Re: [Vo]:test for greek letters
I get greek: running thunderbird on windows 7 Nigel On 16/02/2014 06:36, H Veeder wrote: This is a test to see if the greek letters I have copied and pasted into this message are preserved as they pass through the mail programs. The characters come from this site http://greek.typeit.org/ θ ω ε ρ τ ψ υ ι ο π α σ δ φ γ η ς κ λ ζ χ ξ ω β ν μ Θ Ω Ε Ρ Τ Ψ Υ Ι Ο Π Α Σ Δ Φ Γ Η ς Κ Λ Ζ Χ Ξ Ω Β Ν Μ Harry
Re: [Vo]:test for greek letters
And on Chrome. On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: I get greek: running thunderbird on windows 7 Nigel On 16/02/2014 06:36, H Veeder wrote: This is a test to see if the greek letters I have copied and pasted into this message are preserved as they pass through the mail programs. The characters come from this site http://greek.typeit.org/ θ ω ε ρ τ ψ υ ι ο π α σ δ φ γ η ς κ λ ζ χ ξ ω β ν μ Θ Ω Ε Ρ Τ Ψ Υ Ι Ο Π Α Σ Δ Φ Γ Η ς Κ Λ Ζ Χ Ξ Ω Β Ν Μ Harry
Re: [Vo]:Fiery black hole debate creates cosmological Wild West
He got the decay part right, but that deal about the event horizon has confused everyone for 40 years, but made for some good movies. On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129552.400-fiery-black-hole-debate-creates-cosmological-wild-west.html#.UwA-EM6YbyQ Last week famed physicist Stephen Hawking caused an uproar with his assertion that black holes do not existhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24937-stephen-hawkings-new-theory-offers-black-hole-escape.html- at least not as we've defined them for the past 40 years. Rather than letting nothing, not even light, escape their grasp, Hawking says that this point of no return is a fallacy, and black holes will sometimes let trapped light back out.
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Jones, How would an observer moving along with the linear charges be affected by its neighbors?Is there reason to consider this an invalid view point? Dave -Original Message- From: pagnucco pagnu...@htdconnect.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 15, 2014 10:12 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law Jones, I should have added that the magnetic vector potential is not only small for chaotic plasmas, but also for expanding or converging spherical charged plasma shells. It will only be large in intense, linear flows. -- LP Jones, You refer to something worth noting, but not the magnetic vector potential. Ideally in a fusor, the particles converge to a point in the center of the fusor, but the magnetic field momentum at the center is quite small. Energy is borrowed from outer convergent spherical shells of electrons or ions, but that is a scalar coulomb effect - not magnetic vector potential. -- LP Jones Beene wrote: BTW the Farnsworth Fusor benefits from spherical convergence of ion vectors. The vectors are self-focused and not chaotic. Farnsworth/ Hirsch found the fusion threshold is lowered by a factor of 4 due to spherical convergence, allowing substantial neutron production at far lower voltage potential than colliding beams. Polywell borrowed the idea http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/Polywell%20Ion%20Focus%20Concept.pdf
Re: [Vo]:test for greek letters
This has been an enigma for me. There are Greek letters in the font symbol and just plain Greek letters. I could never quite figure out what the difference is. Kindle does not text symbol characters. That's been a problem. I will try these. Frank
RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Dave, The view is not invalid, but of limited use. My focus is not the magnetic vector potential per se, but that it all prior models may be irrelevant for modeling common applications like ICF. In looking at the geometry of this device, or almost any plasma device - one could logically expect Coulomb's law to interfere with spherical convergence due to increase in opposite polarity in the central zone, but that is not what happens in practice. In fact the opposite. In a Tokomak, one should expect far better containment than what happens in practice. Thus we have no working Tokomaks, despite 10 billion down the drain. In an electron or ion beam, it was not appreciated for many years how intensely same charge was attracted, instead of repelled. If there is a broader message in why we have no hot fusion today, it probably is that magnetism is nearly impossible to model in a plasma containment device based on first principles. In all cases we have to work backwards incrementally from known results, making alterations as we go. Every model is a work in progress. Did I mention solar flares? From: David Roberson Jones, How would an observer moving along with the linear charges be affected by its neighbors?Is there reason to consider this an invalid view point? -Original Message- From: pagnucco Jones, I should have added that the magnetic vector potential is not only small for chaotic plasmas, but also for expanding or converging spherical charged plasma shells. It will only be large in intense, linear flows. -- LP Jones, You refer to something worth noting, but not the magnetic vector potential. Ideally in a fusor, the particles converge to a point in the center of the fusor, but the magnetic field momentum at the center is quite small. Energy is borrowed from outer convergent spherical shells of electrons or ions, but that is a scalar coulomb effect - not magnetic vector potential. -- LP Jones Beene wrote: BTW the Farnsworth Fusor benefits from spherical convergence of ion vectors. The vectors are self-focused and not chaotic. Farnsworth/ Hirsch found the fusion threshold is lowered by a factor of 4 due to spherical convergence, allowing substantial neutron production at far lower voltage potential than colliding beams. Polywell borrowed the idea http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/Polywell%20Ion%20Focus%20Concept.pdf attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Correction- ... due to increase in opposite polarity in the central zone Should be: ... due to increase in same polarity in the central zone attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
David, The math involved in calculating the vector potential is easily available for many standard current configurations from many web sources. Standard uncontroversial, undergrad physics. Maximum energy of particle collisions is also straightforward to compute. Check the literature for attainable currents and densities in arcs and ballistic current flows. Plot the momenta/energy for particles of various masses during collisions or current interruptions. Then you will know if you are in the ballpark. No need to get hand wavey or the Physics for Poets book out. -- Lou Pagnucco David Roberson wrote: Jones, How would an observer moving along with the linear charges be affected by its neighbors?Is there reason to consider this an invalid view point? Dave -Original Message- From: pagnucco pagnu...@htdconnect.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 15, 2014 10:12 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law Jones, I should have added that the magnetic vector potential is not only small for chaotic plasmas, but also for expanding or converging spherical charged plasma shells. It will only be large in intense, linear flows. -- LP Jones, You refer to something worth noting, but not the magnetic vector potential. Ideally in a fusor, the particles converge to a point in the center of the fusor, but the magnetic field momentum at the center is quite small. Energy is borrowed from outer convergent spherical shells of electrons or ions, but that is a scalar coulomb effect - not magnetic vector potential. -- LP Jones Beene wrote: BTW the Farnsworth Fusor benefits from spherical convergence of ion vectors. The vectors are self-focused and not chaotic. Farnsworth/ Hirsch found the fusion threshold is lowered by a factor of 4 due to spherical convergence, allowing substantial neutron production at far lower voltage potential than colliding beams. Polywell borrowed the idea http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/Polywell%20Ion%20Focus%20Concept.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
The dimensions are so very confined in LENR, there is no possibility that particle movement can possible be a factor in the LENR reaction. When we are dealing in nano dimensions, a particle does not have the space to gather any energy from velocity, except if that movement is confined to a closed loop such as a ring, sphere of circular. On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:39 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: David, The math involved in calculating the vector potential is easily available for many standard current configurations from many web sources. Standard uncontroversial, undergrad physics. Maximum energy of particle collisions is also straightforward to compute. Check the literature for attainable currents and densities in arcs and ballistic current flows. Plot the momenta/energy for particles of various masses during collisions or current interruptions. Then you will know if you are in the ballpark. No need to get hand wavey or the Physics for Poets book out. -- Lou Pagnucco David Roberson wrote: Jones, How would an observer moving along with the linear charges be affected by its neighbors?Is there reason to consider this an invalid view point? Dave -Original Message- From: pagnucco pagnu...@htdconnect.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 15, 2014 10:12 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law Jones, I should have added that the magnetic vector potential is not only small for chaotic plasmas, but also for expanding or converging spherical charged plasma shells. It will only be large in intense, linear flows. -- LP Jones, You refer to something worth noting, but not the magnetic vector potential. Ideally in a fusor, the particles converge to a point in the center of the fusor, but the magnetic field momentum at the center is quite small. Energy is borrowed from outer convergent spherical shells of electrons or ions, but that is a scalar coulomb effect - not magnetic vector potential. -- LP Jones Beene wrote: BTW the Farnsworth Fusor benefits from spherical convergence of ion vectors. The vectors are self-focused and not chaotic. Farnsworth/ Hirsch found the fusion threshold is lowered by a factor of 4 due to spherical convergence, allowing substantial neutron production at far lower voltage potential than colliding beams. Polywell borrowed the idea http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/Polywell%20Ion%20Focus%20Concept.pdf
Re: [Vo]:test for greek letters
perfect greek. now I wait for news in greek ;-) any one for news in chinese (old news) 近日，国家低碳能源规划研究院院长 、高灵能源投资股份有限公司总裁戴思嘉在东钓鱼台‘星湖园温泉庄园’会见了美国切诺基基金联合主席托马斯·达顿，双方就美国方面的镍发电能源技术问题，进行了系统的交流磋商，就共同合作推进这一革命性的能源技术达成了一致认识。国家发改委和国务院国资委以及国家能源局的有关领导一同参加了会见。 在全球能源紧缺的背景下，新型能源的发展正方兴继涌。而处于镍反应终试阶段的报告显示，低温镍反应发电技术是当前成本最低且原材料资源较为丰富的发电技术。试验同时显示，镍能发电除了在经济成本方面有着非常好的前景，在环境保护领域也有着得天独厚的巨大优势。在镍反应过程中，不会有任何温室气体及其他污染物排放，不会产生放射性材料，亦无需煤炭或石油等化石能源。 (if someone can translate better than google ;-) 2014-02-16 7:36 GMT+01:00 H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com: This is a test to see if the greek letters I have copied and pasted into this message are preserved as they pass through the mail programs. The characters come from this site http://greek.typeit.org/ θ ω ε ρ τ ψ υ ι ο π α σ δ φ γ η ς κ λ ζ χ ξ ω β ν μ Θ Ω Ε Ρ Τ Ψ Υ Ι Ο Π Α Σ Δ Φ Γ Η ς Κ Λ Ζ Χ Ξ Ω Β Ν Μ Harry
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
You make a good point about the money thrown away on hot fusion devices. Magnetism certainly behaves in strange manners as I have seen when looking into RF shielding over the years. It is too bad that the charge currents induced onto and into the surfaces of the metals change the net field as seen by the other charges. I suppose that a similar thing happens when you attempt to define the net forces acting upon the plasmas of the devices you are speaking about. I generally make an effort to choose an observation frame that brings to light simplified behavior and that is the reason I asked my question. If the charges are motionless, I was wondering how any coupling among them would behave. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 10:27 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law Dave, The view is not invalid, but of limited use. My focus is not the magnetic vector potential per se, but that it all prior models may be irrelevant for modeling common applications like ICF. In looking at the geometry of this device, or almost any plasma device - one could logically expect Coulomb's law to interfere with spherical convergence due to increase in opposite polarity in the central zone, but that is not what happens in practice. In fact the opposite. In a Tokomak, one should expect far better containment than what happens in practice. Thus we have no working Tokomaks, despite 10 billion down the drain. In an electron or ion beam, it was not appreciated for many years how intensely same charge was attracted, instead of repelled. If there is a broader message in why we have no hot fusion today, it probably is that magnetism is nearly impossible to model in a plasma containment device based on first principles. In all cases we have to work backwards incrementally from known results, making alterations as we go. Every model is a work in progress. Did I mention solar flares? From: David Roberson Jones, How would an observer moving along with the linear charges be affected by its neighbors?Is there reason to consider this an invalid view point? -Original Message- From: pagnucco Jones, I should have added that the magnetic vector potential is not only small for chaotic plasmas, but also for expanding or converging spherical charged plasma shells. It will only be large in intense, linear flows. -- LP Jones, You refer to something worth noting, but not the magnetic vector potential. Ideally in a fusor, the particles converge to a point in the center of the fusor, but the magnetic field momentum at the center is quite small. Energy is borrowed from outer convergent spherical shells of electrons or ions, but that is a scalar coulomb effect - not magnetic vector potential. -- LP Jones Beene wrote: BTW the Farnsworth Fusor benefits from spherical convergence of ion vectors. The vectors are self-focused and not chaotic. Farnsworth/ Hirsch found the fusion threshold is lowered by a factor of 4 due to spherical convergence, allowing substantial neutron production at far lower voltage potential than colliding beams. Polywell borrowed the idea http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/Polywell%20Ion%20Focus%20Concept.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Axil, Not true, but further discussion is not worth it. -- LP Axil wrote: The dimensions are so very confined in LENR, there is no possibility that particle movement can possible be a factor in the LENR reaction. When we are dealing in nano dimensions, a particle does not have the space to gather any energy from velocity, except if that movement is confined to a closed loop such as a ring, sphere of circular. [...]
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:44 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Once I made a calculation of the attraction between two charged particles that are moving together at a constant velocity relative to my frame of reference. I was pleasantly surprised to find that as the velocity of the two charges approached the speed of light, a perfect balance between the electric force and the magnetic force was achieved. This implied that there would be precisely zero electromagnetic force between the two and hence no acceleration either together or apart at the speed of light. This matches the special theory of relativity since at light speed the time dilation reaches infinity for the objects being viewed. Since their time was slowed down to zero, they should not be seen as accelerating towards or away from each other. Dave Dave, what do you mean by moving together? Moving on parallel paths at constant velocity or moving off in different directions at constant velocity? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
http://phys.org/news/2012-01-propagation-non-relativistic-lattice.html *Researchers observe speed of propagation in non-relativistic lattice* Regarding the theoretical speed limit of information described by the Lieb-Robinson bound. The velocity of particles in a lattice must be under the Lieb-Robinson bound. Ergo the discussion of any sort of relativistic corrections in a lattice is unfounded in this thread. On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:26 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Axil, Not true, but further discussion is not worth it. -- LP Axil wrote: The dimensions are so very confined in LENR, there is no possibility that particle movement can possible be a factor in the LENR reaction. When we are dealing in nano dimensions, a particle does not have the space to gather any energy from velocity, except if that movement is confined to a closed loop such as a ring, sphere of circular. [...]
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 15 Feb 2014 13:44:55 -0800: Hi, [snip] On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 1:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: ...so FTL communication via electric field should be possible provided that it doesn't rely upon energy transfer. IOW the receiver itself needs to supply the energy required to interpret the signal. What is your sense of the plausibility of this line of reasoning, i.e., the rigid propagation of electric fields in charged currents? Eric I'm not sure that I even understand what it meant by the phrase. However If looking for a means of building an FTL receiver, I would suggest something that relies upon tunneling, e.g. a Josephson junction, provided that some aspect of the chance of tunneling is influenced by the electric potential. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
In reply to Daniel Rocha's message of Sat, 15 Feb 2014 22:45:39 -0200: Hi, [snip] You see, that means you are sending information to the past! You are strengthening something that hasn't arrived yet! [snip] You are not sending something to the past. You are just sending information that won't be perceived via signals traveling at the speed of light until later. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: Incandescent lights was RE: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net wrote: In cold climates, they make nice localized heaters, and will probably cost less than what your electric furnace would have cost to run . . . The energy cost is exactly the same as a resistance electric heater. The equipment cost is far higher. A small, 1.5 kW resistance electric heater costs much less than 15 light bulbs, and it lasts much longer. In most geographic locations, space heating or water heating with electric resistance is extremely uneconomical. You should use a heat pump in warm locals, or gas heating in cold, northern ones. In a few places such as Washington state they have a great deal of hydroelectricity in winter, so it makes sense to use resistance heating. In a cold place with lots of excess wind energy it would also make sense to use resistance heating. An on-demand electric water heater is sometimes an economical solution, such as in a spread-out house where a bathroom is far from where a hot water heater tank can be located. You run only a cold water line to the distant bathroom and heat the water on demand there. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:50 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I'm not sure that I even understand what it meant by the phrase. If you were a little confused by it, I was very much so. It would be nice if someone who knows a little about the research and the claim could clarify what it's getting at and what it does and doesn't apply to. However If looking for a means of building an FTL receiver, I would suggest something that relies upon tunneling, e.g. a Josephson junction, provided that some aspect of the chance of tunneling is influenced by the electric potential. This reminds me of a different but related result concerning prisms. When two prisms are adjacent, no refraction takes place as light passes through the common surface between them. When they are separated by a distance, refraction does occur, but not all of the time. In some cases photons will tunnel through a barrier between the two prisms without refraction. If I have understood what I have read, this tunneling is thought to occur instantaneously, in contrast to the situation where the photon exits one prism, travels through the air and enters the other prism. The effect is called the Hartman effect [1]. As I read more about FTL communication, I now understand that in the context of special relativity it is interpreted to imply the existence of time travel, since in some reference frame the effect (the receiving of the information) will occur prior to the cause (the sending of the information). Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartman_effect
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
I wrote: In some cases photons will tunnel through a barrier between the two prisms without refraction. If I have understood what I have read, this tunneling is thought to occur instantaneously, in contrast to the situation where the photon exits one prism, travels through the air and enters the other prism. Correction: the tunnelling time tends towards constant time for large gaps between the barriers, and hence appears to exceed the speed of light in some cases. This is different from saying that the tunneling time is instantaneous. Eric
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
I have long considered another quantum means of instantaneous communication. Partial reflection (like oil film on water) depends on the thickness of the partially reflective layer. If the thickness increases a little the dominant reflected frequency shifts and this occurs in cycles, with no known limit. Also this still works even if you throw photons one at a time, much like the double slit experiment. Furthermore the dominant frequency at the top layer depends not only on the thickness of that layer, but of any layers beyond that. So in theory if you had layers of different thickness glass and effect the reflection at the surface of one layer based on the thickness of a layer behind it some distance away you could achieve some highly impractical means on optical FTL communication. Even the normal versions of this effect must be superluminal, albeit over a very small scale. And this can obviously be used for information transfer. John On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:50 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I'm not sure that I even understand what it meant by the phrase. If you were a little confused by it, I was very much so. It would be nice if someone who knows a little about the research and the claim could clarify what it's getting at and what it does and doesn't apply to. However If looking for a means of building an FTL receiver, I would suggest something that relies upon tunneling, e.g. a Josephson junction, provided that some aspect of the chance of tunneling is influenced by the electric potential. This reminds me of a different but related result concerning prisms. When two prisms are adjacent, no refraction takes place as light passes through the common surface between them. When they are separated by a distance, refraction does occur, but not all of the time. In some cases photons will tunnel through a barrier between the two prisms without refraction. If I have understood what I have read, this tunneling is thought to occur instantaneously, in contrast to the situation where the photon exits one prism, travels through the air and enters the other prism. The effect is called the Hartman effect [1]. As I read more about FTL communication, I now understand that in the context of special relativity it is interpreted to imply the existence of time travel, since in some reference frame the effect (the receiving of the information) will occur prior to the cause (the sending of the information). Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartman_effect
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=7cad=rjaved=0CGYQFjAGurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdspace.mit.edu%2Fopenaccess-disseminate%2F1721.1%2F51855ei=hSABU_73M6fe0wGPkoEgusg=AFQjCNE3RIaTLuP3UfnKWjjbBg2YXVix9wsig2=gOVuS4jAJtDRUOnScJFTDg *Lieb-Robinson Bounds and the Speed of Light from Topological Order* This letter that has just been released today explains how both light and its finite speed emerges from the coupling constant of the spin net liquid that forms the vacuum. There is no infinite speed of information because of the principle of localization in quantum mechanics. Light is an excitation of spins that must progress in serious from on plank volume to another. On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 1:44 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Here is a November 2012 paper about an experiment which tentatively shows that electric fields seem to propagates rigidly, i.e. with infinite speed. Although it hasn't been published in a peer reviewed journal yet, given the fact that the observation challenges Special Relatively, one would have expected this paper to zip around the blogosphere and make its way into mainstream media. Perhaps the recent mistaken claim of faster-than-light neutrinos at a noteworthy facility - namely CERN - has dampened interest in such challenging observations. Harry -- http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2913 Measuring Propagation Speed of Coulomb Fields A.Calcaterra, R. de Sangro, G. Finocchiaro, P.Patteri, M. Piccolo, G. Pizzella (Submitted on 13 Nov 2012) Abstract The problem of gravity propagation has been subject of discussion for quite a long time: Newton, Laplace and, in relatively more modern times, Eddington pointed out that, if gravity propagated with finite velocity, planets motion around the sun would become unstable due to a torque originating from time lag of the gravitational interactions. Such an odd behavior can be found also in electromagnetism, when one computes the propagation of the electric fields generated by a set of uniformly moving charges. As a matter of fact the Li\'enard-Weichert retarded potential leads to a formula indistinguishable from the one obtained assuming that the electric field propagates with infinite velocity. Feynman explanation for this apparent paradox was based on the fact that uniform motions last indefinitely. To verify such an explanation, we performed an experiment to measure the time/space evolution of the electric field generated by an uniformerly moving electron beam. The results we obtain on such a finite lifetime kinematical state seem compatible with an electric field rigidly carried by the beam itself. Conclusions Assuming that the electric field of the electron beams we used would act on our sensor only after the beam itself has exited the beam pipe, the L.W. model would predict sensors responses orders of magnitudes smaller than what we measure. The Feynman interpretation of the Li enard-Weichert formula for uniformly moving charges does not show consistency with our experimental data. Even if the steady state charge motion in our experiment lasted few tens of nanoseconds, our measurements indicate that everything behaves as if this state lasted for much longer. To summarize our fi nding in few words, one might say that the data do not agree with the common interpretation of the Li enard-Weichert potential for uniformly moving charges, while seem to support the idea of a Coulomb field carried *rigidly* by the electron beam. We would welcome any interpretation, diff erent from the Feynman conjecture or the instataneous propagation, that will help understanding the time/space evolution of the electric field we measure.
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Sorry, I realize that my wording was flawed. I mean that the two particles are moving in parallel at the same velocity. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 3:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:44 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Once I made a calculation of the attraction between two charged particles that are moving together at a constant velocity relative to my frame of reference. I was pleasantly surprised to find that as the velocity of the two charges approached the speed of light, a perfect balance between the electric force and the magnetic force was achieved. This implied that there would be precisely zero electromagnetic force between the two and hence no acceleration either together or apart at the speed of light. This matches the special theory of relativity since at light speed the time dilation reaches infinity for the objects being viewed. Since their time was slowed down to zero, they should not be seen as accelerating towards or away from each other. Dave Dave, what do you mean by moving together? Moving on parallel paths at constant velocity or moving off in different directions at constant velocity? Harry
RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Dave, You have rediscovered the widely known phenomenon in electrodynamics which allows for relativistic charged electron or ion beams with minimal radial containment. Permanent magnets are now being used in some beam lines, even with 90 degree turns (with trim coils) From: David Roberson Sorry, I realize that my wording was flawed. I mean that the two particles are moving in parallel at the same velocity. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder David Roberson wrote: Once I made a calculation of the attraction between two charged particles that are moving together at a constant velocity relative to my frame of reference. I was pleasantly surprised to find that as the velocity of the two charges approached the speed of light, a perfect balance between the electric force and the magnetic force was achieved. This implied that there would be precisely zero electromagnetic force between the two and hence no acceleration either together or apart at the speed of light. This matches the special theory of relativity since at light speed the time dilation reaches infinity for the objects being viewed. Since their time was slowed down to zero, they should not be seen as accelerating towards or away from each other. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Jones, I was just curious about how electrons would behave at ever higher velocities. The idea came to me one day when I was wondering why two parallel wires carrying the same DC current attract each other when the charges flowing through each were electrons. I assumed that positive ions within each wire balanced out the coulomb repulsion that would normally occur between electrons that are separated from each other by a fixed distance. It was fairly easy to derive the incremental attraction of a tiny section of the wire which I carried to the extreme. The extreme in that case is a single electron pair. It was rewarding to find out that the magnetic attraction exactly matched the coulomb repulsion at the speed of light. I had no idea that this result would be demonstrated. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 8:30 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law Dave, You have “rediscovered”the widely known phenomenon in electrodynamics which allows for relativistic chargedelectron or ion beams with minimal radial containment. Permanent magnets arenow being used in some beam lines, even with 90 degree turns (with trim coils) From:David Roberson Sorry, I realize that my wording was flawed. I mean that thetwo particles are moving in parallel at the same velocity. Dave -OriginalMessage- From: H Veeder David Roberson wrote: Once I made a calculation of the attraction between two chargedparticles that are moving together at a constant velocity relative to my frameof reference. I was pleasantly surprised to find that as the velocity ofthe two charges approached the speed of light, a perfect balance between theelectric force and the magnetic force was achieved. This implied thatthere would be precisely zero electromagnetic force between the two and henceno acceleration either together or apart at the speed of light. Thismatches the special theory of relativity since at light speed the time dilationreaches infinity for the objects being viewed. Since their time was slowed down to zero, they should not be seen asaccelerating towards or away from each other. Dave
Re: [Vo]:What if we live in a simulated reality?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/opinion/sunday/is-the-universe-a-simulation.html?_r=0 Our good friends bostrom, beane and savage are referenced. On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:56 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: http://metaversetribune.com/2011/08/22/rosedale-makes-case-for-holographic-universe/ Rosedale was the founder of SecondLife. I frequently worked with the physics engine in SL and I can confirm the marble / cup QM tunneling analogy. Some choice quotes: - Basically if you leave a marble in a cup in Second Life, and you leave all night and you come back, what happens? The marble is gone. - If there was a hidden dimension [Holographic Principle - universe as 2 dimensions] wrapped around our universe that contained all the data for the atoms in our world, quantum entanglement starts to make more sense. - The general agreement in quantum mechanics is that subatomic particles like photons behave like waves until looked at by a conscious observer .. Second Life, too, does not render until looked at by a conscious observer, but the data always remains in that hidden dimension outside the 3D virtual space. Just something to think about. On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/geekquinox/weird-science-weekly-may-living-holographic-projection-010534111.html Cool video - the idea that reality is just a projected hologram from a 2 dimensional surface at the boundaries of space. On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 11:18 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: It is also possible the universe is just a dream, or a shared hallucination. Maybe all our memories are manufactured and we have not been on this earth and list for x number of years, we may only have implanted memories and started 'fresh' this morning. Many far out and improbable things can be argued as possible, this sim argument is no different. I am not going to take any of these ideas seriously since none of them agree with the incredible detail and broadness of the world. It only distracts from understanding the world we are in. Now we could ask if consciousness comes from dis dimension, at least we perceive consciousness to exist. As far as existential questions go that one makes sense. John On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netwrote: From: Eric Walker Of course, the gamers are risking exposure now that A.I. is becoming closer to reality. A.I. may have developed a life (reality) of its own which clears up everything, and possibly within a few decades. I think whether the universe is a simulation is epistemologically inaccessible, unless things were to start to get really weird. The weirdness could easily be that there is both a real universe and many ongoing simulations, and especially simulations within simulations. Even if you find the tell at one level, you may only advance to the next Sim ! Whether the individual (us, for instance) can ever figure out multiple layering depends on many factors but could easily be impossible, as you say - since any the Sim can have a automatic mechanism for the untimely demise of a player who is digging too deep. Think Philip K. Dick. OTOH a few Sims, and maybe our own, could be structured as some kind of test the aim of which is to see how long it takes the subjects of the experiment (i.e. the meat) to figure out that they are locked into a Sim. The untimely demise mechanism of a Sim is one reason why a large group effort would be preferable :-) At least the tell would then be the improbability of the disaster - such as that most of the Vortex News Group did not survive Thanksgiving due... due to... err... tainted turkey? Remember: the red pill is in the cranberries! Actually the Matrix films are an example of early house-of-mirrors layering since any movie is already a Sim on one level.
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
David, if I understand you, you are talking about if 2 co-moving electrons should be attracted or repelled? In a wire it seems that it would be correct to model the electromagnetic field created by the 'stationary' protons which are moving from the electrons POV. This carries an additional interesting possibility to create negative impedance. If you consider an electron accelerating relative to positive charges, the magnetic field the electron sees from the proton grows and this cuts past the electron inducing an EMF that opposes the acceleration of the electron. So if we now look at what would happen if an electron accelerates relative to a negatively charged reference frame, the electron now sees the opposite magnetic field expand from the stationary electrons. This reverses the force to one that now assists the acceleration of the electrons. This allows for negative induction, first energy is gained as current increases, but the EMF will also accelerate collapse of the current if it starts to collapse. This would suggest that a slow ramp up of current would experience a voltage gain with a very sudden collapse. I shared this idea for a few years before it turned up here: http://www.oocities.org/nayado/ (now that is a long time ago too) Logically no one has yet found a flaw with this concept. It could however be wrong if SR doesn't hold up, if the electron creates the field because it moves relative to a local reference frame this would not work, but then SR wouldn't work either. So here if either Free Energy of proof of an aether. I'd rather both of course. John On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 3:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jones, I was just curious about how electrons would behave at ever higher velocities. The idea came to me one day when I was wondering why two parallel wires carrying the same DC current attract each other when the charges flowing through each were electrons. I assumed that positive ions within each wire balanced out the coulomb repulsion that would normally occur between electrons that are separated from each other by a fixed distance. It was fairly easy to derive the incremental attraction of a tiny section of the wire which I carried to the extreme. The extreme in that case is a single electron pair. It was rewarding to find out that the magnetic attraction exactly matched the coulomb repulsion at the speed of light. I had no idea that this result would be demonstrated. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 8:30 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law Dave, You have rediscovered the widely known phenomenon in electrodynamics which allows for relativistic charged electron or ion beams with minimal radial containment. Permanent magnets are now being used in some beam lines, even with 90 degree turns (with trim coils) *From:* David Roberson Sorry, I realize that my wording was flawed. I mean that the two particles are moving in parallel at the same velocity. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder David Roberson wrote: Once I made a calculation of the attraction between two charged particles that are moving together at a constant velocity relative to my frame of reference. I was pleasantly surprised to find that as the velocity of the two charges approached the speed of light, a perfect balance between the electric force and the magnetic force was achieved. This implied that there would be precisely zero electromagnetic force between the two and hence no acceleration either together or apart at the speed of light. This matches the special theory of relativity since at light speed the time dilation reaches infinity for the objects being viewed. Since their time was slowed down to zero, they should not be seen as accelerating towards or away from each other. Dave
RE: [Vo]:What if we live in a simulated reality?
From: Blaze Spinnaker http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/opinion/sunday/is-the-universe-a-simulatio n.html?_r=0 This is a shallow rehash analysis in a way, at least for those of us who want to see further developments and insight in the Sim field, and considering the pedigree of Frenkel. He could have dug a bit deeper IMO. Forget a Universal sim and look at the more probable case. For instance, one twist which came up recently is the possibility that some, or many, individuals, can be living lives which are caught in their own personal neural simulation, but within the framework of a normal reality. This could be a natural thing - like karma, not requiring AI and so on. Or there could be minimal supervision. Think about the Bruce Willis character in the Shyamalan film Sixth Sense. you remember. the kick in the gut when the kid sez I see dead people and you realize he's talking about you. Another twist in the Sim vs Real dichotomy is highlighted in the neglected cult TV series Doll house (episode 10) where Echo, the Active (which is a euphemism for occasional psychic-prostitute, and more), becomes the vehicle for the potential immortality of a recently deceased, very wealthy client. This happenstance is fiction for now but actually a near-term technological reality - and it brings into focus the issue of wealth and mortality-morality in a most unusual way. Can we buy immortality - even if it is a Sim? In fact, isn't the sequential Sim preferable in many ways? Heck, we get tired of one beautiful body and the next one costs only a few hundred million more, no problem. Everyone is happy. Wealth is redistributed. What's wrong with this picture?
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 16 Feb 2014 13:30:53 -0800: Hi, [snip] As I read more about FTL communication, I now understand that in the context of special relativity it is interpreted to imply the existence of time travel, since in some reference frame the effect (the receiving of the information) will occur prior to the cause (the sending of the information). ..the problem with this is:- how do you know when the cause occurred? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 16 Feb 2014 17:28:44 -0500: Hi, [snip] Light is an excitation of spins that must progress in serious from on plank volume to another. ..yes, but that's because light does indeed spin. Photons have angular momentum. An electric potential change may become evident much faster, due to a compression wave in the medium rather than the transverse waves that are used to represent translation of rotating objects, i.e. photons. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
What is the source of the magnetism? Harry On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 6:24 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Sorry, I realize that my wording was flawed. I mean that the two particles are moving in parallel at the same velocity. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 3:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:44 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Once I made a calculation of the attraction between two charged particles that are moving together at a constant velocity relative to my frame of reference. I was pleasantly surprised to find that as the velocity of the two charges approached the speed of light, a perfect balance between the electric force and the magnetic force was achieved. This implied that there would be precisely zero electromagnetic force between the two and hence no acceleration either together or apart at the speed of light. This matches the special theory of relativity since at light speed the time dilation reaches infinity for the objects being viewed. Since their time was slowed down to zero, they should not be seen as accelerating towards or away from each other. Dave Dave, what do you mean by moving together? Moving on parallel paths at constant velocity or moving off in different directions at constant velocity? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 5:41 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: What is the source of the magnetism? Motion of the electrons through an electromagnetic reference frame in violation of SR? If only moving electrons are considered, and no static charges exist. Harry On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 6:24 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Sorry, I realize that my wording was flawed. I mean that the two particles are moving in parallel at the same velocity. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 3:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:44 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Once I made a calculation of the attraction between two charged particles that are moving together at a constant velocity relative to my frame of reference. I was pleasantly surprised to find that as the velocity of the two charges approached the speed of light, a perfect balance between the electric force and the magnetic force was achieved. This implied that there would be precisely zero electromagnetic force between the two and hence no acceleration either together or apart at the speed of light. This matches the special theory of relativity since at light speed the time dilation reaches infinity for the objects being viewed. Since their time was slowed down to zero, they should not be seen as accelerating towards or away from each other. Dave Dave, what do you mean by moving together? Moving on parallel paths at constant velocity or moving off in different directions at constant velocity? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Oh you used this equation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biot%E2%80%93Savart_law#Point_charge_at_constant_velocity I was only familiar with the force which arises between two parallel uniform currents. This is interesting. harry On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:41 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: What is the source of the magnetism? Harry On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 6:24 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Sorry, I realize that my wording was flawed. I mean that the two particles are moving in parallel at the same velocity. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 3:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:44 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Once I made a calculation of the attraction between two charged particles that are moving together at a constant velocity relative to my frame of reference. I was pleasantly surprised to find that as the velocity of the two charges approached the speed of light, a perfect balance between the electric force and the magnetic force was achieved. This implied that there would be precisely zero electromagnetic force between the two and hence no acceleration either together or apart at the speed of light. This matches the special theory of relativity since at light speed the time dilation reaches infinity for the objects being viewed. Since their time was slowed down to zero, they should not be seen as accelerating towards or away from each other. Dave Dave, what do you mean by moving together? Moving on parallel paths at constant velocity or moving off in different directions at constant velocity? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
I guess this can be considered a test of Special Relativity. I wonder to what degree the observation accords with the relativistic model. Any non-SR explanation of the apparent constancy of light speed would have to make a similar prediction. harry On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Dave, You have rediscovered the widely known phenomenon in electrodynamics which allows for relativistic charged electron or ion beams with minimal radial containment. Permanent magnets are now being used in some beam lines, even with 90 degree turns (with trim coils) *From:* David Roberson Sorry, I realize that my wording was flawed. I mean that the two particles are moving in parallel at the same velocity. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder David Roberson wrote: Once I made a calculation of the attraction between two charged particles that are moving together at a constant velocity relative to my frame of reference. I was pleasantly surprised to find that as the velocity of the two charges approached the speed of light, a perfect balance between the electric force and the magnetic force was achieved. This implied that there would be precisely zero electromagnetic force between the two and hence no acceleration either together or apart at the speed of light. This matches the special theory of relativity since at light speed the time dilation reaches infinity for the objects being viewed. Since their time was slowed down to zero, they should not be seen as accelerating towards or away from each other. Dave
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
Experiments like these dig up old debates about the nature of matter which mainstream physics since the time of Newton keeps burying. Harry On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:50 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I'm not sure that I even understand what it meant by the phrase. If you were a little confused by it, I was very much so. It would be nice if someone who knows a little about the research and the claim could clarify what it's getting at and what it does and doesn't apply to. However If looking for a means of building an FTL receiver, I would suggest something that relies upon tunneling, e.g. a Josephson junction, provided that some aspect of the chance of tunneling is influenced by the electric potential. This reminds me of a different but related result concerning prisms. When two prisms are adjacent, no refraction takes place as light passes through the common surface between them. When they are separated by a distance, refraction does occur, but not all of the time. In some cases photons will tunnel through a barrier between the two prisms without refraction. If I have understood what I have read, this tunneling is thought to occur instantaneously, in contrast to the situation where the photon exits one prism, travels through the air and enters the other prism. The effect is called the Hartman effect [1]. As I read more about FTL communication, I now understand that in the context of special relativity it is interpreted to imply the existence of time travel, since in some reference frame the effect (the receiving of the information) will occur prior to the cause (the sending of the information). Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartman_effect
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
In his model the coloumb force between two like charges increases when the charges are moving together and decreases when they are moving apart. This would lead to a few interesting conclusions if true. In a current carrying wire, stationary electrons in the wire would would face increased repulsion to the electrons approaching and decreased repulsion to those receding. This would induce those stationary electrons to move, and as such it would mean electron drift current in a wire would always increase to be a movement of all the free electrons (at a slower speed). The other is that the electrons that make up the current would see the Columbic force of the protons as changed by this motion. To be honest I have not looked into the claim enough to understand if in this example the electrons attraction to the approaching protons is decreased or increased by this, but it should either assist or retard the current. Since this is not known, does this disprove that this force exists, at least in a relativistic sense. It could still exist with motion through a reference frame since in that case the protons aren't moving and as such are excluded from this interaction. John
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Also, if this was the case, then would it not lead to DC induction? There is no reason to think that the effect should be shielded by the protons, this should allow a coil feed with steady DC to induce a voltage in another co wound coil, and if it didn't work with electrically neutral matter, it would work with a negative charge applied. We can assume that even in the charged example, no such DC induction exists. Can anyone explain why this wouldn't be so IF this effect was true? Still this does not rule out the possibility that an effect exists with accelerating electrons, their fields could compress in front and stretch out the back. But this would lead to induction opposite to the norm. Can anyone explain how this force could have gone unobserved? Are these arguments flawed? John On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 7:59 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: In his model the coloumb force between two like charges increases when the charges are moving together and decreases when they are moving apart. This would lead to a few interesting conclusions if true. In a current carrying wire, stationary electrons in the wire would would face increased repulsion to the electrons approaching and decreased repulsion to those receding. This would induce those stationary electrons to move, and as such it would mean electron drift current in a wire would always increase to be a movement of all the free electrons (at a slower speed). The other is that the electrons that make up the current would see the Columbic force of the protons as changed by this motion. To be honest I have not looked into the claim enough to understand if in this example the electrons attraction to the approaching protons is decreased or increased by this, but it should either assist or retard the current. Since this is not known, does this disprove that this force exists, at least in a relativistic sense. It could still exist with motion through a reference frame since in that case the protons aren't moving and as such are excluded from this interaction. John
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
We observe two moving electrons in my calculation. The first one generates a magnetic field that the second one is exposed to. The electrons do not see this effect in their world view. This is equivalent to what we might see if we look at two parallel beams of charged particles. Speed them up to nearly the speed of light and my calculation is that they do not attract or repel each other. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 11:41 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law What is the source of the magnetism? Harry On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 6:24 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Sorry, I realize that my wording was flawed. I mean that the two particles are moving in parallel at the same velocity. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 3:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:44 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Once I made a calculation of the attraction between two charged particles that are moving together at a constant velocity relative to my frame of reference. I was pleasantly surprised to find that as the velocity of the two charges approached the speed of light, a perfect balance between the electric force and the magnetic force was achieved. This implied that there would be precisely zero electromagnetic force between the two and hence no acceleration either together or apart at the speed of light. This matches the special theory of relativity since at light speed the time dilation reaches infinity for the objects being viewed. Since their time was slowed down to zero, they should not be seen as accelerating towards or away from each other. Dave Dave, what do you mean by moving together? Moving on parallel paths at constant velocity or moving off in different directions at constant velocity? Harry
