 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / February 2005Einstein's Electrodynamics
"Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count." -- Alan Schwartz, resident psychopath with ONE correct statement to make. It is known that Einstein's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary Einsteinian view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current, or rate of change of charge, at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is "stationary" and the conductor is in an inertial frame of reference that is "moving", no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed, such equality being known as the PoR --to electric rates of change of charge (coulombs per unit tau) of the Lorentz contracted path and time dilated intensity, as those produced by the electric forces in the former case. Androcles. Without getting into who said what was stationary wrt whichever: It is probably incorrect to say that the electric fields in the neighborhood of a magnet are ever stationary considering that their force is easily duplicated by charges in motion. Eh? So the electric fields in non-magnetic matter are moving too, just not in a unified way to produce poles. << The fine-structure constant is of dimension 1 (i.e., it is simply a number) and very nearly equal to 1/137. It is the "coupling constant" or measure of the strength of the electromagnetic force that governs how electrically charged elementary particles (e.g., electron, muon) and light (photons) interact. Currently, the value of having the smallest uncertainty comes from the comparison of the theoretical expression ae(theor) and experimental value ae(expt) of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron ae. Starting in the 1980's, a new and wholly different measurement approach using the quantum Hall effect (QHE) has caused excitement because the value of obtained from it independently corroborates the value of from the electron magnetic moment anomaly. The QHE value of does not have as small an uncertainty as the electron magnetic moment value, but it does provide a significant independent confirmation of that value. >> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html <<Dirac Equation A characteristic feature of the relativistic wave equation is that the spin of the particle is built into the theory from the beginning, and is not added afterwards as Pauli added the electron spin to the Schödinger nonrelativistic equation. This feature provides a useful measure of the applicability of a particular wave equation to the description of a particular kind of particle. >> http://www.phys.ualberta.ca/~gingrich/phys512/latex2html/node41.html http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~phsbm/fqhe.htm So we simply figure how missteps of charge choregraphy manifest as mass and energy. The action at a distance problem? simple PFM. Sue... Without getting into who said what was stationary wrt whichever: It is probably incorrect to say that the electric fields in the neighborhood of a magnet are ever stationary considering that their force is easily duplicated by charges in motion. Eh? Bar magnet. Iron filings. Brownian motion? Not, eh? So the electric fields in non-magnetic matter are moving too, just not in a unified way to produce poles. I don't jump from "maybe" to " probably" to "are" quite that easily, Sue. Empirically, logically an mathematically, the same energy can be drawn from a stator with a magnetic rotor inside as from a rotor with a magnetic stator. Maglev technology (for those that mutter "inertial" and "reference" and frame") works on the same principles. << The fine-structure constant is of dimension 1 (i.e., it is simply a number) and very nearly equal to 1/137. It is the "coupling constant" or measure of the strength of the electromagnetic force that governs how electrically charged elementary particles (e.g., electron, muon) and light (photons) interact. Currently, the value of having the smallest uncertainty comes from the comparison of the theoretical expression ae(theor) and experimental value ae(expt) of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron ae. Starting in the 1980's, a new and wholly different measurement approach using the quantum Hall effect (QHE) has caused excitement because the value of obtained from it independently corroborates the value of from the electron magnetic moment anomaly. The QHE value of does not have as small an uncertainty as the electron magnetic moment value, but it does provide a significant independent confirmation of that value. >> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html <<Dirac Equation A characteristic feature of the relativistic wave equation is that the spin of the particle is built into the theory from the beginning, and is not added afterwards as Pauli added the electron spin to the Schödinger nonrelativistic equation. This feature provides a useful measure of the applicability of a particular wave equation to the description of a particular kind of particle. >> http://www.phys.ualberta.ca/~gingrich/phys512/latex2html/node41.html http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~phsbm/fqhe.htm So we simply figure how missteps of charge choregraphy manifest as mass and energy. The action at a distance problem? simple PFM. None of that is relevant to Einstein's dynamics being incorrect. A bar magnet and coil of the same length when both are at rest are not of the same length when the two are in relative motion and exchanging energy of motion to produce a glowing filament. Einstein's opening statement is "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena." I've changed "Maxwell's" to "Einstein's". He modified Maxwell's equations and ended up 15 years later with "But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V.", while babbling about the speed of light. This is in direct conflict with his 1905 statement "The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet". The moving magnet is longer than the stationary coil, xi = (x-vt)/ sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and the moving coil is longer than the stationary magnet. It follows that both the N and S poles of the moving bar magnet will lie outside the extremes of the stationary coil and both poles of the stationary magnet will lie inside the extremes of the moving coil. That isn't symmetry and it isn't the PoR. S Without getting into who said what was stationary wrt whichever: It is probably incorrect to say that the electric fields in the neighborhood of a magnet are ever stationary considering that their force is easily duplicated by charges in motion. Eh ? A Bar magnet. Iron filings. Brownian motion? Not, eh? S Plenty of charges moving in both objects. I don't get your fascination with Langevin Equation and Brownian Motion. I can't make it solve anything. So the electric fields in non-magnetic matter are moving too, just not in a unified way to produce poles A I don't jump from "maybe" to " probably" to "are" quite that easily, S Good call! "Hawkeye"! A Empirically, logically an mathematically, the same energy can be drawn from a stator with a magnetic rotor inside as from a rotor with a magnetic stator. S Stators aren't static if they exert a Lorentz force. Well.... their chages aren't anyway; and we can't stop their motion to prove otherwise. ( That's how ya get from maybe to probably ) A Maglev technology (for those that mutter "inertial" and "reference" and frame") works on the same principles. S Yep... motion in the static coils and motion in the moving coils. ;-) URLs The fine-structure[...]fqhe.htm S So we simply figure how missteps of charge choregraphy manifest as mass and energy. The action at a distance problem? simple PFM A None of that is relevant to Einstein's dynamics being incorrect. S It looks like pretty good evidence aganist a magnetic ether but still a mechanism for light speed. It isn't infinite ya know, in spite of what some of Einstein's clocks might indicate. A A bar magnet and coil of the same length when both are at rest are not of the same length when the two are in relative motion and exchanging energy of motion to produce a glowing filament. S Shrug... Are sliding rulers going out of style. Einstein's opening statement is AE "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena " A I've changed "Maxwell's" to "Einstein's". He modified Maxwell's equations and ended up 15 years later with AE "But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V.", while babbling about the speed of light. A This is in direct conflict with his 1905 statement AE " The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet ". A The moving magnet is longer than the stationary coil, xi = (x-vt)/ sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and the moving coil is longer than the stationary magnet. A It follows that both the N and S poles of the moving bar magnet will lie outside the extremes of the stationary coil and both poles of the stationary magnet will lie inside the extremes of the moving coil. That isn't symmetry and it isn't the PoR. S Yes... that isn't the only time he switches the ether on and off in his narratives. I see where you are finding fault but I believe you need to look where Maxwell uses Biot-Savart rather that Ampere to characterize the "displacement current". Your illustration, as I read it, is condeming only half of Maxwell's ether and ...ahhem... The vargaries of partially cut flux lines aren't adding any clarity. Sigh... you'd rather have a ballistic photon than a Noble prize wouldn't cha ? :-) Sue... > S > Without getting into who said what was stationary wrt whichever: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > fascination with Langevin Equation and Brownian Motion. > I can't make it solve anything. Dunno 'bout Brownian motion, but E = mc^2 makes der loudenboomer mit alles kaput. > So the electric fields in non-magnetic matter are moving > too, just not in a unified way to produce poles Do they? Well, I suppose it might be a little strange if the Earth's gravitational and magnetic fields got left behind, it might cause the moon's perigee to precess. > A > I don't jump from "maybe" to " probably" to "are" quite that easily, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > anyway; and we can't stop their motion to prove otherwise. > ( That's how ya get from maybe to probably ) Wasn't Lorentz an aetherialist or ectoplasmist or something? > A > Maglev technology (for those that mutter "inertial" and "reference" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > S > Yep... motion in the static coils and motion in the moving coils. ;-) By-product of an E-field. Even a static E-field. Doesn't work the other way, though. No E-field from a static magnet unless it moves or changes intensity. By-products are not the issue. You don't get much by-product in an insulator even if you do connect a fat farad across it. Superconductors are more fun, they let the E-Field change to produce a B-Field. > URLs > The fine-structure[...]fqhe.htm [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > as mass and energy. > The action at a distance problem? simple PFM Before asking how two masses interact, first ask "what is mass?" People are relying on intuition instead of analysis. Inertia is the reluctance of the rest of the Universe to move the other way. "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert > A > None of that is relevant to Einstein's dynamics being incorrect. > S > It looks like pretty good evidence aganist a magnetic ether but > still a mechanism for light speed. It isn't infinite ya know, in spite > of what some of Einstein's clocks might indicate. Then get rid of the twit, he never had any answers anyway, just more questions, mostly irrelevant. E = mc^2 E = hf hf = mc^2 > A > A bar magnet and coil of the same length when both are at rest [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > S > Shrug... Are sliding rulers going out of style. Yeah, the marks don't line up except at one place. > Einstein's opening statement is > AE [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > stationary magnet will lie inside the extremes of the moving coil. > That isn't symmetry and it isn't the PoR. > S > Yes... that isn't the only time he switches the ether on and off > in his narratives. > I see where you are finding fault but I believe you need to look > where Maxwell uses Biot-Savart rather that Ampere to characterize > the "displacement current". How far can a spark jump in a perfect vacuum? > Your illustration, as I read it, is condeming only half of Maxwell's > ether [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > wouldn't cha ? > :-) "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" - Albert Einstein > Sue... << Do they? Well, I suppose it might be a little strange if the Earth's gravitational and magnetic fields got left behind, it might cause the moon's perigee to precess. S Yes, It is easy to see by the light of the Aurora Equatorialus. (eyes a yawing} A Wasn't Lorentz an aetherialist or ectoplasmist or something? Harpsichordist... I'm sure of it. > S > Yep... motion in the static coils and motion in the moving coils. ;-) By-product of an E-field. Even a static E-field. Doesn't work the other way, though. { No E-field from a static magnet // THINK about this. unless it moves or changes intensity. //THINK about this. } S Are "free charges" the same as "unbound charges" ? Can magnetism interrupt Coulomb forces ? [byproduct crap shudda been snipped] ;-) By-products are not the issue. You don't get much by-product in an insulator even if you do connect a fat farad across it. Superconductors are more fun, they let the E-Field change to produce a B-Field. Your search - "magnetic byproduct" - did not match any documents. Results 1 - 5 of 5 for "electric byproduct". (0.28 seconds) IOW...SPEAK ENGLISH PLEASE SQUID Magnegometers What is a SQUID Magnetometer? Superconducting QUantum Interference Devices can detect magnetic fields !!! generated by electrical activity !!! in smooth muscle. ... http://www.vanderbilt.edu/biomag/squid.htm - 4k - Cached - Similar pages > S > So we simply figure how missteps of charge choregraphy manifest > as mass and energy. > The action at a distance problem? simple PFM A Before asking how two masses interact, first ask "what is mass?" People are relying on intuition instead of analysis. Inertia is the reluctance of the rest of the Universe to move the other way. S Ernst Mach might have agreed with ya. I might too if you'll stop combinging electrodynamc and sewerage treament terms. :-) "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Sure ya can... just put 'em on another imaginary axis and add another prime symbol. How about t' ' ' ? > A > None of that is relevant to Einstein's dynamics being incorrect. > S > It looks like pretty good evidence aganist a magnetic ether but > still a mechanism for light speed. It isn't infinite ya know, in spite > of what some of Einstein's clocks might indicate. A Then get rid of the twit, he never had any answers anyway, just more questions, mostly irrelevant. S Yer Machian Notions and AE's observer dependence aren't different enuff for what yore pot is calling yore kettle. He'd have been OK if he hadn't tried to explain action at an distance and offered a control over time... but this ain't about sex power money and the other humanoid cravings. A E = mc^2 <--- OK sue E = hf <---- Hmmmm ???? sue hf = mc^2 <----- Derived Hmmmmm ??? sue <------ Diracian Hmmmmmm ??? sue e+ e- ---> 0.511 x 2 MeV <----- Measured Hmmmmm :-) Hmmm ... Is the Ultra Violet really a catastrophe? > A > A bar magnet and coil of the same length when both are at rest > are not of the same length when the two are in relative motion and > exchanging energy of motion to produce a glowing filament. > S > Shrug... Are sliding rulers going out of style. Yeah, the marks don't line up except at one place. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > Einstein's opening statement is > AE [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I've changed "Maxwell's" to "Einstein's". > He modified Maxwell's equations and ended up 15 years later with > AE > "But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity > set forth in Section V.", while babbling about the speed of light. > A > This is in direct conflict with his 1905 statement > AE > " The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion > of > the conductor and the magnet ". > A > The moving magnet is longer than the stationary coil, > xi = (x-vt)/ sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > and the moving coil is longer than the stationary magnet. > A > It follows that both the N and S poles of the moving bar magnet will [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > where Maxwell uses Biot-Savart rather that Ampere to characterize > the "displacement current". How far can a spark jump in a perfect vacuum? One atom's diameter ? google Paschen curve > Your illustration, as I read it, is condeming only half of Maxwell's > ether > and ...ahhem... The vargaries of partially cut flux lines aren't > adding > any clarity. > Sigh... you'd rather have a ballistic photon than a Noble prize > wouldn't cha ? > :-) "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" - Albert Einstein Indeed... it would be called re-research or /found^3 Sue... << How far can a spark jump in a perfect vacuum? >> --- 42 --- :o) Sue... > << How far can a spark jump in a perfect vacuum? >> > > --- 42 --- > > :o) > Sue... I'm asking a serious question, Sue. The solar system has a haemorrhoid belt somewhere between Earth, Mars, the Washington D.C. Beltway and the bible belt, eh? How close can a pair of charged haemorrhoids approach before a 42 megabolt lightning strike destroys all the gravity between them, all the magnetism radiates and they have to go over to plain old lust to be attracted to each other? In other words, the permyermyvitalickywotsitability of free space is 1/42^2, or 42? Which one is the fund..er..mental constant of free unified meadows in spacetime theory? (And don't say it's obviously 1/42 because that would be too obvious. ) Androcles. > > << How far can a spark jump in a perfect vacuum? >> > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I'm asking a serious question, Sue. He knows that you are an idiot. After all, he is another engineer, but unlike yours, his brain hasn't rotten completely away yet. He must remain polite since you are the only donkey who talks to him, so he'll do his best not to offend you ;-) Dirk Vdm > > << How far can a spark jump in a perfect vacuum? >> > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > (And don't say it's obviously 1/42 because that would be too obvious. ) Congratulations,.Androclown. You have found your metier. Persevere and you will achieve fame in this genre.  SignatureFranz "The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." T.H. Huxley [snip crap] > Androcles. <http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EnergyConservation.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HopeThatHelps.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PrizeYours.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CoverUp.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GDefence.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OneDim.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gullible.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RelativityCancer.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Androrgasm.html> Androcyst is a spewing psychotic idiot troll. Why are you having so much trouble with basic algebra? Let L = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the stationary frame. Let L' = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the moving frame. Let v = speed of Sam and Joe, as measured in the stationary frame (with Joe in front of Sam). Let L_1 = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured in the stationary frame. Let L_1' = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured in the moving frame. Let T_1 = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured in the stationary frame. Let T_1' = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured in the moving frame. Let L_2 = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured in the stationary frame. Let L_2' = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured in the moving frame. Let T_2 = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured in the stationary frame. Let T_2' = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured in the moving frame. What people are saying to you is that 1) L_1 = cL/(c-v) 2) L_1/T_1 = c 3) L_1' = L' 4) L_1'/T_1' = c 5) L_2 = cL/(c+v) 6) L_2/T_2 = c 7) L_2' = L' 8) L_2'/T_2' = c So L_1 is *not* equal to L_2 L_1 is *not* equal to L L_1 is *not* equal to L' L_1 is *not* equal to L_1' L_2 is *not* equal to L L_2 is *not* equal to L' L_2 is *not* equal to L_2' T_1 is *not* equal to T_2 T_1 is *not* equal to L/c T_1 is *not* equal to L'/c T_1 is *not* equal to T_1' T_2 is *not* equal to L/c T_2 is *not* equal to L'/c T_2 is *not* equal to T_2' On the other hand, L_1' is equal to L_2' L_1' is equal to L' L_2' is equal to L' T_1' is equal to T_2' T_1' is equal to L'/c T_2' is equal to L'/c Is there yet another way for you to misunderstand? Einstein: ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) Taking a = x, b = t + x'/(c-v), the functional equation above becomes: tau(0,0,0,b-a/(c-v)) + tau(0,0,0,b+a/(c+v)) = 2 tau(a,0,0,b). Defining the function F(k) = 2 tau(0,0,0,k), it then follows that tau(a,0,0,b) = F(b-a/(c-v)) + F(b+a/(c+v)). Conversely, taking a = 0 in the equation above, it follows that tau(0,0,0,b) = F(b) + F(b) = 2F(b). Therefore, the general solution to the functional equation above is: tau(a,0,0,b) = F(b-a/(c-v)) + F(b+a/(c+v)) where F is otherwise arbitrary. (Further restrictions cited in the paper then narrow down the function F(x); this also shows that the assumption in the paper of differentiability is entirely superfluous. The derivation above proceeds without any assumption about tau being differentiable or even continuous.) Thus, going back to Einstein's notation with x' = x - vt, it follows that tau(x-vt,0,0,t) = F((ct-x)/(c-v)) + F((ct+x)/(c-v)) which shows that the natural coordinates that enter into play are ct-x and ct+x. In terms of these the Lorentz transformation simplifies substantially: ct-x -> sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) (ct-x) ct+x -> sqrt((c-v)/(c+v)) (ct+x) involving, respectively, a blue shift and red shift factor and directly representing the Relativistic Doppler effect. If two Lorentz transformation are done along the x axis at velocities v1 and v2 respectively, then the factors would multiple: sqrt((c+v1)/(c-v1)) sqrt((c+v2)/(c-v2)) which reduces to a Lorentz transform with a velocity v given by: sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) = sqrt((c+v1)/(c-v1)) sqrt((c+v2)/(c-v2)) Solving this for v, you get: v = (v1 + v2)/(1 + v1 v2/c^2) So the velocity addition rule becomes the addition rule for the "rapidity": u = c/2 ln((c+v)/(c-v)) with u = u1 + u2. Rapidity and velocity are virtually identical. For a vessel going at v= 3km/second, |v - u| ~~ 6 microns/second. Therefore, velocities (redefined as rapidities) add as usual in Relativity, as well as in Newtonian physics. Hey idiot Androcles, <http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be> reposting the same idiot drool that has been so thoroughly, utterly publicly discredited by those who can do math (e.g., Randy Poe, in disgustingly punctilious counterpoint) merely demonstrates what an intractible idiot you are. Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count. Your idiot spew is falsified by trivial empirical observation. You are a psychotic ineducable idiot. Where are your citations, idiot Androcles? Where are your literature references, idiot Androcles? Where is your empirical observational support, idiot Androcles? You drown in explicit empirical falsfification, idiot Androcles. Your ignorance, incompetence, and psychosis are not of interest to the world at large. Quite the contrary. You are not even an interesting laughingstock. <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html> Hafele-Keating experiment. You are f.cked, idiot Androcles. Nature 425 374 (2003) <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/> http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf <http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf> Relativity in the GPS system. You are f.cked, idiot Androcles. <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/> http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039 <http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html> Experimental constraints on General Relativity. You are f.cked, idiot Androcles. Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004) http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071 Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries. You are f.cked, idiot Androcles. Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004) http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml No aether. You are f.cked, idiot Androcles. http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/ http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7 No Lorentz violation. You are f.cked, idiot Androcles. <http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html> Mathematics of gravitation. You are f.cked, idiot Androcles. http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html You are f.cked, idiot Androcles. http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm You are f.cked, idiot Androcles. <http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf> You are f.cked, idiot Androcles. Idiot Androcles is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a butt-f.cked psychotic idiot spewing in a science newsgroup. Androcyst and logs: <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LogsHuh.html Androcyst and vectors: <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotVectors.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroVec.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorLength.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorSpaces.html Androcyst and limits: <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegativeInfinity.html Androcyst and equations: <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras2.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve2.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Persuasive.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroDistri.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ToothlessBite.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Competent.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/UseTrans.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sheesh.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DivZero.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Think.html Androcyst and square roots: <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/STILL.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CanSpecify.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Nearly.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Quadratic.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GrowUp.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Tautology.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Material.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GIVEN.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PythagoRescue.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtRev.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSqrt.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtAnswers.html Androcyst and exclusive ors: <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html Androcyst and partial differential equations: <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff2.html> <http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff3.html> SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf REALLY ? 42 atom diameters. :o) [PDF] RECENT EXPERIMENTS ON VACUUM BREAKDOWN OF OXYGEN-FREE COPPER ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Page 1. Page 2. Page 3. Page 4. Page 5. Page 6. Page 7. Page 8. http://www-project.slac.stanford.edu/ lc/wkshp/RFBreakdwn/references/kobayashi1.pdf - Similar pages Sue... > Dunno 'bout Brownian motion, but E = mc^2 makes der loudenboomer mit > alles kaput. i.e., a nuclear bomb -- which *proves* E = mc^2. (As does the process e- + e+ -> gamma + gamma; or any of the other *millions* of pair annihilations witnessed every day in any particle accelerator). The atom moves in the energy slope because it has more mass on one side of it's center than the other side. As the atom is across an energy slope and up is a gain in mass then the orbiting parts have less mass when at the bottom of the orbit than the top. All of the atoms parts are falling twards the center of the atom but there is more mass falling in one direction than the other. This GAIN in energy across evry atom is allways peroprtional to the weight of the mass. The gain in mass is F pushing the weight of the atom. The atom is pushing it's self down the energy slope. "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > It is probably incorrect to say that the electric fields in the > neighborhood of a magnet are ever stationary considering > that their force is easily duplicated by charges in motion. > Bar magnet. Iron filings. Brownian motion? Not, eh? ALL magnetism is created by the motion of charges, as Maxwell, himself, was the first to point out. > None of that is relevant to Einstein's dynamics being [sic] incorrect. Of course it's not relevant! Nothing's ever relevant to a false assertion. > I've changed "Maxwell's" to "Einstein's". > He [sic] modified Maxwell's equations No he didn't. Lorentz did. > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > It is probably incorrect to say that the electric fields in the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > No he didn't. Lorentz did. whopkins: << ALL magnetism is created by the motion of charges, as Maxwell, himself, was the first to point out. >> So... if electric field diminishes by the square of the distance from a charge but magnetism diminishes by the cube of the distance of the distance (corrected for some motional aperture as in SAR ) then we have a hard time conceiving that magnetism can exist very far removed from a charge. This works just fine for optical interferometers, dual slit experiments so called "observer dependent" paths and plain ole plane mirrors but really wrecks havoc with any notion of corpuscular photons in free space. :-) :-) ? ? BTW... many thanks for your thorough posts. Sue... > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > It is probably incorrect to say that the electric fields in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ALL magnetism is created by the motion of charges, as Maxwell, himself, > was the first to point out. It is not obvious that that is true in the case of the magnetic moment of an electron, in view of thevery tight upper limit on the electron radius. > > None of that is relevant to Einstein's dynamics being [sic] > incorrect. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No he didn't. Lorentz did. SignatureFranz "The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." T.H. Huxley > > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > It is probably incorrect to say that the electric fields in the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of an electron, in view of thevery tight upper limit on the electron > radius. Something I read in the thread: Coulomb's constant is a CGS kludge leads me to beleive this is just a virtual radius to accomodate a model based on a surface area. Intrestingly, flipping all the e- spins in an atom takes less energy than just one. On that basis you could say the radius is larger than an atom. IOW the spinning sphere model has limited applicaton. The electric field is "as though" it eminated from a surface. The angular momentum is "as though" an entended mass was in motion. The magnetic field is "as though" a charge was in motion.[1] But the little critters are too wispy to actually be what what they apear in these respects because other expeiments (flipping, ESR) don't conform to the model. Sue... > > > None of that is relevant to Einstein's dynamics being [sic] > > incorrect. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > by an ugly fact." > T.H. Huxley > > > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > It is probably incorrect to say that the electric fields in the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Sue... OOps I forgot the foot note. The magnetic field is "as though" a charge was in motion.[1] This is the gist of your post and I agree. It is somewhat speculative to say electrons are charges in motion when they are in fact fundamental charges. That does leave the possiblility that some more fundamental entity could permeate space and comprise and electron magnetically. IMHO, the range of Coulomb force suggest that isn't the case but anything is possible at that level, I suppose. Sue... > > > > None of that is relevant to Einstein's dynamics being [sic] > > > incorrect. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > by an ugly fact." > > T.H. Huxley > > > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > It is probably incorrect to say that the electric fields in the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Something I read in the thread: > Coulomb's constant is a CGS kludge There is practically nothing in that thread which is worthy of note, except for possible humorous purposes. > leads me to beleive this is just a virtual radius to accomodate > a model based on a surface area. On the contrary, there were a series of independent precision experiments on the Bhabha scattering differential cross section at LEP at CERN. These all managed to determine the form factor of the electron with outstanding accuracy. The combined result, interpreted in terms of the radial charge distribution of the electron, says that the electron is compatible with having a point charge to within a resolution of 2.8 * 10^-19 metres (to the usual 95% confidence level). < Intrestingly, flipping all the > e- spins in an atom takes less energy than just one. On that > basis you could say the radius is larger than an atom. No, there is no basis whatsoever for saying that the electron radius is larger than the atom. The energies at which atomic physics experim ents are performed are in the region of 10^-11 too small to say anything useful about the radius of the electron. > IOW the spinning sphere model has limited applicaton. > The electric field is "as though" it eminated from a surface. No. It is "as though" it emanated from a point. > The angular momentum is "as though" an entended mass was > in motion. No. The mass distribution has never been measured. > The magnetic field is "as though" a charge was in motion.[1] No, it is *not* as if a charge was in motion. > But the little critters are too wispy to actually be what what they > apear in these respects because other expeiments (flipping, ESR) > don't conform to the model. *All* the experiments on the determination of the charge distribution of the electron are in complete agreement within the experimental accuracies involved. There are *no* results which "don't conform to the model" as you put it. Moreover, the radial distribution of the charge of the electron has been pinned down to such a small value that it lays total hell out of any attempt to discuss the mass, the angular momentum and the magnetic moment in terms of claccical notions. SignatureFranz "The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." T.H. Huxley > > "Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message > news:cvs5uo$587$5@sparta.btinternet.com... [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > by an ugly fact." > T.H. Huxley Franz << There are *no* results which "don't conform to the model" as you put it.>> At least you're keeping an open mind about it. Sue... > > > "Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message > > news:cvs5uo$587$5@sparta.btinternet.com... [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > any attempt to discuss the mass, the angular momentum and the magnetic > > moment in terms of claccical notions. > Franz > << There are *no* results which "don't conform > to the model" as you put it.>> That's correct. > At least you're keeping an open mind about it. That, too, is correct SignatureFranz "The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." T.H. Huxley > The moving magnet is longer than the stationary coil, > xi = (x-vt)/ sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) which has nothing to do with nothing. They have the SAME length in ALL frames of reference. In the stationary frame the opposite ends A, B have trajectories and proper time T in the center of mass frame of the object: A: xA(T) = 0, tA(T) = T B: xB(T) = L>0, tB(T) = T so length = sqrt(|xA(T)-xB(T)|^2 - c^2 |tA(T)-tB(T)|^2) = L In the moving frame A: xA(T) = vT/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), tA(T) = T/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) B: xB(T) = (L+vT)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), tB(T) = (T+vL/c^2)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) and |xA(T)-xB(T)|^2 = L^2/(1-(v/c)^2) c^2 |tA(T)-tB(T)|^2 = (v/c)^2 L^2/(1-(v/c)^2) and length = sqrt((L^2 - (v/c)^2 L^2)/(1-(v/c)^2)) = L. ........... ...First of all, along the principle of a Relativity, you do have to be a specific, like for instance, along an Electrodynamics of a moving bodies. However, which is a basically, like all Electrodynamics, along the Kinematics along any rigid body, because anything along that matter have to deal with the relationships between the rigid bodies along a systems of a coordinates, as a clocks and an electrodynamic determinations. Whether, it would remains a difficulties which are the Electrodynamics of a moving bodies along anything which it would be encountered in that time of the procedure. ........... ...The ultimate reason, that it should be along a deep consideration of a two clocks synchronization, along what would follows: t - t = t' - t B A A B ........... ... Therefore, along the point A of the space, there is a clock, then an observer should be at the A would be along an ability to arrive to determine the time values along any immediate nearest events of A, simply by finding the exact positions of anything which it has had to be a simultaneous with those events. ........... ...However, when along the point B of space, there is an other clock, which it has had to be like the one at the point A, along, that case it would be a possible for an observer at the point B, also to arrive to determine the time values of an immediate neighbourhood of the point B along any events. Whether, it would not be out of any comparison according to the time, along an event at the point A, with an event of the point B. ........... ...Therefore, you would along that matter, determine only, that you have to define the time along the point A, and the time along the point B, and you have not arrive to determine a common time for the oint A and the point B. However, a simply because, it is an impossible matter, at least you could determine, that the time required by the light along a traveling from A to B, would, a definitely requires, that the time would equal along its traveling from B to A. .......... ...Finally, you do have only to let a ray of a light to start along the point A time which it would be ta from A towards B, and do allow the point B time tb which it has to give a reflection at B along the direction of A, and arrive once again at the point A time t'a, and what is above as an equation would be the configuration, of what we are talking about, a simply as that, a definitely as a matter a fact!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.............. .. SignatureAhmed Ouahi, Architect Best Regards! > > The moving magnet is longer than the stationary coil, > > xi = (x-vt)/ sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > and > length = sqrt((L^2 - (v/c)^2 L^2)/(1-(v/c)^2)) = L. t - t = t' - t B A A B SignatureAhmed Ouahi, Architect Best Regards! > ........... ...First of all, along the principle of a Relativity, > you do have to be a specific, like for instance, along an Electrodynamics of [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > and > > length = sqrt((L^2 - (v/c)^2 L^2)/(1-(v/c)^2)) = L. hua ha ha ha haaaaaa haaaaaaaa haaaaa. LOL. LOL. unintelligible physics. > ............ ...First of all, along the principle of a Relativity, > you do have to be a specific, like for instance, along an Electrodynamics of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > moving bodies along anything which it would be encountered in that time of > the procedure. ILLUCID |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.