 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge.
In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following. 1) The formula, F=qV x B, where F is the force vector on an electrical charge, q is the amount of electrical charge, V is the velocity of the electrical charge, x is the cross product and B is the magnetic field. Note F, V and B are 3D vectors, q is a scalar, and x is a binary vector operation. I'll break question 1 down into less mathematical components. 2) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic field, why is the force vector perpendicular to the velocity vector? 3) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic field, why is the magnitude of the force proportional to the velocity? 4) Why is the magnitude of the force vector proportional to the electrical charge at all? I would appreciate any explanation based on the mechanical properties of aether. I don't want an explanation directly based on Maxwell's equations, except if you can connect the mechanical properties of the aether to Maxwell's equations. I am not particularly interested in space-time, cosmology, Big Bang, steady state or inflationary cosmology. I am interested only in this obvious and intuitive aether model of electromagnetic phenomena. > In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following. > 1) The formula, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > inflationary cosmology. I am interested only in this obvious and > intuitive aether model of electromagnetic phenomena. Why does gravity pull things down? Why do atomic nucleii stay together? You're up against a fundamental fact about physics -- and science generally. One way to put it is, science can't answer all why- questions. Those that it cannot answer it calls "laws of nature." Maxwell's equations are a law of nature. There are other ways to express them, but ultimately that's what it boils down to. We can use the laws of nature to explain other things, but just as a child may ask "why" over and over after any explanation, we have to stop somewhere. This is a deep point that you may not want to accept. But sooner or later you will have to. Uncle Ben Recovering physicist > > In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following. > > 1) The formula, [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > generally. One way to put it is, science can't answer all why- > questions. Those that it cannot answer it calls "laws of nature." My question wasn't about explaining Maxwell's equations. My question had the qualifier, "In terms of the aether theory." My challenge was specifically aimed at supporters of the classical aether theory, not just a call for any theory. I specifically asked if how the aether could explain the magnetic field. Einstein claimed that the aether theory wasn't a complete model of electromagnetic forces because it was "redundant." A lot of people on this forum are claiming that the old time aether classical aether isn't dead. There are some loudmouths who claim that Einstein somehow "conned" people into rejecting the classical aether. My point is that the classical aether was dead even before Einstein buried it. I am sorry that I left out the word "classical." I have been brought to understand there are quantum mechanical and relativistic models out there that include a "substance" that distantly resembles to the classical aether. These would not be the classical aether, yet some can argue that such a model may be useful. I refer to the idea that the aether is a substance acting according to Principia that carries light. In the sense that Newton meant "substance," the aether would not very different from the air that carries sound. This type of model will probably never again be used to model light. > I refer to the idea > that the aether is a substance acting according to Principia that > carries light. Hmmm, actually, the "classical ether" was supposed to be a kind of solid, an absolute reference frame. That ether is dead. A modern ether or quantum vacuum or spacetime or whatever you want to call it would still be what is excited in EM phenomenon.  SignatureFlorian "Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée. Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer >> > In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following. >> > 1) The formula, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > challenge was specifically aimed at supporters of the classical aether > theory, not just a call for any theory. Which one?? The one that already was rejected by Newton is really "out". The one of Lorentz was modified by Einstein but the result (how it really works for GRT and QM) is not so clear. > I specifically asked if how > the aether could explain the magnetic field. > Einstein claimed that the aether theory wasn't a complete model of > electromagnetic forces because it was "redundant." Where? Incomplete and redundant don't appear to convey the same idea.... > A lot of people on this forum are claiming that the old time aether > classical aether isn't dead. There are some loudmouths who claim that > Einstein somehow "conned" people into rejecting the classical aether. > My point is that the classical aether was dead even before Einstein > buried it. When do you think he buried it? As far I know it was Lorentz who really buried the classical dragged ether concept. > I am sorry that I left out the word "classical." I have been > brought to understand there are quantum mechanical and relativistic > models out there that include a "substance" that distantly resembles > to the classical aether. These would not be the classical aether, yet > some can argue that such a model may be useful. Sure. It was useful for people such as Lorentz, Langevin, Ives and Dirac. I also find such models quite helpful. And what do you think of the new MIT model of which I gave you the link? > I refer to the idea > that the aether is a substance acting according to Principia that > carries light. In the sense that Newton meant "substance," the aether > would not very different from the air that carries sound. This type of > model will probably never again be used to model light. Where in the Principia did Newton suggest such a model? Note that he already rejected dragged ether models. Thanks, Harald | >> > In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following. | >> > 1) The formula, [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] | one of Lorentz was modified by Einstein but the result (how it really works | for GRT and QM) is not so clear. =================================================== Why did Einstein say the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v, the "time" each way is the same? 1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B) where A = (0,0,0,t) A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v)) B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) x' = x-vt Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif "Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlintelButNotThis@epfl.ch According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote. > || "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the speed of light from B to A is c+v, > the "time" each way is the same? He didn't say the speed of light was "c+v" or "c-v". He never said that. Maybe you saw those terms in one of his equations and jumped to the conclusion that they were the speeds of light. I know these terms occur in the analysis of the Sagnac experiment, but they are not speeds of light. The terms "c+v" and "c-v" sometimes occur in factors for frequency. Consider a mirror in a cavity. If the cavity moves, the round trip distance from a mirror back to the same mirror can change. So the time between peaks in the electric field at the mirror can change. Hence the frequency changes. > 1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B) > where > A = (0,0,0,t) > A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v)) > B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) > x' = x-vt In the equations you wrote, c+v and c-v are not the speeds of light. They reflect differences in path distance. > Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif You are not reading the words, especially not the definitions of each quantity. You are reading the equations and spinning your own definitions for the symbols. You are making up definitions to reinforce your preconceived notion that "Einstein was wrong." On Jun 19, 11:57 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote: > >> > In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following. > >> > 1) The formula, [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > Where in the Principia did Newton suggest such a model? Note that >he already rejected dragged ether models. Newton did not suggest an aether model for light. Never ever. I did not mean that. I meant that the aether that supposedly carries light may not be describable in terms of Principia. Newton analyzed sound in "Principia." He lays down what may be the first description of the nature of sound. Newton derives a formula for the speed of sound in air that is accurate up to a point. There is a slight error due to his assumption that the air is compressed isothermally. The real speed of sound for audible frequencies is better derived using an adiabatic approximation. In any case, the polarization of sound waves as described in Principia is longitudinal. That has stood as a pretty good prediction. The behavior of light, especially concerning polarization, is not analogous to the behavior of sound as described in Principia. Although no one pointed out this particular problem, I have come to the conclusion that the main problem between Maxwell's equation and Newton concerns Newton's Third Law. Newtons Third Law presupposes that for every action on a body, there is an immediate reaction on another body. For Maxwell's equations, this isn't true. If there is an action on an electrically charged body, there is a delayed reaction on another electrically charged body. The only way around this is what Lorentz and Einstein did. The field has to in some sense become a "body" itself. Defining air as a "body" that carries sound worked in a simple way for Newton. Defining the aether as a "body" that carries light doesn't work simply for Maxwell. Someone recently sent me a series of articles in which Maxwell tries to work the behavior of light and static fields into the framework of an aether. I haven't completed the series of articles, but I am pleasantly surprised at the effort. However, I am far enough along to say that the model does not look simple at all. It involves a rather counterintuitive "insulator" to protect fluid eddies from dissipation due to friction. > Thanks, > Harald As far as Einstein calling the aether redundant, look at this: http://ethertheory.chat.ru/epart2.htm In 1905 A. Einstein writes that introduction of "light-bearing ether" will appear thus redundant (Zur Elektrodynamik der bevegter Körper. Ann. Phys., 1905, 17, pp.891-921) As I look back on Lorentz's book, I realize that he used the word reciprocity quite a bit. I may have confused the word "redundant" by "reciprocity." I apologize. However, look at "The Theory of Electrons" by H. A. Lorentz. He talks about his failures and praises Einstein for discovering "a remarkable reciprocity." I may be misinterpreting it. However, I think in the context of the book that "reciprocity" and "redundancy" are two words for the same thing. On Jun 19, 11:57 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote: > "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:ba31eaa2-2897-4af4-9e9a-6456e9839d55@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... [...] > > My question wasn't about explaining Maxwell's equations. My > > question had the qualifier, "In terms of the aether theory." My [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > also find such models quite helpful. > And what do you think of the new MIT model of which I gave you the link? Such emerging properties theories look very promising. > > I refer to the idea > > that the aether is a substance acting according to Principia that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Where in the Principia did Newton suggest such a model? Note that > he already rejected dragged ether models. : Newton did not suggest an aether model for light. Indeed, he even rejected the dragged ether model. : Never ever. I did : not mean that. I meant that the aether that supposedly carries light : may not be describable in terms of Principia. I read somewhere that he did discuss some kind of ether (similar to his absolute space) in other works. : Newton analyzed sound in "Principia." [...] : The behavior of light, especially concerning polarization, is not : analogous to the behavior of sound as described in Principia. Indeed. : Although no one pointed out this particular problem, I have come : to the conclusion that the main problem between Maxwell's equation and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : simple way for Newton. Defining the aether as a "body" that carries : light doesn't work simply for Maxwell. Right. : Someone recently sent me a series of articles in which Maxwell : tries to work the behavior of light and static fields into the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Thanks, > Harald : As far as Einstein calling the aether redundant, look at this: : http://ethertheory.chat.ru/epart2.htm : In 1905 A. Einstein writes that introduction of "light-bearing ether" : will appear thus redundant (Zur Elektrodynamik der bevegter Körper. : Ann. Phys., 1905, 17, pp.891-921) That's what I referred to above: no "redundant" but instead "superfluous inasmuch". No ether model was required (except for the 2nd postulate of course) for deriving the LT's and their consequences. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ : As I look back on Lorentz's book, Which one? His Physics book or his later Lectures on physics book? : I realize that he used the word : reciprocity quite a bit. I may have confused the word "redundant" by : "reciprocity." I apologize. However, look at : "The Theory of Electrons" by H. A. Lorentz. He talks about his : failures and praises Einstein for discovering "a remarkable : reciprocity." That reciprocity was in fact discovered by Poincare who had basically asked for it in the first place, but evidently Lorentz had not yet seen his 1905 paper. The big joke is that Poincare praized Lorenz for that discovery. Good for a film. :-) : I may be misinterpreting it. However, I think in the : context of the book that "reciprocity" and "redundancy" are two words : for the same thing. Not really. The mathematical reciprocity makes of course reference to an ether redundant and useless for calculations. However, a conceptual void exists in absence of the idea of a physical ether/space/vacuum/spacetime - one is left with only a mathematical model that describes phenomena without any conceptual idea of what physically happens. Harald On Jun 20, 3:09 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote:> : for the same thing. > a conceptual void > exists in absence of the idea of a physical ether/space/vacuum/spacetime - > one is left with only a mathematical model that describes phenomena without > any conceptual idea of what physically happens. > > Harald The aether is not a substance. When energy combines with aether, it can make light and matter (substance). Matter doesn't move 'through' the aether, pushing it aside as it goes. *Energy* moves through the aether, activating it to produce the properties of light or matter *at that point* and *at that time*. The aether at that point does not 'move aside' as the matter comes through. It *becomes* the matter. There is no 'pushing aside' of aether. Aether is non-material in the sense of being *pre-material* ( and pre-light). > The aether is not a substance. > When energy combines with aether, it can make [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > There is no 'pushing aside' of aether. Aether is non-material > in the sense of being *pre-material* ( and pre-light). Nice description. Fits well with my ether model ilja-schmelzer.de/clm Ilja > In terms of the aether theory, please explain the >following. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >magnetic field, why is the force vector perpendicular to >the velocity vector? A "force" is a net pressure. It is always exerted by matter. In its continuous non-particulate form matter exerts an outwardly directed pressure (which I call 'sorce" and physics calls "dark energy") from any given point within it. This material resists compression increasingly strongly as its density increases. This property of matter, which I call "ontropy" is unknown to any physicist who hasn't read my books. Now I will answer your question 2: An electric charge is a sorce gradient and a magnetic field is a density gradient. As matter condenses, it presses back increasingly stronger, so the sorce level increases. As sorce-pressure increases, the density does too. A sorce-density gradient (grad s-d) thus arises in the direction the s-d pulse is moving. The sorce-pressure is perpendicular to the density zone, and vice versa. Hence the change in s is perp that in d on an imaginary plane even though that plane moves forward at c in a vacuum (i.e. a place full of matter but with almost no particles in it). Accordingly (as I read somewhere in a physics text or journal or whatever), if you plot the path of an s or d trajectory on a 3d map, the lines would NOT be perpendicular to each other, they move aslant, upwardly and then downwardly; at all times each point per line remaining in position, thus perp, relative to a corresponding point on the other line. > 3) When an electrical charged particle moves through a >magnetic field, why is the magnitude of the force >proportional to the velocity? I don't know, never having considered that specific question. > 4) Why is the magnitude of the force vector proportional >to the electrical charge at all? Same answer as that given to similar question 2 :-). > I would appreciate any explanation based on the >mechanical properties of aether. Sorce and ontropy and density ARE mechanical properties of the continuous form of matter called "dark matter" and/or "aether". > In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following. > 1) The formula, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > inflationary cosmology. I am interested only in this obvious and > intuitive aether model of electromagnetic phenomena. Why does gravity pull things down? Why do atomic nucleii stay together? You're up against a fundamental fact about physics -- and science generally. One way to put it is, science can't answer all why- questions. Those that it cannot answer it calls "laws of nature." Maxwell's equations are a law of nature. There are other ways to express them, but ultimately that's what it boils down to. We can use the laws of nature to explain other things, but just as a child may ask "why" over and over after any explanation, we have to stop somewhere. This is a deep point that you may not want to accept. But sooner or later you will have to. Uncle Ben Recovering physicist PS: There isn't any aether. Or if there is one, it is so clever that it hides from us perfectly and we cannot detect it. > There isn't any aether. Or if there is one, it is so clever that > it hides from us perfectly and we cannot detect it. The aether (or ether) is just the continuity aspect of matter; whether liquid, solid, gaseous, a mixture of any of those three, or the resistive non-particulate form of the very same matter out of which particles are made. When formed into atoms and molecules, large numbers of them are perfectly visible when grouped together as solids and liquids. Gases such as air are invisible but we know they are there. The continuous form of non-particulate matter is also invisible because it doesn't have a light-reflecting surface. Nevertheless, recent experimental data proves it is there, called "dark matter" because it is invisible... Regards, Dr. Parker. I hope you are well. glird | > There isn't any aether. Or if there is one, it is so clever that | > it hides from us perfectly and we cannot detect it. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | Regards, Dr. Parker. I hope you are well. | glird That diatribe is as ignorant as blood letting to evacuate the body's bad humours, total nonsense. Handwaving garbage. Fuckin' bullshit. Aether is snake oil, you are a snake oil pedlar, "Dr." glird. > In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following. > 1) The formula, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > inflationary cosmology. I am interested only in this obvious and > intuitive aether model of electromagnetic phenomena. Maybe next you'll ask us how phlogiston and caloric can account for the high price of oil. > 2) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic field, > why is the force vector perpendicular to the velocity vector? Hmm? It is not actually. It is both, one force is from stuff moving out of the way, (perp vectors) one force will come from the electron itself. (velocity vect) Are you saying that if I whip an electron at something, it will not cause a force to show up at where it hits? Is an electron massless so it can do such? > 3) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic field, > why is the magnitude of the force proportional to the velocity? too simple. Kinetic energy works that way. and actually a charged particle will do such without any magnetic field there at all (although that is kinda tough to find). You must think old fashion if you want mechanical realities. > 4) Why is the magnitude of the force vector proportional to the > electrical charge at all? combination of both 2 and 3. :) > I would appreciate any explanation based on the mechanical > properties of aether. I don't want an explanation directly based on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > inflationary cosmology. I am interested only in this obvious and > intuitive aether model of electromagnetic phenomena. Darwin, To someone that really understands Maxwells equations, That is like saying to Mr Newton, "Explain a lever and a fulcrum without refering to a force or a mass" :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jun 15, 2:47 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > 2) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic field, > > why is the force vector perpendicular to the velocity vector? > > Hmm? It is not actually. Scientists who have measured the force of a magnet on an electric current have consistently found this is the case. If you know of documented measurements that contradict this frequently confirmed case, please provide references. > It is both, one force is from stuff moving out of the way, > (perp vectors) > one force will come from the electron itself. > (velocity vect) However, the force on the electron will be perpendicular to both the velocity and the magnetic field. This has been verified again and again. In fact, picture tubes use magnetic fields to control electron paths according to the principles and to the equation that I just cited. In terms of TV picture tubes and computer monitors, the experiment has confirmed this formula in excess of a hundred million times. The monitor that you are looking at uses this principle. > Are you saying that if I whip an electron at something, > it will not cause a force to show up at where it hits? No, I am not saying that. I did not write that, and I did not mean that. > Is an electron massless so it can do such? This is how a magnetic field effects and electrical charge. I gave the mathematical formula, which I notice you didn't question. I also provided a physical description of the facts. You directly and immediately contradicted my statement. Being mechanical minded, could you tell me how a magnetic field does affect an electric charge? > > 3) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic field, > > why is the magnitude of the force proportional to the velocity? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and actually a charged particle will do such without any > magnetic field there at all (although that is kinda tough to find). Without the magnetic field, the electric charge moves in a straight line. With the magnetic field, it moves in circles. Kinetic energy doesn't work that way. Without a field, there is no force on the particle REGARDLESS of the kinetic energy. The kinetic energy of a particle does not effect the force on the particle. > You must think old fashion if you want mechanical realities. Your mechanical mind needs a tune-up. > On Jun 15, 2:47 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of documented measurements that contradict this frequently confirmed > case, please provide references. They must be ignoring kinetic energy velocities that produce force in the same vector when the electron finally hits something. Are they allowing it to hit something to find the dang force to begin with? Or just measuring it while it flies by? force usually needs impact or contact. Where is the contact the electron is making that they are measuring to find the velocity vector force at all? :) >> It is both, one force is from stuff moving out of the way, >> (perp vectors) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > No, I am not saying that. I did not write that, and I did not > mean that. But that is how it is coming out. You have no "force to measure" since you are not making it hit anything. :) >> Is an electron massless so it can do such? > This is how a magnetic field effects and electrical charge. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Being mechanical minded, could you tell me how a magnetic field > does affect an electric charge? Electric charged what? you can't just have an electric charge. you need the "object that is carrying the charge. and... It depends how the field is placed (orientation) and how fast the charged object is moving through that field and of course the spin and orientation ofthe electron also How does a mass of air effect a golfball? How does a mass of water effect a golfball? >>> 3) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic >>> field, why is the magnitude of the force proportional to the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > no force on the particle REGARDLESS of the kinetic energy. The kinetic > energy of a particle does not effect the force on the particle. Oh man you are so wrong on that one it is not even funny Lets call a golfball a particle. (it is more like a cloud than a solid but lets treat it like a solid for now) We will drop the golfball from 20 ft into some sand. Now spin the golfball at 50 rpms and drop it. no difference in kinetic energy? WRONG difference in force noted. Now lets just keep the galfball hanging from a string, and push it to the side. how much force is needed to move it? Now spin the golfball as fast as you can. how much force is needed to move it. So.. The kinetic energy of a particle DOES effect final outcome force. and also effect potential force and even the force on the particle itself through a field. mass in motion is not always linear. Thank you Mr Newton for explaining it correctly and my teacher for also doing the same. Too bad teachers today do not do such. the above is classical mechanics at the most basics. just above lever and fulcrum stuff. :) >> You must think old fashion if you want mechanical realities. > Your mechanical mind needs a tune-up. No, yours needs the basics all over again. You are ignorant to the second most basic forces created in mechanics. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> On Jun 15, 2:47 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Where is the contact the electron is making that they are measuring > to find the velocity vector force at all? The form of the force law relating magnetic fields to charges moving in them can be amply demonstrated with a cathode ray tube (CRT) and a pair of Helmholtz coils. The coils are placed to as to produce a uniform magnetic field across a section of the CRT neck where the electron beam passes. The magnetic field deflects the charged electrons and produces a corresponding deflection of the spot at which the beam strikes the CRT face. Varying the magnetic field strength varies the spot position in proportion. Varying the position of the coils can show the form of the path that the electrons follow in detail. The electron speed can be determined via either transit timings (with suitable additional electronics incorporated) or by the kinetic energy depositied at CRT face upon their impact. The electron speed can be set by manipulating the accelerating potential of the electron gun apparatus (before it reaches the magnetic field area), or by setting an accelerating potential on the CRT face. The same experiment can be performed with beams of charged particles other than electrons, such as protons and whole atoms (ions). In this fashion it is found that electric charges moving through a magnetic field feel a force that is proportional to the charge, the velocity, and the magnetic field strength, and that the impressed force is always at right angles to the velocity vector of the charge (charged particle). The mathematical model is thus given by: F = qVxB with F the force vector V the velocity vector B the magnetic (vector) field q the electric charge in Coulombs x is the vector cross product operator > In this fashion it is found that electric charges moving > through a magnetic field feel a force that is proportional > to the charge, the velocity, and the magnetic field strength, > and that the impressed force is always at right angles to > the velocity vector of the charge (charged particle). No sh.t it is at right angles only .. that is the "pushing force" like a wind pushing a boat at a right angles put the dang magnet in front and you will "detect the velocity vector in the front until it pushes it self away. sheesh man even air is that mechanical. C,mon! The magnet pushes it in the field that is in motion doing the pushing the field is moving it. so of course it will move the way the field is designed to move it. > The mathematical model is thus given by: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > q the electric charge in Coulombs > x is the vector cross product operator Yes, and actually that all shows why you don't getthe force showing in front of the motion, because you are not pushing it from the front of the motion ever... :) things don't just move without something pushign them the only force wou will find in such is where it is "pushed" from. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> In this fashion it is found that electric charges moving >> through a magnetic field feel a force that is proportional [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > the only force wou will find in such is where it > is "pushed" from. You haven't quite got it. Given enough room in a constant magnetic field the particles will loop into a circular path. In a good vacuum (so that they don't run into stray molecules) they will continue to circulate and not slow down or speed up. On Jun 16, 6:44 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jun 15, 2:47 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman Do you even KNOW the definition of force? > I would appreciate any explanation based on the mechanical >properties of aether. I don't want an explanation directly based on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >inflationary cosmology. I am interested only in this obvious and >intuitive aether model of electromagnetic phenomena. Why does the sun appear to rise in the east, move across the sky and set in the west? I would appreciate any explanation based on the mechanical properties of Apollo's fiery chariot. I don't want an explanation directly based on celestial mechanics, except if you can connect the mechanical properties of Apollo's chariot to celestial mechanics. I am not particularly interested in Kepler's laws, cosmology, Big Bang, Newton's laws or special relativity. I am interested only in this obvious and intuitive Apollo's chariot model of the sunrise and sunset. >> I would appreciate any explanation based on the mechanical >> properties of aether. I don't want an explanation directly based on [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > obvious and intuitive Apollo's chariot model of the sunrise and > sunset. Nice one Micheal, way better than mine. :) > In terms of the aether theory, [snip rest of crap] http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031 Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004) http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf> No aether http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/ http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7 <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html> http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287 No Lorentz violation SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 >> In terms of the aether theory, > [snip rest of crap] > > http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031 You waste my time with that - can't you read? [...] > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/ "The page cannot be found " > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7 > <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html> > http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287 > No Lorentz violation F=qV x B is from Lorentz and does not violate Lorentz - can't you read? Harald On Jun 15, 3:33 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote: > >> In terms of the aether theory, > > [snip rest of crap] [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Harald Actually Harold, Maxwell actually first published this relationship a few years earlier than did Lorentz. I suspect that it predates even Maxwell, so perhaps someone else will research it's earliest origins and who actually deserves the credit for this rather useful observation. "Lorentz introduced this force in 1892.[5] However, the discovery of the Lorentz force was before Lorentz's time. In particular, it can be seen at equation (77) in Maxwell's 1861 paper On Physical Lines of Force. Later, Maxwell listed it as equation "D" of his 1864 paper, A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, as one of the eight original Maxwell's equations. Not my words, neither are they from a physics text, but from this source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force I like to give credit where credit is due, beside the the symbology of a vector math equation to usenet ASCII symbology tends to be a total waste of time. It's easier simply to point readers to the first equation listed under "History" in the cited link, which physicists will recognize as being essentially the same equation taught in 1st year physics as the Lorentz Force. (In actuality, Lorentz is best known for his classic method of establishing the value of an Ohm.) [See, Harnwell, "Principles of Electricity and Electromagnetism", McGraw Hill. 1949.] Where Maxwell obtained this little gem is to me interesting. Perhaps he was inspired by the observations of Faraday, who history tells us was a far better experimentalist than a gifted mathematician. Maxwell was a gifted mathematician, as well as a physicist of no trivial note. So to me, that explanation would make sense. Still, history becomes a bit cloudy in the days around 1890. So, I have to ask the question, whose earlier work predated that of Faraday, Maxwell, and Lorentz, since all three appear to share a common nexus??? Silly I know, but it's a question that fascinates me. Sort of a physics version of the "Cold Case Files." Have fun thinking about this one. Harry C. > On Jun 15, 3:33 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Actually Harold, Maxwell actually first published this relationship a > few years earlier than did Lorentz. Sorry about that! Anyway, my point was that Lorentz used it much (so that it even became known as the Lorentz force). > I suspect that it predates even > Maxwell, so perhaps someone else will research it's earliest origins [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > whose earlier work predated that of Faraday, Maxwell, and Lorentz, > since all three appear to share a common nexus??? Hmm... it is said that it was really Faraday who lied the basis of it all. But I wasn't there. ;-) > Silly I know, but it's a question that fascinates me. Sort of a > physics version of the "Cold Case Files." Good one! Cheers, Harald >In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following. >1) The formula, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >inflationary cosmology. I am interested only in this obvious and >intuitive aether model of electromagnetic phenomena. Please read Maxwell's papers and you'll probably catch a clue... Hint, why does a gyroscope deflect at an angle perpendicular to the applied force attempting to deflect the rotational axis? Look at Maxwell's physical model, what does it consist of? >>In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following. >>1) The formula, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >applied force attempting to deflect the rotational axis? Look at >Maxwell's physical model, what does it consist of? Oh, and BTW, I tend to catagorize the basics of the aether medium as follows, Grad -> Gravitational Phenomena Div -> Electrical Phenomena Curl -> Magnetic Phenomena The Big Three of nature... > >>In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following. > >>1) The formula, [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > The Big Three of nature... And a quick look at Maxwell's equations suggests that you're reasoning is a little strange. > In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following. > 1) The formula, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > inflationary cosmology. I am interested only in this obvious and > intuitive aether model of electromagnetic phenomena. Did you look up Maxwell's model in his treaty? If I remember correctly, he came to realize that there seem to be just too many models possible. A more modern attempt is MIT's string-net theory http://dao.mit.edu/8.08/chintr-bsn.pdf which sure looks interesting. Harald On Jun 15, 3:42 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote: > > In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following. > > 1) The formula, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yes Harry, years ago while a graduate student, I did. Maxwell was not the only scientist to question if the paradigm was absolute, and only novices accept that it is. Beware of MIT. It a dangerous place because it teached people how to think analytically -- Not simply quote rote knowledge!!!! Cal Tech and Chicago are equally evil influences and and instruments of the Devil!!! Dorothy, get too close to any of these places and you won't be in Kansas anymore. :-) Harry C. > On Jun 15, 3:42 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > the only scientist to question if the paradigm was absolute, and only > novices accept that it is. I'm not sure which paradigm you mean... > Beware of MIT. It a dangerous place because it teached people how to > think analytically -- Not simply quote rote knowledge!!!! Good! Reminds me that Feynman was there - perhaps it's in part his "fault". :-) Harald On Jun 15, 3:42 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote: > Did you look up Maxwell's model in his treaty? If I remember correctly, he > came to realize that there seem to be just too many models possible. You mean he came to realize that the aether model was redundant? The word redundant was used by Einstein to describe the aether model. Lorentz like the word. He thought that was an important point in Einstein's relativity. > On Jun 15, 3:42 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> > wrote: > >> Did you look up Maxwell's model in his treaty? If I remember correctly, >> he >> came to realize that there seem to be just too many models possible. > You mean he came to realize that the aether model was redundant? No. Would you mean that the Bohr model of the atom is "redundant"? It's the wrong word, and even Einstein came to disagree with such an idea. > The word redundant was used by Einstein to describe the aether > model. Perhaps you mean that a detailed ether model was redundant for deriving the Lorentz transformations? Indeed, even Lorentz adopted Einstein's approach. > Lorentz like the word. He thought that was an important point > in Einstein's relativity. Hmm... I never heard that - please give the reference. Harald > In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following. > 1) The formula, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Note F, V and B are 3D vectors, q is a scalar, and x is a binary > vector operation. In terms of the Aether Physics Model, the equation is written: forc = chrg * velc * mfxd The force is equal to the electromagnetic charge of the electron times its velocity times the magnetic flux density of the medium the electron is moving through. The electromagnetic charge relates to the electrostatic charge by the relation: e^2 = e.emax^2 * 8pi * a Where e is the elementary charge, e.emax is the electromagnetic charge of the electron, and a is alpha, the electron fine structure constant. e.emax^2 is another way to express chrg. chrg = e.emax^2 So if you have an electromagnetic charge of one coulomb squared moving a velocity of .8c through a medium of one tesla, then it would be equal to: 1 coul^2 = 7.145 x 10^36 chrg .8 c = .8 velc 1 tesla/e.emax = 3.324 x 10^-9 mfxd (single dimension charge units must be converted to distributed dimension charge units) 1.9 x 10^28 forc = 7.145 x 10^36 chrg * .8 velc * 3.324 x 10^-9 mfxd 1.9 x 10^28 forc = 6.411 x 10^26 newton The values I chose were large whole MKS units so you could get a quick intuitive grasp of the equation. > I'll break question 1 down into less mathematical components. > > 2) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic field, > why is the force vector perpendicular to the velocity vector? Because the Aether has geometry, the electromagnetic charge has inherent geometry, so you would map your fields based upon discrete geometry. The geometry can be mapped with calculus and is completely induced from an analysis of known constants. The electromagnetic charge geometry shows the current force vector is perpendicular to the velocity vector, but also in opposition to the magnetic flux density. > 3) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic field, > why is the magnitude of the force proportional to the velocity? Electrons are toroidal shaped structures, which move along their magnetic axis. The faster the electrons move, the more resistance is encountered, and so the electrons spread out sideways, thus increasing the current. The spreading sideways puts a corresponding pressure on the magnetic flux density in the local environment. In other words, the increase in velocity increases the apparent resistance, which increases the current. The increase in current causes an increase in the density of the magnetic field. > 4) Why is the magnitude of the force vector proportional to the > electrical charge at all? Because the electron has geometry, and this geometry depends upon two distinctly different manifestations of charges. Modern electrical theory only recognizes the elementary charge (electrostatic charge) and treats the electromagnetic charge as a relativistic effect. Further, modern electrical theory has the dimensions of charge wrong in most, but not all, units. This causes trouble with certain relationships of units. The Aether Physics Model fully quantifies the two different types of charges and corrects the error of single dimension, charge-based units. > I would appreciate any explanation based on the mechanical > properties of aether. The Aether Physics Model further explains the mechanical properties of the Aether here: http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf Dave > > In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following. > > 1) The formula, [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > charge geometry shows the current force vector is perpendicular to the > velocity vector, but also in opposition to the magnetic flux density. I do not know what you mean by the magnetic flux density. I believe you mean the magnetic field. The force in the current is not in opposition to the magnetic field. The force on the current is perpendicular to the magnetic field. Please explain to me why the force on the charge is perpendicular to both the magnetic field and the velocity of the electric charge. However, you brought up to other questions. 1) What does the magnetic field mean in terms of the aether? 2) What does it mean to be in "opposition to the magnetic flux density?" > I do not know what you mean by the magnetic flux density. Magnetic flux density is magnetic flux per area. > I believe you mean the magnetic field. No, the magnetic field is a completely different unit. If you apply magnetic flux density to a volume, then you are looking at a magnetic field. > The force in the current is not > in opposition to the magnetic field. I agree. The force in the current is in opposition to the magnetic flux density. The denser the magnetic flux becomes, the greater the force of the current must be to pass through it. > Please explain to me why the force on the charge is perpendicular > to both the magnetic field and the velocity of the electric charge. That is not my position. My position is that the force on the charged electron is in opposition to the magnetic flux density and perpendicular to the current velocity vector. This is because magnetic flux has tubular geometry. The magnetic flux tubes tend to run parallel to the current. The electron is essentially a toroid moving along its polar axis. The large radius of the toroid is moving parallel to the magnetic flux tubes. The faster this toroid moves, the more force it applies perpendicular to its velocity and thus increases the magnetic flux density. Think of a bunch of parallel straws in a bundle. Then put a ring around a portion of the bundle and move it along the path of the straws. The ring will attempt to displace the straws as it passes them by pushing perpendicular to its velocity. Now imagine that the ring expands its large diameter and contracts its small diameter as it speeds up. The faster the electron moves, the more perpendicular force it produces. > However, you brought up to other questions. > 1) What does the magnetic field mean in terms of the aether? The Aether is quantified as a fabric of quantum rotating magnetic fields. The magnetic field IS the Aether. The magnetic field is thus evidence of the Aether's existence. > 2) What does it mean to be in "opposition to the magnetic flux density?" I hope I have explained it clear enough in the preceding paragraphs. It is helpful to understand the structures and behaviors of both the electron and the magnetic flux density and watch how the two interact with each other. Matter is interacting with environment. It is similar to a fish moving through water. As the fish speeds up, the water density near the surface of the fish would increase if the water were elastic and the fish were inelastic enough. In the case of the fish, the water actually flows faster around the fish's surface. In the case of the electron, the flux tubes have to squeeze tighter to allow the electron to pass by. Dave > > I do not know what you mean by the magnetic flux density. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > That is not my position. However, that is my question. All the experiments indicate that there is something called a magnetic field and the force is perpendicular to it. If you can give me a relationship between the "magnetic flux density" and the "magnetic field," I could relate your answer to my question. Right now, I asked one question and you answered a completely different question. >My position is that the force on the charged > electron is in opposition to the magnetic flux density and > perpendicular to the current velocity vector. 1) What is the relationship between magnetic flux density and magnetic field? 2) Is the magnetic flux density perpendicular to the magnetic field, and if so in what specific direction perpendicular? Note there is more than one direction perpendicular to a given vector or a given pseudovector. So specifying perpendicular by itself still contains a bit of ambiguity. > This is because > magnetic flux has tubular geometry. This is going to make your connection to magnetic field more complicated. However, I am listening. This has to be good. > The magnetic flux tubes tend to > run parallel to the current. Good. Got it. > The electron is essentially a toroid > moving along its polar axis. Also good. Got it. > The large radius of the toroid is moving > parallel to the magnetic flux tubes. The faster this toroid moves, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > displace the straws as it passes them by pushing perpendicular to its > velocity. If the magnetic flux density is uniform, the direction of the force will change around the toroid. The sum of the forces on the current will cancel out so there is no force. There is no net force on the current. Yet, in fact we see a net force on the current. One way around this is to define the magnetic field in terms of the inhomogeneity of the magnetic flux tubes. No doubt you will show this when you present the relationship between magnetic flux density and magnetic field. > Now imagine that the ring expands its large diameter and > contracts its small diameter as it speeds up. The faster the electron moves, the more perpendicular force it produces. On all sides, if the magnetic flux density is constant. The total force on the electron is zero. > > However, you brought up to other questions. > > 1) What does the magnetic field mean in terms of the aether? > > The Aether is quantified as a fabric of quantum rotating magnetic > fields. The magnetic field IS the Aether. The magnetic field is thus evidence of the Aether's existence. The magnetic field is not uniform through space. Light propagates through regions where the magnetic field is zero. Therefore, the magnetic field is not the aether. > > 2) What does it mean to be in "opposition to the magnetic flux density?" > > I hope I have explained it clear enough in the preceding paragraphs. No. > It is helpful to understand the structures and behaviors of both the > electron and the magnetic flux density and watch how the two interact [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the case of the electron, the flux tubes have to squeeze tighter to > allow the electron to pass by. Maybe this will help. The fish has fins. In most fish, the pectoral fins are used for steering, the tail fins for propulsion, and the other fins are used for stabilization. When the fish wants to turn, it needs a force perpendicular to his velocity. So it adjusts the angle of of its pectoral fins to push against the water, so as to create a force perpendicular to its velocity. Its brain has a strategy for adjusting the angle to give its path the curvature it needs. If there were no pectoral fins on the fish, the fish couldn't steer. Yes, the pressure on the fish would increase as it swims faster. However, the force would be equal on all sides. So the fish would continue in a straight line. The picture of your ring doesn't have the equivalent of pectoral fins. I can not see how the total force on the ring can be perpendicular to its velocity or to the magnetic field. Your electron needs pectoral fins, and a strategy on how to use them. Making the electron a toroid alone won't help. The electron in your model needs more structure. Maybe you should read more about fish, as well as physics. Fishyics! > The magnetic field is not uniform through space. Light propagates > through regions where the magnetic field is zero. Therefore, the > magnetic field is not the aether. It is not the aether, but it is certainly a physical entity emerging from the aether/Quantum vacuum/Spacetime or whatever you want to call it. Actually, that perpendicular thing reminds me of Bernouilli's principle. SignatureFlorian "Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée. Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer > > > Please explain to me why the force on the charge is perpendicular > > > to both the magnetic field and the velocity of the electric charge. > > > That is not my position. > > However, that is my question. If you want an explanation for something you believe and I don't, then I think you need to be the one to provide it. > All the experiments indicate that > there is something called a magnetic field and the force is > perpendicular to it. All the physicists have a problem in understanding the difference between a magnetic field, magnetic flux density, and magnetic field strength. Magnetic flux density and magnetic field strength are routinely spoken of as though they were the magnetic field, when they are only particular views of the magnetic field. It is like saying a car is velocity because it moves. A car is a car, velocity is velocity. A car is not velocity. A magnetic field is not magnetic flux density. > If you can give me a relationship between the > "magnetic flux density" and the "magnetic field," I could relate your > answer to my question. The unit of magnetic field in single dimensional charge MKS units is equal to kg m^3 / sec coul. The unit of magnetic flux density in single dimensional charge MKS units is kg / sec coul. In distribute dimensional charge MKS units the magnetic field is equal to kg m^3 / sec coul^2, and the magnetic flux density in the same system is kg / sec coul^2. Magnetic flux density makes no reference to the volume of the whole magnetic field. Magnetic flux density is merely a measure of how tightly the magnetic flux tubes are packed. > >My position is that the force on the charged > > electron is in opposition to the magnetic flux density and > > perpendicular to the current velocity vector. > > 1) What is the relationship between magnetic flux density and > magnetic field? It is as I just stated, and stated earlier. The magnetic flux density is just one of many properties of the magnetic field. > 2) Is the magnetic flux density perpendicular to the magnetic field, > and if so in what specific direction perpendicular? The magnetic flux density would be a scalar quantity of the magnetic field. The only vector is the increase/decrease of magnetic flux density. When comparing the magnetic field to the magnetic flux density, we have to look at the magnetic field as an object and the magnetic flux density as a property of this object. The magnetic field is, of course, a non-material object, but an object nonetheless. > Note there is more than one direction perpendicular to a given > vector or a given pseudovector. So specifying perpendicular by itself > still contains a bit of ambiguity. Magnetic fields have many properties, and it is the properties which possess the vector quantity, not the magnetic field at large. That is why physics focuses on the properties of the magnetic field, rather than the unit of magnetic field, itself. > If the magnetic flux density is uniform, the direction of the > force will change around the toroid. The sum of the forces on the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > On all sides, if the magnetic flux density is constant. The total > force on the electron is zero. You are looking at the situation from the perspective that there is only one type of charge in the electron. There are, in fact, two quantifiable types of charges in the electron. These two types of charges are geometrically related to each other, yet are two completely different manifestations of charges. Also, the Aether is the source of electrostatic charge, while the subatomic particle's existence creates the electromagnetic charge. The Aether has an electrostatic dipole, whereas the subatomic particle has a magnetic dipole. The Aether is existing in a five-dimensional frame of reference, whereas the subatomic particle is existing in a four- dimensional frame of reference. The Aether interaction of four- dimensional matter with a five-dimensional Aether also causes various deformities, which are constantly changing. The wobble measured as the particle g-factor, is one important effect caused by this interaction of different coordinate systems. Talking about the homogeneity of magnetic flux density requires a simultaneous understanding of all of these factors. It is not as simple as the straw analogy I gave. The straw analogy was given at your request, because you wanted a way to discretely visualize the vectors. > > The Aether is quantified as a fabric of quantum rotating magnetic > > fields. The magnetic field IS the Aether. The magnetic field is thus evidence of the Aether's existence. > > The magnetic field is not uniform through space. Light propagates > through regions where the magnetic field is zero. Therefore, the > magnetic field is not the aether. The magnetic field IS uniform throughout space in the sense that there is always a magnetic field present. It may not be the magnetic field associated with a magnet, the Earth, the Sun, the galaxy, or a galactic globular cluster, but it exists nonetheless. This is well understood by the presence of the permeability and permittivity constants throughout all space. It is important to realize the difference between a quantum rotating magnetic field and a macro magnetic structure. It is like the difference between a subatomic particle and a human body. The human body is composed of subatomic particles, but subatomic particles are not composed of human bodies. Similarly, the quantum rotating magnetic field (the infinitesimally small whirlpools of Bernoulli, Fresnel, Descartes, and others) is not the same thing as a magnetic field surrounding a magnet. At any given location in the Universe, there are multiple overlapping magnetic fields from various sources. These larger structures of magnetic fields constantly tug at the quantum Aether units. It is like a bunch of boats on a lake vying to affect the water molecules to produce waves that correspond to each boat's wake. Sure, there are moments when the boats are gone and the lake is mirror smooth, but the water molecules are still there. The same goes for the Aether units. There may be places in the Universe where there are no macro magnetic fields, but the quantum rotating magnetic fields are still there and ready to produce macro magnetic fields. > The picture of your ring doesn't have the equivalent of pectoral > fins. That's because the electrons aren't fish. I didn't mean for you to think they were. The only similarity between the fish swimming through water was to highlight how matter moves through Aether. Rene Descartes presented this concept, and it is fully quantifiable in the Aether Physics Model. And by the way, snakes can swim without fins by alternating the whole body sideways. Electrons follow the path of magnetic flux tubes in free space. Instead of putting fins on the electrons, the pathway of the current is changed and the electron merely follows it. This, again, is evidence that the Aether is real. If magnetic fields are merely mathematical abstractions and there is no such thing as Aether, then electrons would always follow a ballistic straight course through empty space. > I can not see how the total force on the ring can be > perpendicular to its velocity or to the magnetic field. Your electron > needs pectoral fins, and a strategy on how to use them. No, the Aether interacts with the electron, and the electron interacts with the Aether. Both can cause changes in the other. As I mentioned earlier, it is important to understand the geometry of the Aether and subatomic particles in order to understand how they interact. This white paper provides a basic introduction to the quantified theory: http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf > Making the > electron a toroid alone won't help. The electron in your model needs > more structure. There is no need for me to make the electron into anything. It is what it is. The electron's structure is entirely induced from the constants of the physics it is involved with. It would also help if you took the time to read my model before judging it. Then you could actually point to a specific instance within the model that needs to be addressed. Dave Where can I read more details in your "theory?" I read your posts very carefully which is how I come with these questions. If you think that I don't read your posts, then you are wrong. The most important property of the magnetic field for our discussion is the direction. If the magnetic field is the gradient of the magnetic flux density, then I have no problem since a gradient has a direction. Given that definition which you provided, the magnetic field has direction. However, you also said that the magnetic flux density forms tubes. The gradient of a "tube" distribution of density is a series of vectors, perpendicular to the tube but pointing in all radial directions from the center of the tube. Thus, the magnetic field you described has no fixed direction. The magnetic field that I asked about is the well known magnetic field from science and engineering. This magnetic field does have a definite direction. It sounds like you named something else as "the magnetic field." However, that is secondary. Can you explain in terms of the magnetic field most of us play with why, F=q V x B ? > There is no need for me to make the electron into anything. It is > what it is. The electron's structure is entirely induced from the > constants of the physics it is involved with. It would also help if you took the time to read my model before judging it. Where can I read about your model? Do you have a blog or something? I read your posts. They already have self contradictions. Is your blog better formulated than your posts? Perhaps your blog doesn't contradict itself. I would like to read it. > Then you could > actually point to a specific instance within the model that needs to be addressed. Alright. However, my original question was why in terms of the aether: F=qV x B where "q" is the electric charge, "V" is the velocity, "B" is the magnetic field, and "x" is the cross product. That was the only thing I asked for when I began this thread. I was not interested in any other feature of the model than this equation, as well as all it physically implied. You have not addressed that question, or even told me where you think this equation fails. My specific instance within the model is this. Why does, F=q V x B ? Do you derive this equation in terms of the aether? If not, I have no interest in reading your theory. Very few scientists are interested in how you, and you alone, define magnetic field. > The most important property of the magnetic field for our > discussion is the direction. If the magnetic field is the gradient of > the magnetic flux density, then I have no problem since a gradient has > a direction. I agree that the magnetic flux density gradient is the magnetic field for a given magnetic structure. > However, you also said that the magnetic flux > density forms tubes. No, I didn't say that. I said that magnetic flux is tubular. Magnetic flux density is not tubular, it is merely a quantity for the density of the tubes. > The magnetic field that I asked about is the well known magnetic > field from science and engineering. This magnetic field does have a > definite direction. It sounds like you named something else as "the > magnetic field." However, that is secondary. Can you explain in terms > of the magnetic field most of us play with why, > F=q V x B ? I already did that. > > There is no need for me to make the electron into anything. It is > > what it is. The electron's structure is entirely induced from the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > better formulated than your posts? Perhaps your blog doesn't > contradict itself. I would like to read it. I use my blog only for occasional comments when a scientific observation validates a point I had raised. I gave the link for my white paper in the last post. > > Then you could > > actually point to a specific instance within the model that needs to be addressed. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > physically implied. You have not addressed that question, or even told > me where you think this equation fails. I have told you a discrete interpretation of the equation, which was your original question. I have not told you where this equation fails because it doesn't fail. The equation is valid. I did tell you how I use the same general equation within the Aether Physics Model, which has distributed charge dimensions and two types of charges. > My specific instance within the model is this. Why does, > F=q V x B ? I answered that question directly in an earlier post. > Do you derive this equation in terms of the aether? If not, I have > no interest in reading your theory. If you truly had read all my posts in this thread carefully, as you claimed, you would have seen that I did explain this equation in terms of Aether. But I only gave a general answer to your question. If you want an in-depth answer, you would need to study the theory in-depth since the answer would be given from within the framework of the theory. > Very few scientists are interested in how you, and you alone, > define magnetic field. It is true that very few scientists are interested in the correct understanding of magnetic fields, but I am not alone in correctly understanding them. I learned about the correct understanding of magnetic fields from an online university physics course. The professor explained the reasoning using dimensional analysis. I don't have the link to the site, as it was several years ago that I read it, but you can do the dimensional analysis for yourself. Magnetic flux density, which most scientists incorrectly call the magnetic field, is a unit equal to magnetic flux per area. Magnetic flux is the flux tube I was talking about. Some people incorrectly call them "flux lines." They are flux tubes, as can be determined by holding a magnet near a CRT screen. Also, the unit of magnetic flux is dimensionally equal to kg m^2 / sec coul. The m^2 means the unit is applied over an area. A line is a single dimension of length, an area is distributed dimensions (m^2) of length. A tube has area, a line is just a line. A field fills a volume. Therefore, the unit of magnetic field must have m^3 as its length dimensions. Thus the magnetic field unit is dimensionally kg m^3 / sec coul (in single dimension charge units). Dave If you actually finished reading Maxwell's "On the Physical Lines of Force" you just might twig to the fact that the hexagonal voretex lattice described by Maxwell is a superfluid (probably closer to a supersolid) lattice. In such a model what we call matter are physical defects in this lattice. Simply froth on this ocean of spacial aether. A miniscual part of the actual universe. Here are some neo-aether (QM & Relativistic compliant) references... http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO3PDF/V10N3XIA.pdf http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/complete/PP-annual-2006.pdf#page=53 http://www.ejtp.com/articles/ejtpv3i12p117.pdf http://www.springerlink.com/content/x532q8m662800579/ http://www.springerlink.com/content/m15u39682l011005/ http://www.springerlink.com/content/l3124819l24lp825/ http://www.springerlink.com/content/hxt258554588753w/ http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=4452111 http://www.springerlink.com/content/w1053g4253qp220r/ http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QN9HW1Oi7d4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA199&dq=aethe r+superfluid&ots=4DlxEdn4N2&sig=fdKHC-jdQCdP9ZjJpP01LHU3t2s#PPA202,M1 http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/complete/PP-02-2006.pdf#page=64 >> > In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following. >> > 1) The formula, [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] >2) What does it mean to be in "opposition to the magnetic flux >density?" > If you actually finished reading Maxwell's "On the Physical Lines of Force" > you just might twig to the fact that the hexagonal voretex lattice described [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > >2) What does it mean to be in "opposition to the magnetic flux > >density?" We all know that "Progress in Physics" and "Apeiron" are crank journals. Few people knew that prof. Saller's International Journal of Theoretical Physics is also crank. > > In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following. > > 1) The formula, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > forc = chrg * velc * mfxd Okay, here is where you didn't answer my question. The formula above is not the same as the formula I provided because there is no angle term. The formula I provided is: F=q V x B where F is the force vector, V is the velocity vector, B is the magnetic field vector, and x is the cross product. You refer to the magnetic field magnitude as the magnetic field flux density, which is fine. In other words, |B|=mfxd. However, suppose there is an angle A between B and V. Then, |F|=q|V| |B| sinA Furthermore, the direction of F is provided by a hand rule. Thus the cross product is a shorthand notation for using the sinA factor and the hand rule. Your aether model does not provide either a hand rule of a sinA factor. The magnitude of the force is proportional to "sinA". So if A is 0 degrees or 180 degrees, |F| is zero regardless of the size of "velc" or "mfxd." Your formula implies that |F|>0 when A is 0 degrees or 180 degrees. Furthermore, your formula does not provide a direction to F, the force vector. In real physics, we learn the left hand rules that determine the direction of the force. Now, I have been looking for your link to the white paper. When I find it, I will be looking for that hand rule and the sinA term. If I don't find it, I will be very disappointed. |:-) > > > In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following. > > > 1) The formula, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > angle term. The formula I provided is: > F=q V x B Your equation didn't show a separate angle variable, so I didn't add one either. The math works the same for either system for this particular equation, except that the dimensions of charge are different. You wanted a physical explanation of the equation in terms of Aether. I gave it to you. Now you are changing the question retroactively. The explanation I gave focused on the physical explanation of the equation and explained the distributed charge concept and the two types of charges. Apparently you missed all of that, or did not understand it. Did you really want a physical explanation for the equation? Dave > > > > In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following. > > > > 1) The formula, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Your equation didn't show a separate angle variable, so I didn't add > one either. I said that x was a cross product. I said V and B were vectors. If you didn't understand what a cross product was, you should have either asked or looked up the formulas for magnetic force. A lot of intro physics students, even premeds, learn the formula for magnetic force including the angle term without using the word "cross product." You obviously didn't know there was an angle term there. Does your derivation include an angle factor? If it doesn't, it doesn't simulate a real magnetic field. >The math works the same for either system for this > particular equation, except that the dimensions of charge are > different. The dimensions absolutely remain the same. The factor, sinA, is dimensionless. Your dimensions at least were correct. If you have to change the dimensions for a dimensionless factor, you have a wrong answer. > You wanted a physical explanation of the equation in terms > of Aether. I gave it to you. Now you are changing the question > retroactively. No. I started out asking the question in a mathematically rigorous way, using a mathematical shorthand where the angle term was define. You retroactively changed the problem, by ignoring the mathematical shorthand and changing the meaning of the "x" term. In fact, I suspect you had an inkling of what you were doing because you exchanged the x for *. In any case, the angle term is part of the experimentally verified magnetic force formula. If you can't explain it with the angle term, then you haven't physically explained magnetism with a aether formula. > The explanation I gave focused on the physical explanation of the > equation and explained the distributed charge concept and the two > types of charges. Apparently you missed all of that, or did not > understand it. Did you really want a physical explanation for the > equation? You did not explain the equation. In addition to leaving out the angle term, you provided a picture where there is no net force on the electric charge. When I pointed that out, you suddenly redefined B as the gradient of the magnetic flux density. However, the gradient of the magnetic flux density has different dimensions. When one takes a gradient, the dimensions have to be divided by a length quantity. So by taking the gradient, you changed the correct units into incorrect units. Your physical picture implies something totally unphysical. The fact is, there is a force even if there is no spatial variation of the magnetic flux density. Your model implies that there is no force if the magnetic flux density doesn't vary. Thus, the picture you had me analyze doesn't explain the physics described by this formula. Yes, I want you to explain to me in terms of aether physics the equation, F=q V x B, where F is the force vector, q the charge, V the velocity and B the magnetic field, and x the cross product. I meant every word. To make it simpler, let me explain the cross product "x." Suppose A and B are vectors with an angle T between them. C is their cross product so that C=A x B. Let the magnitude (i.e., Pythagorean length) of any vector, V, be designated by |V|. Then |C|=|A| |B| sinT and the direction of C is given by the left hand rule. Look up left hand rule, it is very difficult without pictures. Note that T is between 0 and 180 degrees, so there is no problem with negative numbers. So now you know what cross product is, and you will not be confused again. All I want is an aether explanation for F=q V x B where q is the charge, F is the force vector, V is the velocity vector, B is the magnetic field (using your units, of which I have no problem), and x is the cross product. If you can't derive this formula, used over and over again for all sorts of devices, then you don't have a physically useful model of the electromagnetic field. This includes light. And I don't even care about the Michaelson-Morley experiment! > I would appreciate any explanation based on the mechanical > properties of aether. I don't want an explanation directly based on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > inflationary cosmology. I am interested only in this obvious and > intuitive aether model of elect |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message