>> Am 04.04.2022 um 15:55 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>> Am 03.04.2022 um 21:42 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have different
>>>>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not make
>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
>>>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To subtract E from H would mean [A/m - V/m] =[(A - V)/m].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Einstein used only the X-components called 'N' and 'Y', which should
>>>>>> have similar units, nevertheless. The used phrase 'force' instead of
>>>>>> 'field strength' was actually wrong.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now ... ..(N - v/c*Y)... contains an illegal operation, because it
>>>>>> requires to subtract Volts from Amps. (sorry: I wrote it the other way
>>>>>> round, but that does not matter, because subtraction is also a form of
>>>>>> addition).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have complained about this operation and you are still not able to
>>>>>> justify that by other means then by referencing to the same units used
>>>>>> in the cgs system.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Gaussian/CGS system uses different definitions for electric and
>>>>> magnetic fields. Both are defined as force per unit charge.
>>>>>
>>>>> The magnetic field also needs a speed/velocity component, but CGS uses a
>>>>> _ratio_ of v/c which is unitless. Since both the magnetic and electric
>>>>> fields have the same units, they can be added or subtracted from each
>>>>> other.
>>>>
>>>> I'm totally speachless!
>>>>
>>>> No!!!
>>>>
>>>> In physics you cannot randomly add or subtract numbers, just because
>>>> they have no or the same units!
>>>
>>> Well, actually, if two numbers have no units, yes, absolutely you can add
>>> or subtract them. As in, 1-v/c.
>>
>> You can add the number of people on the internation space station to the
>> number of holes in your socks, if you like to do that.
>>
>> But the question is, whether such an opreation makes sense.
>
> It depends on what the quantity denotes. You could take the units to be
> people and holes, in which case they are clearly no commensurate.
>
>>
>> In theoretical physics you are simply not allowed to add random numbers,
>> just because the units match.
>
> Well, they’re not really random.
>
> For example, it’s not particularly surprising that pressure times volume
> has dimensions of energy — work if you like. The ideal gas law is an energy
> relation. This is even more abundantly clear if you divide the ideal gas
> law by Avogadro’s number.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> In physics you have always real physical systems, which need to
>>>> correspond to the numbers in some way.
>>>
>>> Yes, and there are different systems of units, which you don’t seem to be
>>> familiar with.
>>
>>
>> What had this to do with the question, whether or not electric field
>> strength might be subtracted from magnetic field strength?
>>
>> It where not the units, which caused my concerns, but the physical
>> meaning of that operation.
>>
>> So: what is actually the difference of a magnetic field of -say- 300
>> Gauss and an electric field of say 100 V/m?
>
> V/m is an SI unit. Do you want to try to find the electric field units in
> the same set of units as have for the magnetic field.

Also the SI units of the electric field can have its fundamental units
rearranged in such a way it comes out as newtons/coulomb, a force per
charge, just like Gauss/cgs units.
>
> It’s rather stunning that you are wholly incapable of working in any system
> of units other than SI. What do you attribute that to?

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 4/5/2022 10:56 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>> Am 04.04.2022 um 15:55 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>>> Am 03.04.2022 um 21:42 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have different
>>>>>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not make
>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
>>>>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To subtract E from H would mean [A/m - V/m] =[(A - V)/m].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Einstein used only the X-components called 'N' and 'Y', which should
>>>>>>> have similar units, nevertheless. The used phrase 'force' instead of
>>>>>>> 'field strength' was actually wrong.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now ... ..(N - v/c*Y)... contains an illegal operation, because it
>>>>>>> requires to subtract Volts from Amps. (sorry: I wrote it the other way
>>>>>>> round, but that does not matter, because subtraction is also a form of
>>>>>>> addition).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have complained about this operation and you are still not able to
>>>>>>> justify that by other means then by referencing to the same units used
>>>>>>> in the cgs system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Gaussian/CGS system uses different definitions for electric and
>>>>>> magnetic fields. Both are defined as force per unit charge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The magnetic field also needs a speed/velocity component, but CGS uses a
>>>>>> _ratio_ of v/c which is unitless. Since both the magnetic and electric
>>>>>> fields have the same units, they can be added or subtracted from each
>>>>>> other.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm totally speachless!
>>>>>
>>>>> No!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> In physics you cannot randomly add or subtract numbers, just because
>>>>> they have no or the same units!
>>>>
>>>> Well, actually, if two numbers have no units, yes, absolutely you can add
>>>> or subtract them. As in, 1-v/c.
>>>
>>> You can add the number of people on the internation space station to the
>>> number of holes in your socks, if you like to do that.
>>>
>>> But the question is, whether such an opreation makes sense.
>>
>> It depends on what the quantity denotes. You could take the units to be
>> people and holes, in which case they are clearly no commensurate.
>>
>>>
>>> In theoretical physics you are simply not allowed to add random numbers,
>>> just because the units match.
>>
>> Well, they’re not really random.
>>
>> For example, it’s not particularly surprising that pressure times volume
>> has dimensions of energy — work if you like. The ideal gas law is an energy
>> relation. This is even more abundantly clear if you divide the ideal gas
>> law by Avogadro’s number.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In physics you have always real physical systems, which need to
>>>>> correspond to the numbers in some way.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and there are different systems of units, which you don’t seem to be
>>>> familiar with.
>>>
>>>
>>> What had this to do with the question, whether or not electric field
>>> strength might be subtracted from magnetic field strength?
>>>
>>> It where not the units, which caused my concerns, but the physical
>>> meaning of that operation.
>>>
>>> So: what is actually the difference of a magnetic field of -say- 300
>>> Gauss and an electric field of say 100 V/m?
>>
>> V/m is an SI unit. Do you want to try to find the electric field units in
>> the same set of units as have for the magnetic field.
>
> Also the SI units of the electric field can have its fundamental units
> rearranged in such a way it comes out as newtons/coulomb, a force per
> charge, just like Gauss/cgs units.
>>
>> It’s rather stunning that you are wholly incapable of working in any system
>> of units other than SI. What do you attribute that to?
>

Of course.

Thomas seems to be spectacularly unequipped with systems of units.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Am 05.04.2022 um 08:46 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> On 4/5/2022 2:25 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Now the same units 'dyne' are not appropriate for electrical fields of
>> different kind, because the dyne is 'not electric'.
>>
>> The units simply ignore this different origins of the fields and their
>> different nature.
>
> The units of the fields are not force but force per unit charge.

Sure, because the number of units mean dimensionless numbers and
'inherit' the units from the corresponding coordinate system.

That system is now 'normed' to provide the appropriate units and located
somewhere.

Now we attatch a coordinate system to an electron and norm it with V/m,
while the electrons position vector is normed with length units in
reference to a certain coordinate system which provides positions.

Position vectors have the form (x,y,z) and electric field-strength
vectors the form (X,Y,Z) and magnetic field-strength vectors the form
(L, M, N).

The coordinate systems of the fields are 'half-normed', because they
contain already the length units from the position system, but not the
units for field strength.

A vector component is now e.g. a postion along the x-axis (x, 0, 0),
which is also a vector.

For the x-component of the electric field-strength of an electron we
have (X, 0, 0).

x, y, z, L, M, N, Y, X and Z are dimensionless numbers, because the
coordinate system provides the units.

Since you can add dimensionless numbers, you could add N and Y.

But still such an operation has to make sense.

TH

Am 05.04.2022 um 16:56 schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>>>>>>>>> No. You simply don't understand how this works. Some people, when
>>>>>>>>> they don't understand something, tend to blame everyone but themselves
>>>>>>>>> for this. I cannot fix this problem for you.
>>>>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have different
>>>>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not make much
>>>>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
>>>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
>>>>>
>>>>> How about in cgs units? You know about those?
>>>>
>>>> Do you really want to defend the same idocities as Einstein?
>>>
>>> I don’t think systems of units are idiocies.
>>
>> Not the system of units, of course, but the use of these units.
>
> This may come as a shock to you, but combining quantities of the same units
> and same transformation properties is commonplace in physics. For example,
> the combination of angular kinetic energy and translational kinetic energy
> in ordinary energy conservation scenarios.
>
>>
>> The cgs system boild the fields down to 'force', which is measured in
>> 'dyne'.
>>
>> This force was meant as real mechanical force like with what we measure
>> weight, for instance.
>>
>> This was justified by measuring a force inside the measuring device,
>> which ultimately was a mechanical force.
>>
>> (Einstein actually wrote so, when he wrote about the connection of an
>> electron to a spring balance).
>>
>> Now the same units 'dyne' are not appropriate for electrical fields of
>> different kind, because the dyne is 'not electric'.
>>
>> The units simply ignore this different origins of the fields and their
>> different nature.
>
> I think you’re going to be generally flummoxed by the realization that
> there is one electromagnetic field, not physically distinct electric and
> magnetic fields.

I know magnets and I know electric fields. These fields do not behave
equal, at least not in the static realm.

They may be ultimately two manifestations of the same thing, but still
these static manifestations behave different.

If we now use the features of one of these manifestions and apply them
to the other one, we find, these description does not match.

Magnetic fields behave inertial and make things spin, while electric
fields push or pull other charged objects, what is not quite the same.

Your statement is not entirely wrong, but is actually a disprove of one
of Einstein's main assumptions:

The electric field itself was modelled by Einstein by means of
electrons, which were assumed as very tiny balls, to which a certain
amount of charge was added.

But if electric and magnetic fields are actually only one thing, than
how would you like to modell the electric charge of an electron?

....

TH

Am 05.04.2022 um 12:15 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

>>>> Well, actually, if two numbers have no units, yes, absolutely you can add
>>>> or subtract them. As in, 1-v/c.

1- v/c is actually just a number.

>>> You can add the number of people on the internation space station to the
>>> number of holes in your socks, if you like to do that.
>>>
>>> But the question is, whether such an opreation makes sense.
>>>
>>> In theoretical physics you are simply not allowed to add random numbers,
>>> just because the units match.
>> I may surprise you very much to learn this,
>> but people who actually do theoretical physics
>> never do things at random.

Actually, random behaviour is quite common in the real world.

Many things behave in unpredictable ways, hence are certainly modelled
with random numbers. (at least they should be).

>> They know what they are doing. (hint hint)

I have doubts.

Human nature is often only half-concess.

> And when they scream, that "we all are FORCED!!!
> To THE BEST WAY!!!" - they know it for sure.

If coherence is introduced by force, we had a guarantee, that things go
wrong.

TH

Am 05.04.2022 um 19:58 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> On 4/5/2022 2:35 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 04.04.2022 um 15:55 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>> Am 03.04.2022 um 21:42 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have different
>>>>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not make
>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
>>>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To subtract E from H would mean [A/m - V/m] =[(A - V)/m].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Einstein used only the X-components called 'N' and 'Y', which should
>>>>>> have similar units, nevertheless. The used phrase 'force' instead of
>>>>>> 'field strength' was actually wrong.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now ... ..(N - v/c*Y)... contains an illegal operation, because it
>>>>>> requires to subtract Volts from Amps. (sorry: I wrote it the other
>>>>>> way

Here I made a mistake.

I regarded the equations on page 13 as equations with vectors, because
Einstein defined the symbols 'Y' and 'N' as electric and magnetic force
on page 22 as "...an electric force Y and a magnetic force N ".

My error was now, that I have used the definition of page 22 and applied
that to page 13.

This was justified by the common practice, that a definitions remains
valid throughout the entire text, which also would operate backwards.

But instead of this, Einstein had the EXTREMELY NASTY habit, to reuse
or redefine symbols, what would excluse such backwards operations.

So: 'N' on page 13 means something else than 'N' on page 22 and only the
definition from pages prior to page 13 are valid there.

On page 13 N and Y do not mean vector or vector component, but the
actual numbers at a certain position within a vector.

It was blatantly stupid, anyhow, to use such number from vectors
belonging to different coordinate systems in a single term.

The equations on page 13 are partial differential eqautions, which are
based on two different coordinate system, which are in relative motion.

To mix them into one term would require to add numbers, which do not
belong together, but to two different systems.

>>>>>> I have complained about this operation and you are still not able to
>>>>>> justify that by other means then by referencing to the same units
>>>>>> used
>>>>>> in the cgs system.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Gaussian/CGS system uses different definitions for electric and
>>>>> magnetic fields. Both are defined as force per unit charge.
>>>>>
>>>>> The magnetic field also needs a speed/velocity component, but CGS
>>>>> uses a
>>>>> _ratio_ of v/c which is unitless. Since both the magnetic and
>>>>> electric
>>>>> fields have the same units, they can be added or subtracted from each
>>>>> other.
>>>>
>>>> I'm totally speachless!
>>>>
>>>> No!!!
>>>>
>>>> In physics you cannot randomly add or subtract numbers, just because
>>>> they have no or the same units!
>>>
>>> Well, actually, if two numbers have no units, yes, absolutely you can
>>> add
>>> or subtract them. As in, 1-v/c.
>>
>> You can add the number of people on the internation space station to
>> the number of holes in your socks, if you like to do that.
>>
>> But the question is, whether such an opreation makes sense.
>
> Different units! Humans per space station vs. holes per sock. :-)
>>
>> In theoretical physics you are simply not allowed to add random
>> numbers, just because the units match.
>>
>>>>
>>>> In physics you have always real physical systems, which need to
>>>> correspond to the numbers in some way.
>>>
>>> Yes, and there are different systems of units, which you don’t seem
>>> to be
>>> familiar with.
>>
>>
>> What had this to do with the question, whether or not electric field
>> strength might be subtracted from magnetic field strength?
>>
>> It where not the units, which caused my concerns, but the physical
>> meaning of that operation.
>>
>> So: what is actually the difference of a magnetic field of -say- 300
>> Gauss and an electric field of say 100 V/m?
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Here we have electric and magnetic field strength, which the cgs-system
>>>> unfortunately measures with the same units.
>>>>
>>>> But to add or subtract these values would require, to add or subtract
>>>> those fields, what you cannot do (at least should not do).
>>>
>>> Depends on the system of units.
>>>
>>
>> In the cgs system 'dyne' were used. And now N should be 100 dynes and
>> v/c*Y should be 90 dynes.
>>
>> the result is 10 dynes.
>>
>> But is this an electric field or a magnetic field or both combined?
>
> There really is a single electromagnetic field, which manifests itself
> as electric and magnetic fields depending on the SR frame referenced.
>
> Electric and magnetic fields have units of dynes/ESU (or
> dynes/statcoulomb or dynes/franklin if you prefer). A force due to
> gravity cannot be added to that (dynes/gram) If there is a fixed charge
> on an object, the dynes/ESU will produce a force in dynes, and if the
> mass is known the force due to gravity can be added to the
> electromagnetic force. (dynes+dynes)

Sure, that is all fine...

But why not dynes/psi, dynes/m or dynes/°celsius?

TH

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 05.04.2022 um 16:56 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
>>>>>>>>>> No. You simply don't understand how this works. Some people, when
>>>>>>>>>> they don't understand something, tend to blame everyone but themselves
>>>>>>>>>> for this. I cannot fix this problem for you.
>>>>>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have different
>>>>>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not make much
>>>>>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
>>>>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about in cgs units? You know about those?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you really want to defend the same idocities as Einstein?
>>>>
>>>> I don’t think systems of units are idiocies.
>>>
>>> Not the system of units, of course, but the use of these units.
>>
>> This may come as a shock to you, but combining quantities of the same units
>> and same transformation properties is commonplace in physics. For example,
>> the combination of angular kinetic energy and translational kinetic energy
>> in ordinary energy conservation scenarios.
>>
>>>
>>> The cgs system boild the fields down to 'force', which is measured in
>>> 'dyne'.
>>>
>>> This force was meant as real mechanical force like with what we measure
>>> weight, for instance.
>>>
>>> This was justified by measuring a force inside the measuring device,
>>> which ultimately was a mechanical force.
>>>
>>> (Einstein actually wrote so, when he wrote about the connection of an
>>> electron to a spring balance).
>>>
>>> Now the same units 'dyne' are not appropriate for electrical fields of
>>> different kind, because the dyne is 'not electric'.
>>>
>>> The units simply ignore this different origins of the fields and their
>>> different nature.
>>
>> I think you’re going to be generally flummoxed by the realization that
>> there is one electromagnetic field, not physically distinct electric and
>> magnetic fields.
>
>
> I know magnets and I know electric fields. These fields do not behave
> equal, at least not in the static realm.
>
> They may be ultimately two manifestations of the same thing, but still
> these static manifestations behave different.

Well, sure. For one thing, currents are the source of one, but as you know,
whether a charge is stationary or in motion is an accident of choice of
reference frame.

Horizontal behaviors are often different than vertical behaviors as well,
but this doesn’t mean that horizontal and vertical displacements are
incommensurate, nor does it mean that horizontal displacements cannot be
combined with vertical displacements because of a clash of units.

>
> If we now use the features of one of these manifestions and apply them
> to the other one, we find, these description does not match.
>
> Magnetic fields behave inertial and make things spin, while electric
> fields push or pull other charged objects, what is not quite the same.
>
>
> Your statement is not entirely wrong, but is actually a disprove of one
> of Einstein's main assumptions:
>
> The electric field itself was modelled by Einstein by means of
> electrons, which were assumed as very tiny balls, to which a certain
> amount of charge was added.
>
> But if electric and magnetic fields are actually only one thing, than
> how would you like to modell the electric charge of an electron?
>

The same way. Look at Maxwell’s equations. Gauss’s law has a charge density
as a source. Ampere’s law has a charge current density as a source.

>
> ...
>
> TH
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, 6 April 2022 at 15:50:52 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> > Am 05.04.2022 um 16:56 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> >
> >>>>>>>>>> No. You simply don't understand how this works. Some people, when
> >>>>>>>>>> they don't understand something, tend to blame everyone but themselves
> >>>>>>>>>> for this. I cannot fix this problem for you.
> >>>>>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have different
> >>>>>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not make much
> >>>>>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
> >>>>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How about in cgs units? You know about those?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do you really want to defend the same idocities as Einstein?
> >>>>
> >>>> I don’t think systems of units are idiocies.
> >>>
> >>> Not the system of units, of course, but the use of these units.
> >>
> >> This may come as a shock to you, but combining quantities of the same units
> >> and same transformation properties is commonplace in physics. For example,
> >> the combination of angular kinetic energy and translational kinetic energy
> >> in ordinary energy conservation scenarios.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The cgs system boild the fields down to 'force', which is measured in
> >>> 'dyne'.
> >>>
> >>> This force was meant as real mechanical force like with what we measure
> >>> weight, for instance.
> >>>
> >>> This was justified by measuring a force inside the measuring device,
> >>> which ultimately was a mechanical force.
> >>>
> >>> (Einstein actually wrote so, when he wrote about the connection of an
> >>> electron to a spring balance).
> >>>
> >>> Now the same units 'dyne' are not appropriate for electrical fields of
> >>> different kind, because the dyne is 'not electric'.
> >>>
> >>> The units simply ignore this different origins of the fields and their
> >>> different nature.
> >>
> >> I think you’re going to be generally flummoxed by the realization that
> >> there is one electromagnetic field, not physically distinct electric and
> >> magnetic fields.
> >
> >
> > I know magnets and I know electric fields. These fields do not behave
> > equal, at least not in the static realm.
> >
> > They may be ultimately two manifestations of the same thing, but still
> > these static manifestations behave different.
> Well, sure. For one thing, currents are the source of one, but as you know,
> whether a charge is stationary or in motion is an accident of choice of
> reference frame.
>
> Horizontal behaviors are often different than vertical behaviors as well,

What is a "horizontal behavior", poor halfbrain?

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 6 April 2022 at 15:50:52 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>>> Am 05.04.2022 um 16:56 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No. You simply don't understand how this works. Some people, when
>>>>>>>>>>>> they don't understand something, tend to blame everyone but themselves
>>>>>>>>>>>> for this. I cannot fix this problem for you.
>>>>>>>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have different
>>>>>>>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not make much
>>>>>>>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
>>>>>>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How about in cgs units? You know about those?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you really want to defend the same idocities as Einstein?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don’t think systems of units are idiocies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not the system of units, of course, but the use of these units.
>>>>
>>>> This may come as a shock to you, but combining quantities of the same units
>>>> and same transformation properties is commonplace in physics. For example,
>>>> the combination of angular kinetic energy and translational kinetic energy
>>>> in ordinary energy conservation scenarios.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The cgs system boild the fields down to 'force', which is measured in
>>>>> 'dyne'.
>>>>>
>>>>> This force was meant as real mechanical force like with what we measure
>>>>> weight, for instance.
>>>>>
>>>>> This was justified by measuring a force inside the measuring device,
>>>>> which ultimately was a mechanical force.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Einstein actually wrote so, when he wrote about the connection of an
>>>>> electron to a spring balance).
>>>>>
>>>>> Now the same units 'dyne' are not appropriate for electrical fields of
>>>>> different kind, because the dyne is 'not electric'.
>>>>>
>>>>> The units simply ignore this different origins of the fields and their
>>>>> different nature.
>>>>
>>>> I think you’re going to be generally flummoxed by the realization that
>>>> there is one electromagnetic field, not physically distinct electric and
>>>> magnetic fields.
>>>
>>>
>>> I know magnets and I know electric fields. These fields do not behave
>>> equal, at least not in the static realm.
>>>
>>> They may be ultimately two manifestations of the same thing, but still
>>> these static manifestations behave different.
>> Well, sure. For one thing, currents are the source of one, but as you know,
>> whether a charge is stationary or in motion is an accident of choice of
>> reference frame.
>>
>> Horizontal behaviors are often different than vertical behaviors as well,
>
> What is a "horizontal behavior", poor halfbrain?
>

Like the surface of a static water pool following a horizontal.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, 6 April 2022 at 16:18:41 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 6 April 2022 at 15:50:52 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> >>> Am 05.04.2022 um 16:56 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No. You simply don't understand how this works. Some people, when
> >>>>>>>>>>>> they don't understand something, tend to blame everyone but themselves
> >>>>>>>>>>>> for this. I cannot fix this problem for you.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have different
> >>>>>>>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not make much
> >>>>>>>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
> >>>>>>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> How about in cgs units? You know about those?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Do you really want to defend the same idocities as Einstein?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don’t think systems of units are idiocies.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not the system of units, of course, but the use of these units.
> >>>>
> >>>> This may come as a shock to you, but combining quantities of the same units
> >>>> and same transformation properties is commonplace in physics. For example,
> >>>> the combination of angular kinetic energy and translational kinetic energy
> >>>> in ordinary energy conservation scenarios.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The cgs system boild the fields down to 'force', which is measured in
> >>>>> 'dyne'.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This force was meant as real mechanical force like with what we measure
> >>>>> weight, for instance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This was justified by measuring a force inside the measuring device,
> >>>>> which ultimately was a mechanical force.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (Einstein actually wrote so, when he wrote about the connection of an
> >>>>> electron to a spring balance).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now the same units 'dyne' are not appropriate for electrical fields of
> >>>>> different kind, because the dyne is 'not electric'.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The units simply ignore this different origins of the fields and their
> >>>>> different nature.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think you’re going to be generally flummoxed by the realization that
> >>>> there is one electromagnetic field, not physically distinct electric and
> >>>> magnetic fields.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I know magnets and I know electric fields. These fields do not behave
> >>> equal, at least not in the static realm.
> >>>
> >>> They may be ultimately two manifestations of the same thing, but still
> >>> these static manifestations behave different.
> >> Well, sure. For one thing, currents are the source of one, but as you know,
> >> whether a charge is stationary or in motion is an accident of choice of
> >> reference frame.
> >>
> >> Horizontal behaviors are often different than vertical behaviors as well,
> >
> > What is a "horizontal behavior", poor halfbrain?
> >
> Like the surface of a static water pool following a horizontal.

Odd, poor halfbrain, is that how they taught you to
define terms before they did you your precious "applied
math" degree?

Am 06.04.2022 um 15:50 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>> Am 05.04.2022 um 16:56 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No. You simply don't understand how this works. Some people, when
>>>>>>>>>>> they don't understand something, tend to blame everyone but themselves
>>>>>>>>>>> for this. I cannot fix this problem for you.
>>>>>>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have different
>>>>>>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not make much
>>>>>>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
>>>>>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about in cgs units? You know about those?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you really want to defend the same idocities as Einstein?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don’t think systems of units are idiocies.
>>>>
>>>> Not the system of units, of course, but the use of these units.
>>>
>>> This may come as a shock to you, but combining quantities of the same units
>>> and same transformation properties is commonplace in physics. For example,
>>> the combination of angular kinetic energy and translational kinetic energy
>>> in ordinary energy conservation scenarios.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The cgs system boild the fields down to 'force', which is measured in
>>>> 'dyne'.
>>>>
>>>> This force was meant as real mechanical force like with what we measure
>>>> weight, for instance.
>>>>
>>>> This was justified by measuring a force inside the measuring device,
>>>> which ultimately was a mechanical force.
>>>>
>>>> (Einstein actually wrote so, when he wrote about the connection of an
>>>> electron to a spring balance).
>>>>
>>>> Now the same units 'dyne' are not appropriate for electrical fields of
>>>> different kind, because the dyne is 'not electric'.
>>>>
>>>> The units simply ignore this different origins of the fields and their
>>>> different nature.
>>>
>>> I think you’re going to be generally flummoxed by the realization that
>>> there is one electromagnetic field, not physically distinct electric and
>>> magnetic fields.
>>
>>
>> I know magnets and I know electric fields. These fields do not behave
>> equal, at least not in the static realm.
>>
>> They may be ultimately two manifestations of the same thing, but still
>> these static manifestations behave different.
>
> Well, sure. For one thing, currents are the source of one, but as you know,
> whether a charge is stationary or in motion is an accident of choice of
> reference frame.

The magnetic field is NOT caused by currents!!!
Currents in a coil can cause a magnetic field, but the field itself does
not require any current.

Fields are in general properties of space. So we need to assign
properties to points, which are not material objects.

The material objects are actually certain patterns, which these
properties could build, but the points themselves are immaterial, but
still can have properties, which we call 'field-strength-vectors'.

Also the electric field does not require material objects of any kind,
whether flowing through a wire or static.

> Horizontal behaviors are often different than vertical behaviors as well,
> but this doesn’t mean that horizontal and vertical displacements are
> incommensurate, nor does it mean that horizontal displacements cannot be
> combined with vertical displacements because of a clash of units.

Well, yes. On Earth we have a gravitational field and it does in fact
make a difference, if you move horizontal or upwards.

This gravitational field has a lot of influence on other things, which
have no mass, like e.g. time or light.

>> If we now use the features of one of these manifestions and apply them
>> to the other one, we find, these description does not match.
>>
>> Magnetic fields behave inertial and make things spin, while electric
>> fields push or pull other charged objects, what is not quite the same.
>>
>>
>> Your statement is not entirely wrong, but is actually a disprove of one
>> of Einstein's main assumptions:
>>
>> The electric field itself was modelled by Einstein by means of
>> electrons, which were assumed as very tiny balls, to which a certain
>> amount of charge was added.
>>
>> But if electric and magnetic fields are actually only one thing, than
>> how would you like to modell the electric charge of an electron?
>>
>
> The same way. Look at Maxwell’s equations. Gauss’s law has a charge density
> as a source. Ampere’s law has a charge current density as a source.

And the universe has a 'big-bang' as a source.

But does such a source in an equation make the source a real material
object?

Th

Am 06.04.2022 um 08:22 schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 05.04.2022 um 19:58 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>> On 4/5/2022 2:35 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 04.04.2022 um 15:55 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>>> Am 03.04.2022 um 21:42 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have
>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not
>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
>>>>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To subtract E from H would mean [A/m - V/m] =[(A - V)/m].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Einstein used only the X-components called 'N' and 'Y', which
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>> have similar units, nevertheless. The used phrase 'force' instead of
>>>>>>> 'field strength' was actually wrong.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now ... ..(N - v/c*Y)... contains an illegal operation, because it
>>>>>>> requires to subtract Volts from Amps. (sorry: I wrote it the other
>>>>>>> way

It is worth to have a closer look at the equations on page 13 again.

Einstein did something repeatedly wrong:
he used scalar for quatities, which are inherently vectorial (or vice
versa):

forces got scalar units in the form 'number of dynes', where the number
were treated as the physical quantity instead of number with units

velocity and accelaration have a direction, hence require vectors, but
were treated as scalars (also occasionally as vectors)

electric and magnetic field strength were treated as scalar values
(occasionally)

c was treated as vector occasionally, but is actually a scalar

So, something was seriously wrong with Einstein's treatment of vectors.

The first 'wrongness' was his habbit, that he made no distinction in the
used fonts or by other signs between vectors and scalar.

That made it very difficult to find out, what a certain symbol shall
express.

But not only that, he also changed the meaning from scalar to vector (or
back) without notice.

(This is in fact a very serious flaw and would invalidate the paper usually.

But not so in this case, which is actually regarded as a masterpiece and
pinnacle of all of science.)

Now we need to take a look at one of these equations on page 13, and
ask, which symbol means a vector and which a scalar.

1/c* ∂X/∂τ = ∂/∂η { β (N − v/c *Y)} − ∂/∂ζ { β (M+ v/c *Z)}

Now at least v is a vector and c a scalar.

Field strength should be a vector, too, but actually we don't know, how
Einstein meant his variable names, because he didn't define them anywhere.

so, lets assume he meant scalars with X, N, Y, M and Z.

In this case the vector v/c would hinder to add N and Y, because scalar
times vector is a vector and you cannot add scalars to vectors.

Therefore the field strength symbols X, Y,Z, N, M cannot mean scalars.

So lets assume vectors.

In this case we have a problem with adding electric field strength
vectors to magnetic field strength vectors, because they have different
units and belong to different coordinate systems.

The character 'moving' for the electric field can be seen in the use of
velocity v, which was the velocity of the moving coordinate system k in
respect to K.

But the time tau is the time measure from k, which does not move in
respect to itself. Therefore the use of v requires a second coordinate
system K, which also provides values.

To add vectors from one coordinate systems to vectors from the other is
certainly not allowed.

TH

Am 05.04.2022 um 20:06 schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>>>> What had this to do with the question, whether or not electric field
>>>> strength might be subtracted from magnetic field strength?
>>>>
>>>> It where not the units, which caused my concerns, but the physical
>>>> meaning of that operation.
>>>>
>>>> So: what is actually the difference of a magnetic field of -say- 300
>>>> Gauss and an electric field of say 100 V/m?
>>>
>>> V/m is an SI unit. Do you want to try to find the electric field units in
>>> the same set of units as have for the magnetic field.
>>
>> Also the SI units of the electric field can have its fundamental units
>> rearranged in such a way it comes out as newtons/coulomb, a force per
>> charge, just like Gauss/cgs units.
>>>
>>> It’s rather stunning that you are wholly incapable of working in any system
>>> of units other than SI. What do you attribute that to?
>>
>
> Of course.
>
> Thomas seems to be spectacularly unequipped with systems of units.
>

As an engineer I was actually trained to use SI units only. But I have
also some experience with other system, but not that much.

To me it is actually irrelevant, which unit system you use, because the
units do not create any kind of reality and are only a tool to describe
something, hence are no things themselves.

TH

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:22:47 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 05.04.2022 um 19:58 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> > On 4/5/2022 2:35 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 04.04.2022 um 15:55 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> >>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> >>>> Am 03.04.2022 um 21:42 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have different
> >>>>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not make
> >>>>>>>> much
> >>>>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
> >>>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> To subtract E from H would mean [A/m - V/m] =[(A - V)/m].
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (Einstein used only the X-components called 'N' and 'Y', which should
> >>>>>> have similar units, nevertheless. The used phrase 'force' instead of
> >>>>>> 'field strength' was actually wrong.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now ... ..(N - v/c*Y)... contains an illegal operation, because it
> >>>>>> requires to subtract Volts from Amps. (sorry: I wrote it the other
> >>>>>> way
> Here I made a mistake.
>
> I regarded the equations on page 13 as equations with vectors, because
> Einstein defined the symbols 'Y' and 'N' as electric and magnetic force
> on page 22 as "...an electric force Y and a magnetic force N ".
>
> My error was now, that I have used the definition of page 22 and applied
> that to page 13.

Both pages refer to components of the relevant fields (electric or magnetic).

> This was justified by the common practice, that a definitions remains
> valid throughout the entire text, which also would operate backwards.
>
> But instead of this, Einstein had the EXTREMELY NASTY habit, to reuse
> or redefine symbols, what would excluse such backwards operations.
>
> So: 'N' on page 13 means something else than 'N' on page 22 and only the
> definition from pages prior to page 13 are valid there.

No, both "N" mean the same thing. Einstein says "electric force Y" when
he means "the y-component of the electric field". It may have been
standard usage back then. Its meaning is obvious regardless.

> On page 13 N and Y do not mean vector or vector component, but the
> actual numbers at a certain position within a vector.

Everywhere in the paper they denote components of the electric or
magnetic field ((X, Y, Z) and (L, M, N), respectively.

> It was blatantly stupid, anyhow, to use such number from vectors
> belonging to different coordinate systems in a single term.

N/A.

--
Jan

On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 06.04.2022 um 08:22 schrieb Thomas Heger:
> > Am 05.04.2022 um 19:58 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> >> On 4/5/2022 2:35 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>> Am 04.04.2022 um 15:55 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> >>>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> >>>>> Am 03.04.2022 um 21:42 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have
> >>>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not
> >>>>>>>>> make
> >>>>>>>>> much
> >>>>>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
> >>>>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> To subtract E from H would mean [A/m - V/m] =[(A - V)/m].
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> (Einstein used only the X-components called 'N' and 'Y', which
> >>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>> have similar units, nevertheless. The used phrase 'force' instead of
> >>>>>>> 'field strength' was actually wrong.)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now ... ..(N - v/c*Y)... contains an illegal operation, because it
> >>>>>>> requires to subtract Volts from Amps. (sorry: I wrote it the other
> >>>>>>> way
> It is worth to have a closer look at the equations on page 13 again.
>
> Einstein did something repeatedly wrong:
> he used scalar for quatities, which are inherently vectorial (or vice
> versa):

No, he never does that. Why do you constantly assume that:

(1) Einstein made high-school-level mistake,

(2) That such mistake was not caught by the Annalen der Physik
editors,

(3) That such was not caught by all physicists in the world
for past 117 years?

It's just completely cuckoo on your part.

> forces got scalar units in the form 'number of dynes', where the number
> were treated as the physical quantity instead of number with units
>
> velocity and accelaration have a direction, hence require vectors, but
> were treated as scalars (also occasionally as vectors)

This never happens in the paper (or any other paper for that matter).

> electric and magnetic field strength were treated as scalar values
> (occasionally)

No, components are used.

Skipping a bit because it's a repetition of similar errors on your part.

> Now we need to take a look at one of these equations on page 13, and
> ask, which symbol means a vector and which a scalar.
>
> 1/c* ∂X/∂τ = ∂/∂η { β (N − v/c *Y)} − ∂/∂ζ { β (M+ v/c *Z)}
>
> Now at least v is a vector and c a scalar.

v is the x-component of the velocity of k wrt K.
It's not a vector.

> Field strength should be a vector, too, but actually we don't know, how
> Einstein meant his variable names, because he didn't define them anywhere..

They are defined immediately below the formulas, quote:
"where (X,Y,Z) denotes the vector of the electric force, and
(L,M,N) that of the magnetic force."

Again, he writes "force" for "field". I'm not a historian, perhaps
this was the standard usage back then.

Anyway, this means X, Y, Z, L, M, N are components of vectors.

> so, lets assume he meant scalars with X, N, Y, M and Z.
>
> In this case the vector v/c would hinder to add N and Y, because scalar
> times vector is a vector and you cannot add scalars to vectors.

You got into this nonsense because you assumed nonsense.

> Therefore the field strength symbols X, Y,Z, N, M cannot mean scalars.

They are not scalars, they are vector components. Both vector components
and scalars are numbers but they have different transformation properties.

> So lets assume vectors.

They are vector components (so they are numbers).

> In this case we have a problem

No, we don't. The problem is entirely made up by you. It doesn't exist.

--
Jan

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 06.04.2022 um 15:50 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>> Am 05.04.2022 um 16:56 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No. You simply don't understand how this works. Some people, when
>>>>>>>>>>>> they don't understand something, tend to blame everyone but themselves
>>>>>>>>>>>> for this. I cannot fix this problem for you.
>>>>>>>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have different
>>>>>>>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not make much
>>>>>>>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
>>>>>>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How about in cgs units? You know about those?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you really want to defend the same idocities as Einstein?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don’t think systems of units are idiocies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not the system of units, of course, but the use of these units.
>>>>
>>>> This may come as a shock to you, but combining quantities of the same units
>>>> and same transformation properties is commonplace in physics. For example,
>>>> the combination of angular kinetic energy and translational kinetic energy
>>>> in ordinary energy conservation scenarios.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The cgs system boild the fields down to 'force', which is measured in
>>>>> 'dyne'.
>>>>>
>>>>> This force was meant as real mechanical force like with what we measure
>>>>> weight, for instance.
>>>>>
>>>>> This was justified by measuring a force inside the measuring device,
>>>>> which ultimately was a mechanical force.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Einstein actually wrote so, when he wrote about the connection of an
>>>>> electron to a spring balance).
>>>>>
>>>>> Now the same units 'dyne' are not appropriate for electrical fields of
>>>>> different kind, because the dyne is 'not electric'.
>>>>>
>>>>> The units simply ignore this different origins of the fields and their
>>>>> different nature.
>>>>
>>>> I think you’re going to be generally flummoxed by the realization that
>>>> there is one electromagnetic field, not physically distinct electric and
>>>> magnetic fields.
>>>
>>>
>>> I know magnets and I know electric fields. These fields do not behave
>>> equal, at least not in the static realm.
>>>
>>> They may be ultimately two manifestations of the same thing, but still
>>> these static manifestations behave different.
>>
>> Well, sure. For one thing, currents are the source of one, but as you know,
>> whether a charge is stationary or in motion is an accident of choice of
>> reference frame.
>
>
> The magnetic field is NOT caused by currents!!!
> Currents in a coil can cause a magnetic field, but the field itself does
> not require any current.

Oh, Thomas, oh dear.

I’m afraid you’ve forgotten some of the basic of electrodynamics. Would you
like a recommendation for a beginner’s book on the subject to remind you of
what you’ve forgotten?

>
> Fields are in general properties of space. So we need to assign
> properties to points, which are not material objects.
>
> The material objects are actually certain patterns, which these
> properties could build, but the points themselves are immaterial, but
> still can have properties, which we call 'field-strength-vectors'.
>
> Also the electric field does not require material objects of any kind,
> whether flowing through a wire or static.
>
>
>
>
>> Horizontal behaviors are often different than vertical behaviors as well,
>> but this doesn’t mean that horizontal and vertical displacements are
>> incommensurate, nor does it mean that horizontal displacements cannot be
>> combined with vertical displacements because of a clash of units.
>
>
> Well, yes. On Earth we have a gravitational field and it does in fact
> make a difference, if you move horizontal or upwards.
>
> This gravitational field has a lot of influence on other things, which
> have no mass, like e.g. time or light.
>
>>> If we now use the features of one of these manifestions and apply them
>>> to the other one, we find, these description does not match.
>>>
>>> Magnetic fields behave inertial and make things spin, while electric
>>> fields push or pull other charged objects, what is not quite the same.
>>>
>>>
>>> Your statement is not entirely wrong, but is actually a disprove of one
>>> of Einstein's main assumptions:
>>>
>>> The electric field itself was modelled by Einstein by means of
>>> electrons, which were assumed as very tiny balls, to which a certain
>>> amount of charge was added.
>>>
>>> But if electric and magnetic fields are actually only one thing, than
>>> how would you like to modell the electric charge of an electron?
>>>
>>
>> The same way. Look at Maxwell’s equations. Gauss’s law has a charge density
>> as a source. Ampere’s law has a charge current density as a source.
>
> And the universe has a 'big-bang' as a source.
>
> But does such a source in an equation make the source a real material
> object?

That depends on your definition of “material”. In the physical sciences,
matter means that which has mass and occupies volume. Electrons have mass
but do not occupy measurable volume, so they do not satisfy the physical
sciences definition of matter.

>
> Th
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 05.04.2022 um 20:06 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
>>>>> What had this to do with the question, whether or not electric field
>>>>> strength might be subtracted from magnetic field strength?
>>>>>
>>>>> It where not the units, which caused my concerns, but the physical
>>>>> meaning of that operation.
>>>>>
>>>>> So: what is actually the difference of a magnetic field of -say- 300
>>>>> Gauss and an electric field of say 100 V/m?
>>>>
>>>> V/m is an SI unit. Do you want to try to find the electric field units in
>>>> the same set of units as have for the magnetic field.
>>>
>>> Also the SI units of the electric field can have its fundamental units
>>> rearranged in such a way it comes out as newtons/coulomb, a force per
>>> charge, just like Gauss/cgs units.
>>>>
>>>> It’s rather stunning that you are wholly incapable of working in any system
>>>> of units other than SI. What do you attribute that to?
>>>
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>> Thomas seems to be spectacularly unequipped with systems of units.
>>
>
>
> As an engineer I was actually trained to use SI units only. But I have
> also some experience with other system, but not that much.

And that has hurt you.

>
> To me it is actually irrelevant, which unit system you use, because the
> units do not create any kind of reality and are only a tool to describe
> something, hence are no things themselves.
>
> TH
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables