copernicus1234
Member
Equations 2 and 3 are transverse waves. Using the EM transverse equations (equ 2 and 3), in equations 1a,b, results in the equating of the y and z dimensions.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Are equations 2 and 3 transverse waves?
Equations 2 and 3 are transverse waves.
Using the EM transverse equations (equ 2 and 3), in equations 1a,b, results in the equating of the y and z dimensions.
copernicus1234..........then what do the subscripts y an z, of equations 2 and 3, represent?
This just proves that you are a troll, not that anything is mathematically invalid. The only way for kx-wt to be zero always for all x and all t, is if k=w=0. For free space waves, k=w/c and kx-wt=w(x/c-t).In addition,
kx - wt = 0..........................4
which also proves the derivation of equations 2 and 3 are physically and mathematically invalid.
Usually, a field vector has a direction which makes it a field vector and not a scalar since a scalar does not have a direction.
Also, Maxwell describes polarization using transverse waves, in his electromagnetic theory of light.
Also, I distinctly remember you stating that Maxwell's equations are vector equations ...
Again, you are lying. Where did I insist that the EM wave equations are not transverse waves. Show me where I said that. Maxwells' equations require free space waves to be transverse waves. You know very well that I said that, but you enjoy the trolling process. No one is fooled by your nonsense, - least of all me. But, I will point out your lies as many times as you spout them....yet are insisting that the EM wave equations are not transverse waves that a vector equations.
k = w ????? (have you been smoking that funny green stuff?)
more like kx = wt............................................................1
using
k = 2pi/l (where l is the wavelength)........................2
and
ct = x...............................................................................3
in
kx = (2pi/l) (ct)................................................................4
Using
f x l = c (where f is the frequency).................................5
in equation 4
kx = (2pi/l) (f x l) t...........................................................6
Equation 6 becomes,
kx = (2pi)f t........................................................................7
Since wt = (2pi)t
equation 7 becomes,
kx = wt..........or.............kx - wt = 0..................................8
Who's the one full of nonsense. Scalar vector fields, come on steveB wakeup! I'm doing circles around you.
Since all you have done is repeat your previous nonsense, I will just repeat my previous correction. Your conclusions are wrong because your analysis is wrong. You don't even understand that your statement that "induction is not optical" is devoid of any substance or meaning.
I think we've reached a point where you are deserving of the lowest form of criticism we can give you about your response. "Mr Madison, everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it"