[Eternal Student (OP)]

Hi.
   I probably haven't got the time to reply to everything right now but thanks for all replies.

Any linear operator from any position can be viewed as x .

    I might be missing something here.   I'll guess @DarkKnight  has written something on a different thread recently and you are talking about something from that?

   On the face of it there are many different linear operators but I was going to guess you're talking about Quantum Mechanics and operators acting on the wave function.   Assuming x is supposed to be position, the only operator which is given by mutiplication by x is the position operator  .

   The next statement     

Unbounded photons can be viewed to travel at
c=1/x

   is then not particularly true.   

    At the very least whatever you have written requires some more explanation.   I can't understand what you've written in several of the posts.   Before you do explain further, consider if it would be better placed in a new thread.   I'm quite happy with even obliquely relevant topics being discussed here but your ideas look quite revolutionary.   I'm not a moderator or staff for this forum but as I understand the guidelines,  this thread probably shouldn't contain anything that is new to the world of physics.  If there is anything new here, then it is just "new to me"  or new to someone who contributed to the thread.  Hopefully, it is just based on established physics and would have been already known to someone in the world of the physics. 
   You might be underselling your idea by discussing it here.   If it's really new and revolutionary then it deserves a thread of its own.

Best Wishes.   

[DarkKnight]

Hi.
   I probably haven't got the time to reply to everything right now but thanks for all replies.

Any linear operator from any position can be viewed as x .

    I might be missing something here.   I'll guess @DarkKnight  has written something on a different thread recently and you are talking about something from that?

   On the face of it there are many different linear operators but I was going to guess you're talking about Quantum Mechanics and operators acting on the wave function.   Assuming x is supposed to be position, the only operator which is given by mutiplication by x is the position operator  .

   The next statement     

Unbounded photons can be viewed to travel at
c=1/x

   is then not particularly true.   

    At the very least whatever you have written requires some more explanation.   I can't understand what you've written in several of the posts.   Before you do explain further, consider if it would be better placed in a new thread.   I'm quite happy with even obliquely relevant topics being discussed here but your ideas look quite revolutionary.   I'm not a moderator or staff for this forum but as I understand the guidelines,  this thread probably shouldn't contain anything that is new to the world of physics.  If there is anything new here, then it is just "new to me"  or new to someone who contributed to the thread.  Hopefully, it is just based on established physics and would have been already known to someone in the world of the physics. 
   You might be underselling your idea by discussing it here.   If it's really new and revolutionary then it deserves a thread of its own.

Best Wishes.

I am simply trying to answer your question but to do that we must discuss some issues . x is a vector , it isn't a position .

Yes there is a thread in new theories that presents a model , labelling the operator A(x) .

This is an operator that explains the speed of light , the motion of bodies and gravity .

It is also an operator that can answer your question .

[Bored chemist]

  I am well aware of what the values mean but in regards to the measure of the speed of anything ,  is required . Where is the d/t value in the equation ?

Not really.
It's like saying that the speed of a wave travelling along a string is given by sqrt(t/ (ml)) where t is the tension, m is the mass and l is the length

You just need to do the dimensional analysis and it works out to have the right units.

[DarkKnight]

  I am well aware of what the values mean but in regards to the measure of the speed of anything ,  is required . Where is the d/t value in the equation ?

Not really.
It's like saying that the speed of a wave travelling along a string is given by sqrt(t/ (ml)) where t is the tension, m is the mass and l is the length

You just need to do the dimensional analysis and it works out to have the right units.

You sound more like a politician who completey ignores the questioning . I've done the dimesional analysis and in no way does Maxwell use d/t to measure lights speed . I have asked people what value they would  input for e0 and u0 because I read 1/0=1  .

Are you sure that Maxwell wasn't just describing the operator ?

[Kryptid]

because I read 1/0=1  .

All this time you've been away from the forums, and you still haven't learned something so fundamental as "you can't divide by zero"?

[alancalverd]

I have asked people what value they would  input for e0 and u0

If you had bothered to read reply #78 above instead of spouting incoherent drivel about operators, you would know the answer.

[hamdani yusuf]

What is the equation describing how a magnetic field is induced by a moving charge?

Ampere's Law.

Let's say a 1 gram metal ball electrically charged by +1 coulomb is moving to the right at 1 m/s on x axis. Another identical ball is stationary 1 meter above the x axis.
What's the magnetic field experienced by the second ball when the first ball is right below it?
What's the magnetic field experienced by the first ball at the same time?

[alancalverd]

What is the relevance of the mass of the balls?

[DarkKnight]

I have asked people what value they would  input for e0 and u0

If you had bothered to read reply #78 above instead of spouting incoherent drivel about operators, you would know the answer.

I have read post 78 and what you provided was in my opinion , incoherent drivel . What you provided wasn't a so the Maxwell equation makes no sense .
Additionally all the work done in the universe requires an operator , it isn't drivel .

[DarkKnight]

because I read 1/0=1  .

All this time you've been away from the forums, and you still haven't learned something so fundamental as "you can't divide by zero"?

I'm not the one claiming c=1/e0u0  which is 1/0

I claim c=Ψ/A(x) where A(x) is the operator , namely an Eigen vector .

I also  claim that the B(x) operator , changes the speed of light , this is because B(x) operator  represents a vector with a medium .

Ψ/B(x)≠c

[DarkKnight]

Hi.
   I probably haven't got the time to reply to everything right now but thanks for all replies.

Any linear operator from any position can be viewed as x .

    I might be missing something here.   I'll guess @DarkKnight  has written something on a different thread recently and you are talking about something from that?

   On the face of it there are many different linear operators but I was going to guess you're talking about Quantum Mechanics and operators acting on the wave function.   Assuming x is supposed to be position, the only operator which is given by mutiplication by x is the position operator  .

   The next statement     

Unbounded photons can be viewed to travel at
c=1/x

   is then not particularly true.   

    At the very least whatever you have written requires some more explanation.   I can't understand what you've written in several of the posts.   Before you do explain further, consider if it would be better placed in a new thread.   I'm quite happy with even obliquely relevant topics being discussed here but your ideas look quite revolutionary.   I'm not a moderator or staff for this forum but as I understand the guidelines,  this thread probably shouldn't contain anything that is new to the world of physics.  If there is anything new here, then it is just "new to me"  or new to someone who contributed to the thread.  Hopefully, it is just based on established physics and would have been already known to someone in the world of the physics. 
   You might be underselling your idea by discussing it here.   If it's really new and revolutionary then it deserves a thread of its own.

Best Wishes.

You seem kinda cool so here is the answer to your question

= -0.5q+0.5q 

If Einstein were here , he'd say , '' the tip of the rod is forced to have a split end when it interacts with matter'' . Then Coulomb would agree ! 

[alancalverd]

I'm not the one claiming c=1/e0u0  which is 1/0

Yes you are. Everyone else knows what they are talking about.

[alancalverd]

Anyway, returning to HY's last question:

At maximum we have a current of 1 coulomb/second , i.e. 1 amp, passing 1 m from the point of interest so the peak field is about 4 microtesla.

[DarkKnight]

I'm not the one claiming c=1/e0u0  which is 1/0

Yes you are. Everyone else knows what they are talking about.

I'm not being awkward here , look at this from my view . Sceince states that speed is derived from .

They then claim the speed of light c = 1/e0u0 which reads 1/0 

They then claim that e0u0 doesn't mean 0 it means the numbers you provided which must be imaginary numbers .

In no way does science demonstrate that 1/e0u0 has anything to do with

It is all kinda contradictory when speed is

Please clear up my confusion if you think I am wrong ?

Additionally I have drew a ''diagram'' for this topic that shows the ''split ends'' . (A humourous version) .


tada.jpg (13.02 kB . 365x332 - viewed 974 times)

[alancalverd]

Your confusion is that you think your incoherent ravings have some meaning to others. You would be better off posting in a psychiatry forum than physics if you want a sympathetic audience.

[DarkKnight]

Your confusion is that you think your incoherent ravings have some meaning to others. You would be better off posting in a psychiatry forum than physics if you want a sympathetic audience.

New information isn't incoherent information , it is information that at this time isn't fully understood by the student .

My math is correct and my explanation of ''split ends'' falls perfectly inline with an atoms components and Coulombs law of charges .

Coulomb would be my citation and additionally Einsteins photo-electrical effect .

No pleasing some people !

[paul cotter]

Dr cotter will now prescribe neuroleptics, in max dose.

[hamdani yusuf]

Anyway, returning to HY's last question:

At maximum we have a current of 1 coulomb/second , i.e. 1 amp, passing 1 m from the point of interest so the peak field is about 4 microtesla.

Let's change the electric charge to 10 Coulomb, and the speed becomes 0.1 m/s. How would it affect the magnetic field?

[alancalverd]

Not at all.

It's unusual to consider the magnetic properties of a single linearly moving charge but as long as current = charge passing a given plane per unit time, we can estimate the maximum magnetic field from the velocity of the charge at the point of closest approach, multiplied by the value of the charge.

[hamdani yusuf]

Not at all.

It's unusual to consider the magnetic properties of a single linearly moving charge but as long as current = charge passing a given plane per unit time, we can estimate the maximum magnetic field from the velocity of the charge at the point of closest approach, multiplied by the value of the charge.

1 Ampere means 1 Coulomb per second, or 60 Coulomb per minute, or 3600 Coulomb per hour, or 0.001 Coulomb per millisecond. How did you decide that the ball in my example produced 1 Ampere?