Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:10 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Correction: If the result of the magnetic force being seen to act on one frame as expected from the flux in another leads to a dramatic and non-trivial paradox, it is going to be harder to keep up the delusion that such is possible. If an observer in another frame expects a force to exist in the charges frame so as to match their expectation of a magnetic field, and if that would lead to a dramatic and paradoxical result as it would not be existed to occur in the static frame. A very easy real world experiment is the common practice of waving a a coil past a permanent magnet and seeing the voltage induced in the coil read on a meter. (yes this experiment is the inverse as it is relative motion to observe an electric field from relative motion to a magnetic field) To be consistent, David would have to argue that if there were a coil attached to a volt meter being waved by the permanent magnet, and another coil attached to the volt meter that is not moving relative to the magnet, that the waving coil that sees an electric field from movement relative to the magnetic field would also expect the stationary volt meter to see this voltage also, and expect it to be deflected. Now it is easy to move your head with the waving coil, if you see a voltage induced in the non moving coil when you wave your head and not when you don't, I will be very very impressed and amazed. But I think we both know that no such effect exists. And if it does not exist in the magnetic to electric, it won't exist in electric to magnetic. John yes, drama can be a useful device to bring attention to a paradox, but the paradox does not occur in the case of magnet moving past a coil. That concerns Faraday's law of induction which is distinct from the Biot Savart Law for charged particles. I have given it some thought, and the only way to that the Biot Savart Law for charged particles can be understood non-paradoxically is by way of some kind of aether. In other words a magnetic force will appear *if* the particles are moving wrt to an aether. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Dave, I am not sure what you mean by different angle. The orientation of the two particles hasn't changed, but they are connected by a spring. If my example does not make the paradox undeniably clear, then please see John's dramatic example. I don't know if the Biot Savart law for current carrying wires would be affected by a resolution of this paradox. Harry On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:57 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Harry, that is an interesting experiment. I will certainly give it some thought since it approaches the problem from a different angle. (pun intended) This is similar to the case where a second non moving charge counters the initial repulsion. My first thought is that this idea might reveal something about energy storage or perhaps charge behavior as seen by a moving observer. If we had the normal current carrying wire case there would be no problem since this type of structure has been proven to generate a force. So, if taken to the extreme, is there a reason that a small segment along the wire behaves in a different manner? Thanks Harry, Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 20, 2014 2:53 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law Dramatic! As alternate way of revealing the paradox, I imagined the two charged balls connected by a spring which counter balances the force of repulsion. In the reference frame where the balls are moving, a magnetic force would cause the spring to become shorter. Paradoxically, in the frame of reference of the balls the length of the spring would remain unchanged. harry
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Harry, I am starting to think that Biot Savart might be right too as some of the finer points of relativistic electromagnetim seem to have different expectations for experiments as I mentioned in the homopolar generator thread. But Biot Savart without relative motion to an aether becomes a ridiculous paradox as you say. So this seems to be evidence for an aether, to be added to the big pile of evidence for the establishment to ignore. John On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 8:34 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:10 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Correction: If the result of the magnetic force being seen to act on one frame as expected from the flux in another leads to a dramatic and non-trivial paradox, it is going to be harder to keep up the delusion that such is possible. If an observer in another frame expects a force to exist in the charges frame so as to match their expectation of a magnetic field, and if that would lead to a dramatic and paradoxical result as it would not be existed to occur in the static frame. A very easy real world experiment is the common practice of waving a a coil past a permanent magnet and seeing the voltage induced in the coil read on a meter. (yes this experiment is the inverse as it is relative motion to observe an electric field from relative motion to a magnetic field) To be consistent, David would have to argue that if there were a coil attached to a volt meter being waved by the permanent magnet, and another coil attached to the volt meter that is not moving relative to the magnet, that the waving coil that sees an electric field from movement relative to the magnetic field would also expect the stationary volt meter to see this voltage also, and expect it to be deflected. Now it is easy to move your head with the waving coil, if you see a voltage induced in the non moving coil when you wave your head and not when you don't, I will be very very impressed and amazed. But I think we both know that no such effect exists. And if it does not exist in the magnetic to electric, it won't exist in electric to magnetic. John yes, drama can be a useful device to bring attention to a paradox, but the paradox does not occur in the case of magnet moving past a coil. That concerns Faraday's law of induction which is distinct from the Biot Savart Law for charged particles. I have given it some thought, and the only way to that the Biot Savart Law for charged particles can be understood non-paradoxically is by way of some kind of aether. In other words a magnetic force will appear *if* the particles are moving wrt to an aether. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Harry, I was making the point that the concept with a string between the two balls was a different way of looking at a similar problem. :-) I also do not see a problem with the orientation for this experiment. The idea is interesting. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 21, 2014 3:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law Dave, I am not sure what you mean by different angle. The orientation of the two particles hasn't changed, but they are connected by a spring. If my example does not make the paradox undeniably clear, then please see John's dramatic example. I don't know if the Biot Savart law for current carrying wires would be affected by a resolution of this paradox. Harry On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:57 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Harry, that is an interesting experiment. I will certainly give it some thought since it approaches the problem from a different angle. (pun intended) This is similar to the case where a second non moving charge counters the initial repulsion. My first thought is that this idea might reveal something about energy storage or perhaps charge behavior as seen by a moving observer. If we had the normal current carrying wire case there would be no problem since this type of structure has been proven to generate a force. So, if taken to the extreme, is there a reason that a small segment along the wire behaves in a different manner? Thanks Harry, Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 20, 2014 2:53 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law Dramatic! As alternate way of revealing the paradox, I imagined the two charged balls connected by a spring which counter balances the force of repulsion. In the reference frame where the balls are moving, a magnetic force would cause the spring to become shorter. Paradoxically, in the frame of reference of the balls the length of the spring would remain unchanged. harry
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Someone is attempting to put words into my mouth. I need to be the one that explains how I think the model behaves. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 21, 2014 2:34 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:10 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Correction: If the result of the magnetic force being seen to act on one frame as expected from the flux in another leads to a dramatic and non-trivial paradox, it is going to be harder to keep up the delusion that such is possible. If an observer in another frame expects a force to exist in the charges frame so as to match their expectation of a magnetic field, and if that would lead to a dramatic and paradoxical result as it would not be existed to occur in the static frame. A very easy real world experiment is the common practice of waving a a coil past a permanent magnet and seeing the voltage induced in the coil read on a meter. (yes this experiment is the inverse as it is relative motion to observe an electric field from relative motion to a magnetic field) To be consistent, David would have to argue that if there were a coil attached to a volt meter being waved by the permanent magnet, and another coil attached to the volt meter that is not moving relative to the magnet, that the waving coil that sees an electric field from movement relative to the magnetic field would also expect the stationary volt meter to see this voltage also, and expect it to be deflected. Now it is easy to move your head with the waving coil, if you see a voltage induced in the non moving coil when you wave your head and not when you don't, I will be very very impressed and amazed. But I think we both know that no such effect exists. And if it does not exist in the magnetic to electric, it won't exist in electric to magnetic. John yes, drama can be a useful device to bring attention to a paradox, but the paradox does not occur in the case of magnet moving past a coil. That concerns Faraday's law of induction which is distinct from the Biot Savart Law for charged particles. I have given it some thought, and the only way to that the Biot Savart Law for charged particles can be understood non-paradoxically is by way of some kind of aether. In other words a magnetic force will appear *if* the particles are moving wrt to an aether. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:53 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Dramatic! As alternate way of revealing the paradox, I imagined the two charged balls connected by a spring which counter balances the force of repulsion. In the reference frame where the balls are moving, a magnetic force would cause the spring to become shorter. Paradoxically, in the frame of reference of the balls the length of the spring would remain unchanged. I selected a more dramatic version because it could be argued that some expansion or contraction of space would make the spring look stretched in one frame and compressed in another. If the result of the magnetic force being seen to act on one frame as expected from the flux in another leads to a dramatic and non-trivial paradox, it is going to be harder to keep up the delusion that such is possible. John
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Correction: If the result of the magnetic force being seen to act on one frame as expected from the flux in another leads to a dramatic and non-trivial paradox, it is going to be harder to keep up the delusion that such is possible. If an observer in another frame expects a force to exist in the charges frame so as to match their expectation of a magnetic field, and if that would lead to a dramatic and paradoxical result as it would not be existed to occur in the static frame. A very easy real world experiment is the common practice of waving a a coil past a permanent magnet and seeing the voltage induced in the coil read on a meter. (yes this experiment is the inverse as it is relative motion to observe an electric field from relative motion to a magnetic field) To be consistent, David would have to argue that if there were a coil attached to a volt meter being waved by the permanent magnet, and another coil attached to the volt meter that is not moving relative to the magnet, that the waving coil that sees an electric field from movement relative to the magnetic field would also expect the stationary volt meter to see this voltage also, and expect it to be deflected. Now it is easy to move your head with the waving coil, if you see a voltage induced in the non moving coil when you wave your head and not when you don't, I will be very very impressed and amazed. But I think we both know that no such effect exists. And if it does not exist in the magnetic to electric, it won't exist in electric to magnetic. John On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:14 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:53 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Dramatic! As alternate way of revealing the paradox, I imagined the two charged balls connected by a spring which counter balances the force of repulsion. In the reference frame where the balls are moving, a magnetic force would cause the spring to become shorter. Paradoxically, in the frame of reference of the balls the length of the spring would remain unchanged. I selected a more dramatic version because it could be argued that some expansion or contraction of space would make the spring look stretched in one frame and compressed in another. If the result of the magnetic force being seen to act on one frame as expected from the flux in another leads to a dramatic and non-trivial paradox, it is going to be harder to keep up the delusion that such is possible. John
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Harry, that is an interesting experiment. I will certainly give it some thought since it approaches the problem from a different angle. (pun intended) This is similar to the case where a second non moving charge counters the initial repulsion. My first thought is that this idea might reveal something about energy storage or perhaps charge behavior as seen by a moving observer. If we had the normal current carrying wire case there would be no problem since this type of structure has been proven to generate a force. So, if taken to the extreme, is there a reason that a small segment along the wire behaves in a different manner? Thanks Harry, Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 20, 2014 2:53 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law Dramatic! As alternate way of revealing the paradox, I imagined the two charged balls connected by a spring which counter balances the force of repulsion. In the reference frame where the balls are moving, a magnetic force would cause the spring to become shorter. Paradoxically, in the frame of reference of the balls the length of the spring would remain unchanged. harry
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
to the pair of electrons. They view the world from their perspective while everyone else sees something different. This is similar to special relativity where the guys on the spaceship moving at nearly light speed are not aware of anything unusual happening to them. We observe that they are living in a slowed down manner. My take on it is that time dilation is our observation only and not real to them. The forces acting upon the electron pair is somewhat similar. There is no magnetic force present to someone that happens to be moving along with them. But, this is not true in the case where they are moving rapidly past an observer as I have been describing. The observer will see a magnetic and electric field that is generated by each of them. Are you willing to state that a moving electron does not generate this type of changing fields as seen by a stationary observer? Perhaps that is what you believe which would explain your responses to my points. If instead you realize that a moving electron generates a magnetic field seen by a stationary observer as I am pointing out, then it follows that a second moving electron must respond to that field. This is difficult to understand but it would be a good exercise for you to consider. So, before we proceed with this thought experiment please explain why an electron in motion, according to an observer, does not generate complex electric and magnetic fields that vary in both time and position according to his instruments. Then explain why a second electron in motion within the observer's lab does not respond to the fields measured by that observer. If you can adequately explain how this might be possible then I will reconsider my position. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 18, 2014 7:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:14 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Harry, I see your objection and I certainly would agree that two electrons moving in parallel to each other would not see any relative motion. The question that we need to address is how does a randomly moving observer make a determination that a magnetic field would influence the forces appearing between the electrons How can an observer possibly change such though? Only if it effects the fabric of space so that there is now motion created by the observer dragging aether/higgs field/something through the experiment. For the stationary electrons there is no magnetic field but instead coulomb repulsion. But the electrons are stationary according to SR if they aren't moving relative to each other, since all reference frames are equal. So having an observer that sees things differently can only change what happens if SR is largely wrong about things being, well, relative. If we now assume that we occupy a new frame that is moving relative to the two electrons then what should we measure? First, the movement of the first electron should result in the generation of a magnetic field along with the electric field that is normally expected. This magnetic field will have a component that appears in the location of the second electron from our point of view. I assume that we are in agreement about this issue. Also, we observe that the second electron is moving through the magnetic field component that is a result of the motion of the first electron. I can think of no reason that we would not be able to calculate the force experienced by the second electron due to the field. The field does not exist to the other electron because there is no relative motion. Only if space or some field that creates an electromagnetic reference frame blows through the experiment can this occur. A moving observer may be near or far so even if they drag space with them, this area of entrained reference frame would not effect the electrons. Consider that there is radiation moving at near light speed and light speed from every direction regularly, each one would be an observer of the electrons generating a magnetic field to their perspective (IF SR is correct) and yet such forces do not and can not causally arise. Each one would bring a different axis, strength and direction of magnetic flux from the electrons as they see it. This still can't have any effect on the electrons. This is how I approached the problem. One of the expectations for this line of reasoning is that there should be an infinite number of values for the force encountered by the second electron depending upon the relative movement of the observer. When I plugged in the force generated by this process when the observer is moving at the speed of light, I obtained a magnetic force that is exactly equal to the coulomb force but opposite in direction. This seemed to be quite a coincidence
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
John, Let's think about the magnetic field analysis first since that is relatively easy to visualize. First, I think that we are in agreement that a magnetic field generated as a consequence of the motion of a charged particle is really just another view of the electric field associated with that particle. One could continue to change his reference frame and obtain an infinite number of combinations of magnetic fields for this single charge case. The calculated and measured magnetic field is zero for the case of an observer that is at rest relative to the charge. Any other frame that is moving relative to the charge will always be able to measure a magnetic field. The field is very real and can be both calculated and measured. Now, if I measure a magnetic field in my laboratory induced by a moving electron, then it is real to me. It does not matter to me whether or not a second electron is moving at the same speed as the first one. If a second one is moving through the field that I measure associated with the first one, then it must be affected by that field according to my instruments. Do you currently believe that the second electron will not be deflected by fields that I measure in my lab? That would violate all the rules of physics. You need to consider that each observer will make different observations. This does not in any way change what happens to the electrons in the reference frame where they are at rest. They are not affected at all by anyone else's motion provided the observer does not carry matter along with him that generates fields as seen by the electrons. I have been discussing what alternate observers would view and not what happens to the electrons directly. The two situations are different and it appears that you have not yet come to that conclusion. Special relativity behaves in a manner that is similar to my analysis. Nothing actually happens to the guy in the spaceship due to our observation of him in motion. We just observe him appearing subject to time dilation and length contraction from our perspective. He does not detect anything unusual due to his motion. Of course, he also views us and any scales that we may be using for distance or time as modified. For now, lets concentrate on the magnetic field effects upon the behavior of electrons in parallel motion relative to our lab. That is my original statement which you seem to question. My derivation was conceived in an effort to understand why two wires with currents flowing in the same direction attract each other. I simplified that experiment to the extreme, which is two electrons in motion along parallel axis. The math is further simplified by allowing the electrons to move at the exact same velocity. I suspect that I am asking the same question of you which is: Do you expect all moving observers to see the same behavior of the two electrons at rest with respect to each other? I say no. I further say that as the pair of electrons move ever faster relative to a particular observer that he sees them accelerated apart by the normal fields less and less until they appear frozen at a constant distance between each other once his relative velocity reaches the speed of light. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 1:07 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law Dave, I think the simple answer is to recognize that a magnetic field only exists due to motion, and if SR is correct (it isn't and can't be) then we should consider that every electric field can be seen as a magnetic field in a different reference frame. No magnetic field exists in all frames of reference, at least not caused by the same thing, a wire creates a magnetic field from the moving electrons, if you move with the electrons a different magnetic field pops up from the protons. The motion of the observer doesn't establish a magnetic field, it already existed in that reference frame. John On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:03 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: John, It would be difficult to answer your questions without taking a lot of time so I think that you should keep one main thought in mind. All of the effects that I am describing are those seen by an observer and not actually evident to the pair of electrons. They view the world from their perspective while everyone else sees something different. This is similar to special relativity where the guys on the spaceship moving at nearly light speed are not aware of anything unusual happening to them. We observe that they are living in a slowed down manner. My take on it is that time dilation is our observation only and not real to them. The forces acting upon the electron pair is somewhat similar. There is no magnetic force present to someone that happens to be moving along with them
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:03 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: John, It would be difficult to answer your questions without taking a lot of time so I think that you should keep one main thought in mind. All of the effects that I am describing are those seen by an observer and not actually evident to the pair of electrons. They view the world from their perspective while everyone else sees something different. This is similar to special relativity where the guys on the spaceship moving at nearly light speed are not aware of anything unusual happening to them. We observe that they are living in a slowed down manner. My take on it is that time dilation is our observation only and not real to them. The forces acting upon the electron pair is somewhat similar. There is no magnetic force present to someone that happens to be moving along with them. But, this is not true in the case where they are moving rapidly past an observer as I have been describing. The observer will see a magnetic and electric field that is generated by each of them. Are you willing to state that a moving electron does not generate this type of changing fields as seen by a stationary observer? Perhaps that is what you believe which would explain your responses to my points. If instead you realize that a moving electron generates a magnetic field seen by a stationary observer as I am pointing out, then it follows that a second moving electron must respond to that field. This is difficult to understand but it would be a good exercise for you to consider. So, before we proceed with this thought experiment please explain why an electron in motion, according to an observer, does not generate complex electric and magnetic fields that vary in both time and position according to his instruments. Then explain why a second electron in motion within the observer's lab does not respond to the fields measured by that observer. If you can adequately explain how this might be possible then I will reconsider my position. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 18, 2014 7:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:14 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Harry, I see your objection and I certainly would agree that two electrons moving in parallel to each other would not see any relative motion. The question that we need to address is how does a randomly moving observer make a determination that a magnetic field would influence the forces appearing between the electrons How can an observer possibly change such though? Only if it effects the fabric of space so that there is now motion created by the observer dragging aether/higgs field/something through the experiment. For the stationary electrons there is no magnetic field but instead coulomb repulsion. But the electrons are stationary according to SR if they aren't moving relative to each other, since all reference frames are equal. So having an observer that sees things differently can only change what happens if SR is largely wrong about things being, well, relative. If we now assume that we occupy a new frame that is moving relative to the two electrons then what should we measure? First, the movement of the first electron should result in the generation of a magnetic field along with the electric field that is normally expected. This magnetic field will have a component that appears in the location of the second electron from our point of view. I assume that we are in agreement about this issue. Also, we observe that the second electron is moving through the magnetic field component that is a result of the motion of the first electron. I can think of no reason that we would not be able to calculate the force experienced by the second electron due to the field. The field does not exist to the other electron because there is no relative motion. Only if space or some field that creates an electromagnetic reference frame blows through the experiment can this occur. A moving observer may be near or far so even if they drag space with them, this area of entrained reference frame would not effect the electrons. Consider that there is radiation moving at near light speed and light speed from every direction regularly, each one would be an observer of the electrons generating a magnetic field to their perspective (IF SR is correct) and yet such forces do not and can not causally arise. Each one would bring a different axis, strength and direction of magnetic flux from the electrons as they see it. This still can't have any effect on the electrons. This is how I approached the problem. One of the expectations for this line of reasoning is that there should be an infinite number of values for the force
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
magnetic field that a lone electron is subjected to but rather a result of an electron spinning around a nucleolus. I am probably very mistaken on all of this since I have largely ignored the subject so I am sure i could be schooled on this point. John On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:07 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Dave, I think the simple answer is to recognize that a magnetic field only exists due to motion, and if SR is correct (it isn't and can't be) then we should consider that every electric field can be seen as a magnetic field in a different reference frame. No magnetic field exists in all frames of reference, at least not caused by the same thing, a wire creates a magnetic field from the moving electrons, if you move with the electrons a different magnetic field pops up from the protons. The motion of the observer doesn't establish a magnetic field, it already existed in that reference frame. John On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:03 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: John, It would be difficult to answer your questions without taking a lot of time so I think that you should keep one main thought in mind. All of the effects that I am describing are those seen by an observer and not actually evident to the pair of electrons. They view the world from their perspective while everyone else sees something different. This is similar to special relativity where the guys on the spaceship moving at nearly light speed are not aware of anything unusual happening to them. We observe that they are living in a slowed down manner. My take on it is that time dilation is our observation only and not real to them. The forces acting upon the electron pair is somewhat similar. There is no magnetic force present to someone that happens to be moving along with them. But, this is not true in the case where they are moving rapidly past an observer as I have been describing. The observer will see a magnetic and electric field that is generated by each of them. Are you willing to state that a moving electron does not generate this type of changing fields as seen by a stationary observer? Perhaps that is what you believe which would explain your responses to my points. If instead you realize that a moving electron generates a magnetic field seen by a stationary observer as I am pointing out, then it follows that a second moving electron must respond to that field. This is difficult to understand but it would be a good exercise for you to consider. So, before we proceed with this thought experiment please explain why an electron in motion, according to an observer, does not generate complex electric and magnetic fields that vary in both time and position according to his instruments. Then explain why a second electron in motion within the observer's lab does not respond to the fields measured by that observer. If you can adequately explain how this might be possible then I will reconsider my position. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 18, 2014 7:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:14 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Harry, I see your objection and I certainly would agree that two electrons moving in parallel to each other would not see any relative motion. The question that we need to address is how does a randomly moving observer make a determination that a magnetic field would influence the forces appearing between the electrons How can an observer possibly change such though? Only if it effects the fabric of space so that there is now motion created by the observer dragging aether/higgs field/something through the experiment. For the stationary electrons there is no magnetic field but instead coulomb repulsion. But the electrons are stationary according to SR if they aren't moving relative to each other, since all reference frames are equal. So having an observer that sees things differently can only change what happens if SR is largely wrong about things being, well, relative. If we now assume that we occupy a new frame that is moving relative to the two electrons then what should we measure? First, the movement of the first electron should result in the generation of a magnetic field along with the electric field that is normally expected. This magnetic field will have a component that appears in the location of the second electron from our point of view. I assume that we are in agreement about this issue. Also, we observe that the second electron is moving through the magnetic field component that is a result of the motion of the first electron. I can think of no reason that we would not be able to calculate the force experienced by the second electron due to the field. The field does
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
I agree with that summary On Wednesday, February 19, 2014, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The pillars of theoretical physics - quantum mechanics and general relativity - are in a stand-off. One of them will have to blink if this information paradox is to be undone. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129552.400-fiery-black-hole-debate-creates-cosmological-wild-west.html#.UwUeKM6Ybm5 One of the assumptions of relativity is that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, but it may not always be so. Radioactive decay was suppose to be constant but it is not. As the vacuum changes radioactive decay changes with it directly along with the production of virtual particles. LENR can accelerate radioactive decay millions of time over. LENR will show how to tweak the vacuum at and beyond its breaking point just like astrophysical black holes do. But LENR will use nano EMF black holes which will open a window into a new universe of physical laws. On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:06 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Axil, I had not heard of loop quantum gravity before, I appreciate an introduction to the theory. But it also gave me a good laugh that something called loop quantum gravity has no concept for how gravity could work. John On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics) Spin is a usually misunderstood quantum mechanical property of particles. It seems to me to be the most basic and primary property from which other emergent properties come from. The vacuum is a fundamental manifestation of spin where all the particles like the electron, photon , quarks, and so on emerge as secondary to spin. Spin is important in LENR because it is basic to quantum mechanics and the vacuum. I like loop quantum gravity because it embraces matter as a tangle and condensation of the vacuum. Loop quantum gravity Although it hasn't had the same media exposure, loop quantum gravity is so far the only real rival to string theory. The basic idea is that space is not continuous, as we usually think, but is instead broken up into tiny chunks 10^-35 metres across. These are then connected by links to make the space we experience and spin can support these links. When these links are tangled up into braids and knots, they produce elementary particles and spin is basic to every particle. Loop quantum gravity has produced some tentative predictions of real-world effects, and has also shed some light on the birth of the universe. But its proponents have so far struggled to incorporate gravity into their theories. And as with string theory, a true experimental test is still some way off. One basic scientific fallout of LENR is that its will provide these experimental tests and that its most basic principles will help codify the theory of everything. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18612-knowing-the-mind-of-god-seven-theories-of-everything.html#.UwSqfs6YbyQ On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:44 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: A magnetic field is produced by the spin of a particle and movement of spin is not required. I am reluctant to give spin much consideration, the definition of what it is seems to change. One thing I read stated that IIRC, the spin of a particle was wherever it was looked for, uh huh. Ok, so does spin suggest there is no motion? Hardly, spin is the definition of motion. So let us look at an electron floating in space, so does it produce a magnetic field when you are not moving relative to it? Not that I have every heard. Ok, but I have heard of the magnetic moment of an electron... Looking it up it seems to say there is, if so then we should find electrons to be attracted to magnetic fie
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:43 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: John, Let's think about the magnetic field analysis first since that is relatively easy to visualize. First, I think that we are in agreement that a magnetic field generated as a consequence of the motion of a charged particle is really just another view of the electric field associated with that particle. One could continue to change his reference frame and obtain an infinite number of combinations of magnetic fields for this single charge case. The calculated and measured magnetic field is zero for the case of an observer that is at rest relative to the charge. Any other frame that is moving relative to the charge will always be able to measure a magnetic field. The field is very real and can be both calculated and measured. Agreed, at least according to SR which I would argue isn't and can't be true. But a dragged aether version (really the only other reasonable possibility) of this has no certain answers, just a lot of questions. From here n these arguments will be from an SR POV, even though it is incorrect. Now, if I measure a magnetic field in my laboratory induced by a moving electron, then it is real to me. It does not matter to me whether or not a second electron is moving at the same speed as the first one. If a second one is moving through the field that I measure associated with the first one, then it must be affected by that field according to my instruments. Here is where I would disagree. Your instruments only measure if there is a magnetic field in their reference frame. It is the same as me zooming by you on a motor cycle, and because there is wind in my hair I expect to see wind in your hair. Only I won't see wind in your hair since you have no relative velocity relative to the air. If what you observed somehow had to be true then yu would expect the electrons to approach each other, and the electrons would expect to fly apart. So now you have electrons getting further apart in their reality, closer together in your reality. And this isn't even a possibility considered by SR, there is length contraction, but not width contraction. According to yet another reference frame they should be even more powerfully squeezed together. Consider that if you rotate a magnet your instruments will see a voltage field, but if you are rotating with the magnet there is no voltage induce as there is no relative motion. You would not expect the voltage you see in your reference frame to be reflected in another frame with different or no motion relative to the magnetic field. If you up size this experiment to a car charged negatively with a compass mounted on it and another in your hand, you would expect the compass or any magnetometer in your possession to see a magnetic field as the charged car speeds by you. But would you expect the compass in the car to feel the magnetic field created by the speeding car, since there is no relative motion? Of course not, it would be impossible according to SR. And if you are standing on the road side, do you expect to see the compass in the car reacting to the magnetic field when you know those in the car do not see it react? If you are in another car going in the same direction as the charged car, just faster (overtaking), you would see a magnetic field with the opposite polarity to the road side observer. Now you need the compass in the car to be doing 3 things at once, pointing in no direction in particular in the car, pointing up to the road side observer, and down for the overtaking car. Just because you see the field does not mean that those you see must be seen to you to react to the field as you expect if they do not see it or see it differently. Do you currently believe that the second electron will not be deflected by fields that I measure in my lab? Do you mean in practice or in theory if SR was correct? In practice I have no idea, it would be up for debate. And might be different for electrons in a lab .vs a macro scale experiment. If SR is correct (impossible) then the second electron would be unaffected by the magnetic field you measure, no question. That would violate all the rules of physics. No, it wouldn't. Make a macro example with something else that exists with relative motion. You need to consider that each observer will make different observations. This does not in any way change what happens to the electrons in the reference frame where they are at rest. They are not affected at all by anyone else's motion provided the observer does not carry matter along with him that generates fields as seen by the electrons. The problem is that you end up in a situation of dual reality. It is possible to have something be seen by one reference frame and not another. But it is not possible to have the reference frame in which it is seen see reference frames in which it is not seen react to something when it is not
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
It would be more meaningful if this discussion were move to tennis balls from electrons and magnetic fields. Electrons will be present in both frames through superposition. The electrons will have a chance to be in any frame you can think of and at the same time. When a measurement is made on the electron in one frame, it will vanish from all the others. Relativity is not meant to locate electrons, It is not the tool for localizing electrons, quantum mechanic is or better...quantum electrodynamics. Use the proper tool for the proper job. This Mills like discussion is not productive just like the results of this type of thinking. Use tennis balls... On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:26 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:43 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: John, Let's think about the magnetic field analysis first since that is relatively easy to visualize. First, I think that we are in agreement that a magnetic field generated as a consequence of the motion of a charged particle is really just another view of the electric field associated with that particle. One could continue to change his reference frame and obtain an infinite number of combinations of magnetic fields for this single charge case. The calculated and measured magnetic field is zero for the case of an observer that is at rest relative to the charge. Any other frame that is moving relative to the charge will always be able to measure a magnetic field. The field is very real and can be both calculated and measured. Agreed, at least according to SR which I would argue isn't and can't be true. But a dragged aether version (really the only other reasonable possibility) of this has no certain answers, just a lot of questions. From here n these arguments will be from an SR POV, even though it is incorrect. Now, if I measure a magnetic field in my laboratory induced by a moving electron, then it is real to me. It does not matter to me whether or not a second electron is moving at the same speed as the first one. If a second one is moving through the field that I measure associated with the first one, then it must be affected by that field according to my instruments. Here is where I would disagree. Your instruments only measure if there is a magnetic field in their reference frame. It is the same as me zooming by you on a motor cycle, and because there is wind in my hair I expect to see wind in your hair. Only I won't see wind in your hair since you have no relative velocity relative to the air. If what you observed somehow had to be true then yu would expect the electrons to approach each other, and the electrons would expect to fly apart. So now you have electrons getting further apart in their reality, closer together in your reality. And this isn't even a possibility considered by SR, there is length contraction, but not width contraction. According to yet another reference frame they should be even more powerfully squeezed together. Consider that if you rotate a magnet your instruments will see a voltage field, but if you are rotating with the magnet there is no voltage induce as there is no relative motion. You would not expect the voltage you see in your reference frame to be reflected in another frame with different or no motion relative to the magnetic field. If you up size this experiment to a car charged negatively with a compass mounted on it and another in your hand, you would expect the compass or any magnetometer in your possession to see a magnetic field as the charged car speeds by you. But would you expect the compass in the car to feel the magnetic field created by the speeding car, since there is no relative motion? Of course not, it would be impossible according to SR. And if you are standing on the road side, do you expect to see the compass in the car reacting to the magnetic field when you know those in the car do not see it react? If you are in another car going in the same direction as the charged car, just faster (overtaking), you would see a magnetic field with the opposite polarity to the road side observer. Now you need the compass in the car to be doing 3 things at once, pointing in no direction in particular in the car, pointing up to the road side observer, and down for the overtaking car. Just because you see the field does not mean that those you see must be seen to you to react to the field as you expect if they do not see it or see it differently. Do you currently believe that the second electron will not be deflected by fields that I measure in my lab? Do you mean in practice or in theory if SR was correct? In practice I have no idea, it would be up for debate. And might be different for electrons in a lab .vs a macro scale experiment. If SR is correct (impossible) then the second electron would be unaffected by the magnetic field you measure, no question.
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
I completely agree, it needs to be a macro example. Not only for the reasons you gave but because it is easier to be tricked when you are dealing with something invisible, microscopic that is presumed to be moving at incomprehensible velocities. If a negatively charged tennis ball is stationary relative to another negatively charged tennis ball they will be repelled from another in a presumably straightforwardly calculable manner from electrostatic repulsion. If a magnetic field detector is placed on the tennis balls they would not measure any magnetic field that they would not detect in the tennis balls absence. If an uncharged observer moves by them, the observer can see that the magnetic field detector on the balls is not seeing a magnetic field, and yet the observer can feel a magnetic field from the balls. It would be insane to propose that the read out on the detector could be in one state for one observer and in another state for another. And there could be multiple observers, all expecting different results to read on the detectors on the charged and mutually stationary tennis balls. (different direction, axis and strength of the magnetic field). This is looking like Schroedinger's magnetic field. If however one observer was a positively charged tennis ball in motion relative to the these negatively charged tennis balls, then the tennis balls would feel forces and the magnetic field detector on the negative tennis balls would finally react. The positively charged tennis ball is an accurate stand in for the stationary protons in a wire. John On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: It would be more meaningful if this discussion were move to tennis balls from electrons and magnetic fields. Electrons will be present in both frames through superposition. The electrons will have a chance to be in any frame you can think of and at the same time. When a measurement is made on the electron in one frame, it will vanish from all the others. Relativity is not meant to locate electrons, It is not the tool for localizing electrons, quantum mechanic is or better...quantum electrodynamics. Use the proper tool for the proper job. This Mills like discussion is not productive just like the results of this type of thinking. Use tennis balls... On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:26 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:43 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: John, Let's think about the magnetic field analysis first since that is relatively easy to visualize. First, I think that we are in agreement that a magnetic field generated as a consequence of the motion of a charged particle is really just another view of the electric field associated with that particle. One could continue to change his reference frame and obtain an infinite number of combinations of magnetic fields for this single charge case. The calculated and measured magnetic field is zero for the case of an observer that is at rest relative to the charge. Any other frame that is moving relative to the charge will always be able to measure a magnetic field. The field is very real and can be both calculated and measured. Agreed, at least according to SR which I would argue isn't and can't be true. But a dragged aether version (really the only other reasonable possibility) of this has no certain answers, just a lot of questions. From here n these arguments will be from an SR POV, even though it is incorrect. Now, if I measure a magnetic field in my laboratory induced by a moving electron, then it is real to me. It does not matter to me whether or not a second electron is moving at the same speed as the first one. If a second one is moving through the field that I measure associated with the first one, then it must be affected by that field according to my instruments. Here is where I would disagree. Your instruments only measure if there is a magnetic field in their reference frame. It is the same as me zooming by you on a motor cycle, and because there is wind in my hair I expect to see wind in your hair. Only I won't see wind in your hair since you have no relative velocity relative to the air. If what you observed somehow had to be true then yu would expect the electrons to approach each other, and the electrons would expect to fly apart. So now you have electrons getting further apart in their reality, closer together in your reality. And this isn't even a possibility considered by SR, there is length contraction, but not width contraction. According to yet another reference frame they should be even more powerfully squeezed together. Consider that if you rotate a magnet your instruments will see a voltage field, but if you are rotating with the magnet there is no voltage induce as there is no relative motion. You would not expect the voltage you see in your reference frame to be reflected in
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Slow down a bit John. You get way ahead of yourself and it is too painful for me to attempt to explain the SR side of the issue without some agreements. I will attempt to answer a few of your questions, but why not narrow the field to make my task easier? Why write a book when a paragraph can explain your point? For instance, it should be easy for us to state a position about the magnetic field generated by a moving particle. I say it does and I really can not quite pin down whether or not you agree. Begin there and we can move forward. You clearly are not stating my position correctly when you say that I expect the electrons to come together in the two electron example. All I have been saying is that the magnetic force calculated by a person occupying a moving observation frame relative to the electron pairs is opposite in direction to the normally expected electric repulsion. You are neglecting the larger push due to the electric repulsion that wins the fight for any value of velocity lower than light speed. Please read that again. Your examples of how my theory affects the electron pair are entirely off base. Slow down and give what I have been saying adequate consideration before you jump so far off the track. You still have not answered the main question which is why equipment in my lab can not be used to observe the effects of fields that I measure upon moving charged particles? Do you insist that equipment can not be used for this purpose? This is a simple question and you should be able to construct a simple answer. Lets build from this very simple position forward. If you are unable to limit the discussion in a sensible manner then I see little reason to proceed since you will be doing an enormous amount of writing that may or may not be pertinent to the discussion. There will be plenty of time to discuss other issues as they arise out of a common understanding. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 5:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:43 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: John, Let's think about the magnetic field analysis first since that is relatively easy to visualize. First, I think that we are in agreement that a magnetic field generated as a consequence of the motion of a charged particle is really just another view of the electric field associated with that particle. One could continue to change his reference frame and obtain an infinite number of combinations of magnetic fields for this single charge case. The calculated and measured magnetic field is zero for the case of an observer that is at rest relative to the charge. Any other frame that is moving relative to the charge will always be able to measure a magnetic field. The field is very real and can be both calculated and measured. Agreed, at least according to SR which I would argue isn't and can't be true. But a dragged aether version (really the only other reasonable possibility) of this has no certain answers, just a lot of questions. From here n these arguments will be from an SR POV, even though it is incorrect. Now, if I measure a magnetic field in my laboratory induced by a moving electron, then it is real to me. It does not matter to me whether or not a second electron is moving at the same speed as the first one. If a second one is moving through the field that I measure associated with the first one, then it must be affected by that field according to my instruments. Here is where I would disagree. Your instruments only measure if there is a magnetic field in their reference frame. It is the same as me zooming by you on a motor cycle, and because there is wind in my hair I expect to see wind in your hair. Only I won't see wind in your hair since you have no relative velocity relative to the air. If what you observed somehow had to be true then yu would expect the electrons to approach each other, and the electrons would expect to fly apart. So now you have electrons getting further apart in their reality, closer together in your reality. And this isn't even a possibility considered by SR, there is length contraction, but not width contraction. According to yet another reference frame they should be even more powerfully squeezed together. Consider that if you rotate a magnet your instruments will see a voltage field, but if you are rotating with the magnet there is no voltage induce as there is no relative motion. You would not expect the voltage you see in your reference frame to be reflected in another frame with different or no motion relative to the magnetic field. If you up size this experiment to a car charged negatively with a compass mounted on it and another in your hand, you would expect the compass or any magnetometer in your possession
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Slow down a bit John. You get way ahead of yourself and it is too painful for me to attempt to explain the SR side of the issue without some agreements. I will attempt to answer a few of your questions, but why not narrow the field to make my task easier? Why write a book when a paragraph can explain your point? I tried that, you didn't seem to ge the point. For instance, it should be easy for us to state a position about the magnetic field generated by a moving particle. My position is that as far as I know, and as far as SR is concerned (however incorrect ultimately) is that there is no magnetic force between 2 charged objects that are occupying the same reference frame. And that no reference frame that does see a magnetic field from them will see any effect on these charges from the field they appear to possess in this other frame. In other words, 2 negatively charged objects (tennis balls, and generally electrons too) moving together (in the same reference frame) will not experience any force or be seen to experience any force even in reference frames that detect a magnetic field from them. Is that not a clear enough position? I say it does and I really can not quite pin down whether or not you agree. Begin there and we can move forward. You clearly are not stating my position correctly when you say that I expect the electrons to come together in the two electron example. All I have been saying is that the magnetic force calculated by a person occupying a moving observation frame relative to the electron pairs is opposite in direction to the normally expected electric repulsion. Yes, that is obvious. The question is what effect does our observation of such a field do to something not in the same reference frame, and what is it seen to do. We can at any rate remove the repulsion, either by calculation or by placing the 2 negative charged objects in a positively charged channel (a wire) so the direct electric forces is nullified. You are neglecting the larger push due to the electric repulsion that wins the fight for any value of velocity lower than light speed. Which is all speeds it can possibly attain according to SR. And no, I am not ignoring that, as I said, this force can be negated by having a net zero charge over different reference frames as happens with a wire. And yet the electrons in the wire ARE effected by the magnetic field from the other wire (protonic), they cram to one side of the wire, this is the cause of hall effect and hall voltage generated across a wire carrying a current in a magnetic field. Please read that again. Your examples of how my theory affects the electron pair are entirely off base. Slow down and give what I have been saying adequate consideration before you jump so far off the track. You still have not answered the main question which is why equipment in my lab can not be used to observe the effects of fields that I measure upon moving charged particles? Do you insist that equipment can not be used for this purpose? This is a simple question and you should be able to construct a simple answer. I must have missed this question, maybe it went to the spam folder. Please clarify. Lets build from this very simple position forward. If you are unable to limit the discussion in a sensible manner then I see little reason to proceed since you will be doing an enormous amount of writing that may or may not be pertinent to the discussion. There will be plenty of time to discuss other issues as they arise out of a common understanding. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 5:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:43 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: John, Let's think about the magnetic field analysis first since that is relatively easy to visualize. First, I think that we are in agreement that a magnetic field generated as a consequence of the motion of a charged particle is really just another view of the electric field associated with that particle. One could continue to change his reference frame and obtain an infinite number of combinations of magnetic fields for this single charge case. The calculated and measured magnetic field is zero for the case of an observer that is at rest relative to the charge. Any other frame that is moving relative to the charge will always be able to measure a magnetic field. The field is very real and can be both calculated and measured. Agreed, at least according to SR which I would argue isn't and can't be true. But a dragged aether version (really the only other reasonable possibility) of this has no certain answers, just a lot of questions. From here n these arguments will be from an SR POV, even
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
OK, I can use tennis balls just as easy to dig into the issue. I agree that a magnetic detector at rest with respect to the two negatively charged tennis balls will not register a magnetic field. This is as expected. I also agree that they will be repelled apart by an easily calculated equation. Again, nothing unusual here. Yes, the moving observer will detect a varying magnetic field due to the motion of the tennis balls and he can read that no field is seen by the stationary magnetic field detector. This is certainly to be expected. Now I see an issue that we can discuss. It is not insane for one observer to see a state of fields that is different from the second one. This is always the case except in some very special conditions. Each and every observer will detect a different magnetic field even though you seem to think this is not possible. They will all agree that the stationary detector tells them that there is no field in that reference frame. That is an interesting way to put it regarding Schroedinger's field. But you will find that this is exactly what is required in order to satisfy the net forces seen between the moving objects. You have the electric field pushing the like charged tennis balls apart and the magnetic field tending to reduce that push. At zero velocity, you have zero reduction in push. As the velocity increases, the net amount of push continues to be reduced until it reaches zero at the speed of light. This is why electrical currents flowing in the same direction within two wires are attracted to each other. The net static charge is zero due to the protons in the wire, but the moving electrons generate an attractive magnetic force just as with tennis balls. Of course the tennis balls do not have a matching positive charge that is moving along with the observer to balance out the electric field effects. This attraction was once used to calibrate currents by the force generated between two wires. Think about what I have written since this is a good beginning for our discussion. You might wish to change you opinion about the sanity of the different observers making different determinations. If you can not make that leap, then it is apparent that we will not be able to move forward since I have great confidence in that conclusion. I have experienced mental blocks of this nature before and sometimes it takes a lot of effort to overcome them. I suspect that eventually you will accept that what I have been saying it true. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 6:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law I completely agree, it needs to be a macro example. Not only for the reasons you gave but because it is easier to be tricked when you are dealing with something invisible, microscopic that is presumed to be moving at incomprehensible velocities. If a negatively charged tennis ball is stationary relative to another negatively charged tennis ball they will be repelled from another in a presumably straightforwardly calculable manner from electrostatic repulsion. If a magnetic field detector is placed on the tennis balls they would not measure any magnetic field that they would not detect in the tennis balls absence. If an uncharged observer moves by them, the observer can see that the magnetic field detector on the balls is not seeing a magnetic field, and yet the observer can feel a magnetic field from the balls. It would be insane to propose that the read out on the detector could be in one state for one observer and in another state for another. And there could be multiple observers, all expecting different results to read on the detectors on the charged and mutually stationary tennis balls. (different direction, axis and strength of the magnetic field). This is looking like Schroedinger's magnetic field. If however one observer was a positively charged tennis ball in motion relative to the these negatively charged tennis balls, then the tennis balls would feel forces and the magnetic field detector on the negative tennis balls would finally react. The positively charged tennis ball is an accurate stand in for the stationary protons in a wire. John On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: It would be more meaningful if this discussion were move to tennis balls from electrons and magnetic fields. Electrons will be present in both frames through superposition. The electrons will have a chance to be in any frame you can think of and at the same time. When a measurement is made on the electron in one frame, it will vanish from all the others. Relativity is not meant to locate electrons, It is not the tool for localizing electrons, quantum mechanic is or better...quantum electrodynamics. Use the proper tool for the proper job
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
I responded to the tennis ball concept when I had an opportunity. Use that as a basis. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 6:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Slow down a bit John. You get way ahead of yourself and it is too painful for me to attempt to explain the SR side of the issue without some agreements. I will attempt to answer a few of your questions, but why not narrow the field to make my task easier? Why write a book when a paragraph can explain your point? I tried that, you didn't seem to ge the point. For instance, it should be easy for us to state a position about the magnetic field generated by a moving particle. My position is that as far as I know, and as far as SR is concerned (however incorrect ultimately) is that there is no magnetic force between 2 charged objects that are occupying the same reference frame. And that no reference frame that does see a magnetic field from them will see any effect on these charges from the field they appear to possess in this other frame. In other words, 2 negatively charged objects (tennis balls, and generally electrons too) moving together (in the same reference frame) will not experience any force or be seen to experience any force even in reference frames that detect a magnetic field from them. Is that not a clear enough position? I say it does and I really can not quite pin down whether or not you agree. Begin there and we can move forward. You clearly are not stating my position correctly when you say that I expect the electrons to come together in the two electron example. All I have been saying is that the magnetic force calculated by a person occupying a moving observation frame relative to the electron pairs is opposite in direction to the normally expected electric repulsion. Yes, that is obvious. The question is what effect does our observation of such a field do to something not in the same reference frame, and what is it seen to do. We can at any rate remove the repulsion, either by calculation or by placing the 2 negative charged objects in a positively charged channel (a wire) so the direct electric forces is nullified. You are neglecting the larger push due to the electric repulsion that wins the fight for any value of velocity lower than light speed. Which is all speeds it can possibly attain according to SR. And no, I am not ignoring that, as I said, this force can be negated by having a net zero charge over different reference frames as happens with a wire. And yet the electrons in the wire ARE effected by the magnetic field from the other wire (protonic), they cram to one side of the wire, this is the cause of hall effect and hall voltage generated across a wire carrying a current in a magnetic field. Please read that again. Your examples of how my theory affects the electron pair are entirely off base. Slow down and give what I have been saying adequate consideration before you jump so far off the track. You still have not answered the main question which is why equipment in my lab can not be used to observe the effects of fields that I measure upon moving charged particles? Do you insist that equipment can not be used for this purpose? This is a simple question and you should be able to construct a simple answer. I must have missed this question, maybe it went to the spam folder. Please clarify. Lets build from this very simple position forward. If you are unable to limit the discussion in a sensible manner then I see little reason to proceed since you will be doing an enormous amount of writing that may or may not be pertinent to the discussion. There will be plenty of time to discuss other issues as they arise out of a common understanding. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 5:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:43 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: John, Let's think about the magnetic field analysis first since that is relatively easy to visualize. First, I think that we are in agreement that a magnetic field generated as a consequence of the motion of a charged particle is really just another view of the electric field associated with that particle. One could continue to change his reference frame and obtain an infinite number of combinations of magnetic fields for this single charge case. The calculated and measured magnetic field is zero for the case of an observer that is at rest relative to the charge. Any other frame that is moving relative to the charge will always be able to measure a magnetic field. The field is very real
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, I can use tennis balls just as easy to dig into the issue. I agree that a magnetic detector at rest with respect to the two negatively charged tennis balls will not register a magnetic field. This is as expected. I also agree that they will be repelled apart by an easily calculated equation. Again, nothing unusual here. Yes, the moving observer will detect a varying magnetic field due to the motion of the tennis balls and he can read that no field is seen by the stationary magnetic field detector. This is certainly to be expected. Now I see an issue that we can discuss. It is not insane for one observer to see a state of fields that is different from the second one. This is always the case except in some very special conditions. Each and every observer will detect a different magnetic field even though you seem to think this is not possible. On the contrary, I have stated that there are an infinite number of different magnetic fields of varying axis, strength and direction around every charged particle (erm, tennis ball) in various other reference frames. The field that one observer detects can be at odds with the field another observer detects. They will all agree that the stationary detector tells them that there is no field in that reference frame. Good. yes. Before you seemed to be saying otherwise. That is an interesting way to put it regarding Schroedinger's field. But you will find that this is exactly what is required in order to satisfy the net forces seen between the moving objects. You have the electric field pushing the like charged tennis balls apart and the magnetic field tending to reduce that push. And we were going so well. The magnetic field does not reduce that push, since that magnetic field and any influences of it does not occur for the tennis balls. The magnetic field only reduces the push if you pair each negatively charged tennis ball up with a positively charged tennis ball that is moving relative the the negatively charged tennis balls. This is an accurate depiction of what happens in a wire. At zero velocity, you have zero reduction in push. As the velocity increases, the net amount of push continues to be reduced until it reaches zero at the speed of light. No it doesn't, because the negatively charged tennis balls occupy the same reference frame, so at 99.999% of the speed of light means nothing. They can be at 99.999% of the speed of light relative to some highly energetic cosmic ray, and in SR the cosmic rays reference frame is just as privileged at the lab's reference frame. the view that the cosmic ray is stationary and the lab is moving quickly through the cosmic rays space is just as valid as accelerating these tennis balls together with a supernaturally energetic serve. This is why electrical currents flowing in the same direction within two wires are attracted to each other. No, it isn't. At least not in SR's view. The net static charge is zero due to the protons in the wire, but the moving electrons generate an attractive magnetic force just as with tennis balls. The electrons are moving relative to the protons, the the protons are moving relative to the electrons. But the electrons are all stationary relative to each other and produce no field that they can see, hence no attraction occurs if the protons are eliminated from this experiment. Not just because the 2 currents now have an electric force to overcome, but because they have nothing to react to. Of course the tennis balls do not have a matching positive charge that is moving along with the observer to balance out the electric field effects. This attraction was once used to calibrate currents by the force generated between two wires. Think about what I have written since this is a good beginning for our discussion. You might wish to change you opinion about the sanity of the different observers making different determinations. If you can not make that leap, then it is apparent that we will not be able to move forward since I have great confidence in that conclusion. I have experienced mental blocks of this nature before and sometimes it takes a lot of effort to overcome them. I suspect that eventually you will accept that what I have been saying it true. I think you need to reconsider here. My question is this: Do you appreciate that the electrons moving in the wire should see the protons (net positive relative moving charge) in the other wire as moving past them, and hence making a magnetic field that they should feel an attractive force from? And if not, then why not? John Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 6:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law I completely agree, it needs to be a macro example
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
It is obvious that we will not be able to make any headway in this discussion. Apparently we do not agree upon basic measurements that any lab can make so for now there is no reason to continue. Perhaps later we can pick up where we are leaving off. It does neither of us any good to beat a dead horse. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 9:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, I can use tennis balls just as easy to dig into the issue. I agree that a magnetic detector at rest with respect to the two negatively charged tennis balls will not register a magnetic field. This is as expected. I also agree that they will be repelled apart by an easily calculated equation. Again, nothing unusual here. Yes, the moving observer will detect a varying magnetic field due to the motion of the tennis balls and he can read that no field is seen by the stationary magnetic field detector. This is certainly to be expected. Now I see an issue that we can discuss. It is not insane for one observer to see a state of fields that is different from the second one. This is always the case except in some very special conditions. Each and every observer will detect a different magnetic field even though you seem to think this is not possible. On the contrary, I have stated that there are an infinite number of different magnetic fields of varying axis, strength and direction around every charged particle (erm, tennis ball) in various other reference frames. The field that one observer detects can be at odds with the field another observer detects. They will all agree that the stationary detector tells them that there is no field in that reference frame. Good. yes. Before you seemed to be saying otherwise. That is an interesting way to put it regarding Schroedinger's field. But you will find that this is exactly what is required in order to satisfy the net forces seen between the moving objects. You have the electric field pushing the like charged tennis balls apart and the magnetic field tending to reduce that push. And we were going so well. The magnetic field does not reduce that push, since that magnetic field and any influences of it does not occur for the tennis balls. The magnetic field only reduces the push if you pair each negatively charged tennis ball up with a positively charged tennis ball that is moving relative the the negatively charged tennis balls. This is an accurate depiction of what happens in a wire. At zero velocity, you have zero reduction in push. As the velocity increases, the net amount of push continues to be reduced until it reaches zero at the speed of light. No it doesn't, because the negatively charged tennis balls occupy the same reference frame, so at 99.999% of the speed of light means nothing. They can be at 99.999% of the speed of light relative to some highly energetic cosmic ray, and in SR the cosmic rays reference frame is just as privileged at the lab's reference frame. the view that the cosmic ray is stationary and the lab is moving quickly through the cosmic rays space is just as valid as accelerating these tennis balls together with a supernaturally energetic serve. This is why electrical currents flowing in the same direction within two wires are attracted to each other. No, it isn't. At least not in SR's view. The net static charge is zero due to the protons in the wire, but the moving electrons generate an attractive magnetic force just as with tennis balls. The electrons are moving relative to the protons, the the protons are moving relative to the electrons. But the electrons are all stationary relative to each other and produce no field that they can see, hence no attraction occurs if the protons are eliminated from this experiment. Not just because the 2 currents now have an electric force to overcome, but because they have nothing to react to. Of course the tennis balls do not have a matching positive charge that is moving along with the observer to balance out the electric field effects. This attraction was once used to calibrate currents by the force generated between two wires. Think about what I have written since this is a good beginning for our discussion. You might wish to change you opinion about the sanity of the different observers making different determinations. If you can not make that leap, then it is apparent that we will not be able to move forward since I have great confidence in that conclusion. I have experienced mental blocks of this nature before and sometimes it takes a lot of effort to overcome them. I suspect that eventually you will accept that what I have been saying it true. I think you need to reconsider here. My question
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: One of the assumptions of relativity is that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, but it may not always be so. The discussion elsewhere has been about the speed of light measured with respect to a given inertial frame. It is a related but different question to ask whether the speed of light has always been what it currently is. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is obvious that we will not be able to make any headway in this discussion. Apparently we do not agree upon basic measurements that any lab can make so for now there is no reason to continue. I thought we were about to make headway. Please let me ask you again this very simple question. If you have either: 2 parallel wires carrying a DC current in the same direction, or: An analogue of this with moving negatively charged tennis balls in a pipe with an equal density of positively charged tennis balls fixed along the pipe. In both cases there is no net charge. So if you were moving with the electrons/neg-balls, would you see a magnetic field from the protons/pos-balls in the other wire/pipe? Since those protons are moving relative to your reference frame? And if the electrons/balls moving with you did see such a protonic B-field would they not be attracted from cutting through it like that? Maybe if we work on one point at a time we can get somewhere. John Perhaps later we can pick up where we are leaving off. It does neither of us any good to beat a dead horse. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 9:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: OK, I can use tennis balls just as easy to dig into the issue. I agree that a magnetic detector at rest with respect to the two negatively charged tennis balls will not register a magnetic field. This is as expected. I also agree that they will be repelled apart by an easily calculated equation. Again, nothing unusual here. Yes, the moving observer will detect a varying magnetic field due to the motion of the tennis balls and he can read that no field is seen by the stationary magnetic field detector. This is certainly to be expected. Now I see an issue that we can discuss. It is not insane for one observer to see a state of fields that is different from the second one. This is always the case except in some very special conditions. Each and every observer will detect a different magnetic field even though you seem to think this is not possible. On the contrary, I have stated that there are an infinite number of different magnetic fields of varying axis, strength and direction around every charged particle (erm, tennis ball) in various other reference frames. The field that one observer detects can be at odds with the field another observer detects. They will all agree that the stationary detector tells them that there is no field in that reference frame. Good. yes. Before you seemed to be saying otherwise. That is an interesting way to put it regarding Schroedinger's field. But you will find that this is exactly what is required in order to satisfy the net forces seen between the moving objects. You have the electric field pushing the like charged tennis balls apart and the magnetic field tending to reduce that push. And we were going so well. The magnetic field does not reduce that push, since that magnetic field and any influences of it does not occur for the tennis balls. The magnetic field only reduces the push if you pair each negatively charged tennis ball up with a positively charged tennis ball that is moving relative the the negatively charged tennis balls. This is an accurate depiction of what happens in a wire. At zero velocity, you have zero reduction in push. As the velocity increases, the net amount of push continues to be reduced until it reaches zero at the speed of light. No it doesn't, because the negatively charged tennis balls occupy the same reference frame, so at 99.999% of the speed of light means nothing. They can be at 99.999% of the speed of light relative to some highly energetic cosmic ray, and in SR the cosmic rays reference frame is just as privileged at the lab's reference frame. the view that the cosmic ray is stationary and the lab is moving quickly through the cosmic rays space is just as valid as accelerating these tennis balls together with a supernaturally energetic serve. This is why electrical currents flowing in the same direction within two wires are attracted to each other. No, it isn't. At least not in SR's view. The net static charge is zero due to the protons in the wire, but the moving electrons generate an attractive magnetic force just as with tennis balls. The electrons are moving relative to the protons, the the protons are moving relative to the electrons. But the electrons are all stationary relative to each other and produce no field that they can see, hence no attraction occurs if the protons are eliminated from this experiment. Not just because the 2 currents now have an electric force to overcome
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
I am not sure that this will get anywhere but I can answer the question according to what I would expect. So if you were moving with the electrons/neg-balls, would you see a magnetic field from the protons/pos-balls in the other wire/pipe? Since those protons are moving relative to your reference frame? And if the electrons/balls moving with you did see such a protonic B-field would they not be attracted from cutting through it like that? An observer moving with the negatively charged electrons within one wire would see a magnetic field due to the motion of the protons in the far wire. But, the electrons are not moving according to your new reference frame and would not be affected by any magnetic fields. The protons of the wire you ride upon would however be effected by the field generated by the other wire's proton motion. This interaction would lead to attraction between the wires. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 10:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is obvious that we will not be able to make any headway in this discussion. Apparently we do not agree upon basic measurements that any lab can make so for now there is no reason to continue. I thought we were about to make headway. Please let me ask you again this very simple question. If you have either: 2 parallel wires carrying a DC current in the same direction, or: An analogue of this with moving negatively charged tennis balls in a pipe with an equal density of positively charged tennis balls fixed along the pipe. In both cases there is no net charge. So if you were moving with the electrons/neg-balls, would you see a magnetic field from the protons/pos-balls in the other wire/pipe? Since those protons are moving relative to your reference frame? And if the electrons/balls moving with you did see such a protonic B-field would they not be attracted from cutting through it like that? Maybe if we work on one point at a time we can get somewhere. John Perhaps later we can pick up where we are leaving off. It does neither of us any good to beat a dead horse. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 9:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, I can use tennis balls just as easy to dig into the issue. I agree that a magnetic detector at rest with respect to the two negatively charged tennis balls will not register a magnetic field. This is as expected. I also agree that they will be repelled apart by an easily calculated equation. Again, nothing unusual here. Yes, the moving observer will detect a varying magnetic field due to the motion of the tennis balls and he can read that no field is seen by the stationary magnetic field detector. This is certainly to be expected. Now I see an issue that we can discuss. It is not insane for one observer to see a state of fields that is different from the second one. This is always the case except in some very special conditions. Each and every observer will detect a different magnetic field even though you seem to think this is not possible. On the contrary, I have stated that there are an infinite number of different magnetic fields of varying axis, strength and direction around every charged particle (erm, tennis ball) in various other reference frames. The field that one observer detects can be at odds with the field another observer detects. They will all agree that the stationary detector tells them that there is no field in that reference frame. Good. yes. Before you seemed to be saying otherwise. That is an interesting way to put it regarding Schroedinger's field. But you will find that this is exactly what is required in order to satisfy the net forces seen between the moving objects. You have the electric field pushing the like charged tennis balls apart and the magnetic field tending to reduce that push. And we were going so well. The magnetic field does not reduce that push, since that magnetic field and any influences of it does not occur for the tennis balls. The magnetic field only reduces the push if you pair each negatively charged tennis ball up with a positively charged tennis ball that is moving relative the the negatively charged tennis balls. This is an accurate depiction of what happens in a wire. At zero velocity, you have zero reduction in push. As the velocity increases, the net amount of push continues to be reduced until it reaches zero at the speed of light. No it doesn't, because the negatively charged tennis balls occupy the same reference frame, so at 99.999
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
5:42 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am not sure that this will get anywhere but I can answer the question according to what I would expect. So if you were moving with the electrons/neg-balls, would you see a magnetic field from the protons/pos-balls in the other wire/pipe? Since those protons are moving relative to your reference frame? And if the electrons/balls moving with you did see such a protonic B-field would they not be attracted from cutting through it like that? An observer moving with the negatively charged electrons within one wire would see a magnetic field due to the motion of the protons in the far wire. But, the electrons are not moving according to your new reference frame and would not be affected by any magnetic fields. Maybe you are unaware, but a stationary charge can be effected by a magnetic field that is moving relative to it If you had a negatively charged ping pong ball on a string, and you lowered it towards a magnetic rotor that was turning (shielded from wind), the negatively charged ball would be pushed perpendicular to the magnetic field (radial) and the direction of motion, so you would find your ping pong ball pushed to the side. Only relative motion is required between a magnetic field and the charge. You can accept the electrons in the wire would see a magnetic field from the protons in the other wire right? (you said so above) So is that magnetic field moving relative to our electrons? If it is from the protons that are moving then yes it must be. I hope you follow this, if the electrons see a magnetic field from the protons that is moving relative to the electrons frame, then they should see a voltage, a force attracting them to the other wire right? The protons of the wire you ride upon would however be effected by the field generated by the other wire's proton motion. Why? The protons in each wire are stationary relative to the protons in the other wire. They would not see any magnetic field from the other protons as it is the same thing again, no relative motion, no magnetic field, no force from magnetism. This interaction would lead to attraction between the wires. The attraction comes from the protons in one wire seeing a magnetic field from the electrons in the other wire which they have a relative motion with which both creates the magnetic field and the cutting of the magnetic field. The electrons that are moving in that wire likewise sees the protons in the other wire as having a relative velocity, and hence having a magnetic field and relative motion to that magnetic field. Can you understand this? You are proposing that the magnetic field is between stationary protons and other stationary protons. And relatively stationary electrons and other relatively stationary electrons. I am saying it is between electrons in one wire that have a relative velocity to protons in the other wire, and visa versa. I can see no reason why in your example if the protons in one wire are attracted to the protons in the other, what the need is for the electrons to be moving for them to feel this force? John
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
I figured that you were attempting to set some sort of trap. :-) Take the time to figure out what I have described and you will understand that every observer has a valid viewpoint that depends upon his relative motion. You apparently do not yet accept this truth. I wish you good fortune in your search and remember to call on Moletrap. Report back once you convince them that SR is wrong. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 20, 2014 12:29 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law 5:42 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am not sure that this will get anywhere but I can answer the question according to what I would expect. So if you were moving with the electrons/neg-balls, would you see a magnetic field from the protons/pos-balls in the other wire/pipe? Since those protons are moving relative to your reference frame? And if the electrons/balls moving with you did see such a protonic B-field would they not be attracted from cutting through it like that? An observer moving with the negatively charged electrons within one wire would see a magnetic field due to the motion of the protons in the far wire. But, the electrons are not moving according to your new reference frame and would not be affected by any magnetic fields. Maybe you are unaware, but a stationary charge can be effected by a magnetic field that is moving relative to it If you had a negatively charged ping pong ball on a string, and you lowered it towards a magnetic rotor that was turning (shielded from wind), the negatively charged ball would be pushed perpendicular to the magnetic field (radial) and the direction of motion, so you would find your ping pong ball pushed to the side. Only relative motion is required between a magnetic field and the charge. You can accept the electrons in the wire would see a magnetic field from the protons in the other wire right? (you said so above) So is that magnetic field moving relative to our electrons? If it is from the protons that are moving then yes it must be. I hope you follow this, if the electrons see a magnetic field from the protons that is moving relative to the electrons frame, then they should see a voltage, a force attracting them to the other wire right? The protons of the wire you ride upon would however be effected by the field generated by the other wire's proton motion. Why? The protons in each wire are stationary relative to the protons in the other wire. They would not see any magnetic field from the other protons as it is the same thing again, no relative motion, no magnetic field, no force from magnetism. This interaction would lead to attraction between the wires. The attraction comes from the protons in one wire seeing a magnetic field from the electrons in the other wire which they have a relative motion with which both creates the magnetic field and the cutting of the magnetic field. The electrons that are moving in that wire likewise sees the protons in the other wire as having a relative velocity, and hence having a magnetic field and relative motion to that magnetic field. Can you understand this? You are proposing that the magnetic field is between stationary protons and other stationary protons. And relatively stationary electrons and other relatively stationary electrons. I am saying it is between electrons in one wire that have a relative velocity to protons in the other wire, and visa versa. I can see no reason why in your example if the protons in one wire are attracted to the protons in the other, what the need is for the electrons to be moving for them to feel this force? John
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:51 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I figured that you were attempting to set some sort of trap. :-) Take the time to figure out what I have described and you will understand that every observer has a valid viewpoint that depends upon his relative motion. At one point you said you agreed with me that another observer's reference frame would not lead to a force appearing, but it seems that you again take that view again. So let me ask you the following, in the example with the compasses and the charged car's, or the same experiment with charged tennis balls already described, what if the negatively car's compass has a bomb hooked up to it, so that if it points up the car will explode. From the cars reference frame no magnetic field in expected and they do not experience an explosion. From the stationary observers frame let's say the compass points down, no explosion. But from an overtaking cars POV the magnetic field of the car should make the compass point up and explode. Now we have one reality that expects there to be an explosion and no more car, and 2 other reference frames where the cars should still exist. It seems that you would think that this is what should occur? Different permanent fates for each reference frame. That is what would happen if everything happened according to each observers view and expected consequences of their reality being right. Maybe I can see why you are fearful of traps, traps are only in issue if your concept is flawed. John
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Dramatic! As alternate way of revealing the paradox, I imagined the two charged balls connected by a spring which counter balances the force of repulsion. In the reference frame where the balls are moving, a magnetic force would cause the spring to become shorter. Paradoxically, in the frame of reference of the balls the length of the spring would remain unchanged. harry On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:21 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:51 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I figured that you were attempting to set some sort of trap. :-) Take the time to figure out what I have described and you will understand that every observer has a valid viewpoint that depends upon his relative motion. At one point you said you agreed with me that another observer's reference frame would not lead to a force appearing, but it seems that you again take that view again. So let me ask you the following, in the example with the compasses and the charged car's, or the same experiment with charged tennis balls already described, what if the negatively car's compass has a bomb hooked up to it, so that if it points up the car will explode. From the cars reference frame no magnetic field in expected and they do not experience an explosion. From the stationary observers frame let's say the compass points down, no explosion. But from an overtaking cars POV the magnetic field of the car should make the compass point up and explode. Now we have one reality that expects there to be an explosion and no more car, and 2 other reference frames where the cars should still exist. It seems that you would think that this is what should occur? Different permanent fates for each reference frame. That is what would happen if everything happened according to each observers view and expected consequences of their reality being right. Maybe I can see why you are fearful of traps, traps are only in issue if your concept is flawed. John
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Dave, John is saying is that the Biot Savart law for a point charge only makes sense if the velocity refers to the relative motion between the point charge and another charge. Since there is no relative motion between the charges in your example there should be no magnetic force. However, I have been looking at a few presentations of the law and they all make it appear as if the velocity can be taken relative to an independent reference frame. If these presentations are logically correct than it should be possible for an observer to increase or decrease the magnetic force between point charges by simply choosing to move relative the charges at speeds much less than c. Since this does not happen, these presentations of the Biot Savart are misleading. Therefore, it also seems to me that the Biot Savart law cannot provide a logically consistent explanation of the phenomena of relativistic electron bean confinement described by Jones. Harry On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:58 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You are describing the case of zero electron motion when you use the observation frame that is synchronized to the electron motion. That is just one of an infinite series of view points. In that frame only the coulomb effect is seen. Time dilation is determined by what an observer believes is happening to objects that he measures and in this case it is the moving pair of electrons. In that observers world both are moving at a velocity through his instrumentation so he measures the field of one of them first at the location of the second one. The effect of that field then can be calculated as it modifies the movement of the other electron. This is similar to us looking at two electrons that are in motion within an accelerator. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 17, 2014 3:13 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law David, if the electrons do not see that in their world view, then the second one is hardly exposed to something that does not exist for it. Every electrically charged object has in other reference frames various magnetic fields, the axis and direction of the magnetic field is decided by the relative motion of the observer. Since radiation of various forms exists moving in every possible direction towards every charged object, that we can propose that every charged object has multiple magnetic fields with every possible magnitude, direction and axis in different reference frames that are being regularly observed in those frames. Of course none of this is true if SR is incorrect, and if the motion in question is relative to an aether providing an unknown frame of reference... On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: 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.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
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:51 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: If these presentations are logically correct than it should be possible for an observer to increase or decrease the magnetic force between point charges by simply choosing to move relative the charges at speeds much less than c. Since this does not happen, these presentations of the Biot Savart are misleading. Yes, but what if it was correct anyway because an aether is dragged? (motion is relative to space) I have heard on an experiment with high voltage that did appear to create an electromagnetic like force with static charges. I forget the details and it is probably gone from the web. But if the aether, or frame dragging, or some other degree of movement of the medium of space as it may be allowed by various concepts, could a magnetic field be created by movement relative to space? What about gravity? Could that be considered a movement of space? Perhaps various orientations of electrostatically charged balls relative to gravity could create electromagnetic forces between them? This begs a question, if light is bent by gravity, would not electric fields also not be bent? And is not such a bend precisely what magnetism is really anyway? distortion of an electric field. So maybe such a magnetic force should be expected? In a wire a large number of electrons move slowly, with an experiment like the above a much smaller number of electrons might be involved, but the speed should be higher. Anyone have any clue what kind of force might be expected for a given sphere at an attainable voltage? Or how many gauss might occur? Has much work been done to probe for existence of tiny magnetic fields around HV charged objects under various conditions? John Therefore, it also seems to me that the Biot Savart law cannot provide a logically consistent explanation of the phenomena of relativistic electron bean confinement described by Jones. Harry On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:58 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: You are describing the case of zero electron motion when you use the observation frame that is synchronized to the electron motion. That is just one of an infinite series of view points. In that frame only the coulomb effect is seen. Time dilation is determined by what an observer believes is happening to objects that he measures and in this case it is the moving pair of electrons. In that observers world both are moving at a velocity through his instrumentation so he measures the field of one of them first at the location of the second one. The effect of that field then can be calculated as it modifies the movement of the other electron. This is similar to us looking at two electrons that are in motion within an accelerator. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 17, 2014 3:13 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law David, if the electrons do not see that in their world view, then the second one is hardly exposed to something that does not exist for it. Every electrically charged object has in other reference frames various magnetic fields, the axis and direction of the magnetic field is decided by the relative motion of the observer. Since radiation of various forms exists moving in every possible direction towards every charged object, that we can propose that every charged object has multiple magnetic fields with every possible magnitude, direction and axis in different reference frames that are being regularly observed in those frames. Of course none of this is true if SR is incorrect, and if the motion in question is relative to an aether providing an unknown frame of reference... On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: 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.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
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Harry, I see your objection and I certainly would agree that two electrons moving in parallel to each other would not see any relative motion. The question that we need to address is how does a randomly moving observer make a determination that a magnetic field would influence the forces appearing between the electrons? For the stationary electrons there is no magnetic field but instead coulomb repulsion. If we now assume that we occupy a new frame that is moving relative to the two electrons then what should we measure? First, the movement of the first electron should result in the generation of a magnetic field along with the electric field that is normally expected. This magnetic field will have a component that appears in the location of the second electron from our point of view. I assume that we are in agreement about this issue. Also, we observe that the second electron is moving through the magnetic field component that is a result of the motion of the first electron. I can think of no reason that we would not be able to calculate the force experienced by the second electron due to the field. This is how I approached the problem. One of the expectations for this line of reasoning is that there should be an infinite number of values for the force encountered by the second electron depending upon the relative movement of the observer. When I plugged in the force generated by this process when the observer is moving at the speed of light, I obtained a magnetic force that is exactly equal to the coulomb force but opposite in direction. This seemed to be quite a coincidence. A bit of reflection suggested that this calculation might well be an indication that electrons moving at approximately the speed of light relative to an observer are indeed frozen in position due to infinite time dilation and not repelled apart. Using opposite charges also yields the same result. I suppose that I tend to think of particles moving within an accelerator at nearly the speed of light as being similar to the case I am describing. They should experience time dilation due to the movement and should tend to remain grouped together instead of springing apart as you might expect from like charges. Perhaps this line of reasoning is interesting to further pursue. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 18, 2014 5:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law Dave, John is saying is that the Biot Savart law for a point charge only makes sense if the velocity refers to the relative motion between the point charge and another charge. Since there is no relative motion between the charges in your example there should be no magnetic force. However, I have been looking at a few presentations of the law and they all make it appear as if the velocity can be taken relative to an independent reference frame. If these presentations are logically correct than it should be possible for an observer to increase or decrease the magnetic force between point charges by simply choosing to move relative the charges at speeds much less than c. Since this does not happen, these presentations of the Biot Savart are misleading. Therefore, it also seems to me that the Biot Savart law cannot provide a logically consistent explanation of the phenomena of relativistic electron bean confinement described by Jones. Harry On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:58 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You are describing the case of zero electron motion when you use the observation frame that is synchronized to the electron motion. That is just one of an infinite series of view points. In that frame only the coulomb effect is seen. Time dilation is determined by what an observer believes is happening to objects that he measures and in this case it is the moving pair of electrons. In that observers world both are moving at a velocity through his instrumentation so he measures the field of one of them first at the location of the second one. The effect of that field then can be calculated as it modifies the movement of the other electron. This is similar to us looking at two electrons that are in motion within an accelerator. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 17, 2014 3:13 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law David, if the electrons do not see that in their world view, then the second one is hardly exposed to something that does not exist for it. Every electrically charged object has in other reference frames various magnetic fields, the axis and direction of the magnetic field is decided by the relative motion of the observer. Since radiation of various forms exists moving in every possible direction towards every charged object
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
You ask a lot of interesting questions. Perhaps we should set aside some time to determine if they have good answers. I certainly believe that a single charge moving relative to an observer generates a measurable magnetic field that varies with time and position. Such a field that is changing in that manner would be expected to generate an electric field which would also interact with any charged particle within its range of influence. Is this not expected as one consequence of special relativity? If I recall, that was one of the main reasons that Einstein came up with the theory. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 18, 2014 6:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:51 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: If these presentations are logically correct than it should be possible for an observer to increase or decrease the magnetic force between point charges by simply choosing to move relative the charges at speeds much less than c. Since this does not happen, these presentations of the Biot Savart are misleading. Yes, but what if it was correct anyway because an aether is dragged? (motion is relative to space) I have heard on an experiment with high voltage that did appear to create an electromagnetic like force with static charges. I forget the details and it is probably gone from the web. But if the aether, or frame dragging, or some other degree of movement of the medium of space as it may be allowed by various concepts, could a magnetic field be created by movement relative to space? What about gravity? Could that be considered a movement of space? Perhaps various orientations of electrostatically charged balls relative to gravity could create electromagnetic forces between them? This begs a question, if light is bent by gravity, would not electric fields also not be bent? And is not such a bend precisely what magnetism is really anyway? distortion of an electric field. So maybe such a magnetic force should be expected? In a wire a large number of electrons move slowly, with an experiment like the above a much smaller number of electrons might be involved, but the speed should be higher. Anyone have any clue what kind of force might be expected for a given sphere at an attainable voltage? Or how many gauss might occur? Has much work been done to probe for existence of tiny magnetic fields around HV charged objects under various conditions? John Therefore, it also seems to me that the Biot Savart law cannot provide a logically consistent explanation of the phenomena of relativistic electron bean confinement described by Jones. Harry On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:58 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You are describing the case of zero electron motion when you use the observation frame that is synchronized to the electron motion. That is just one of an infinite series of view points. In that frame only the coulomb effect is seen. Time dilation is determined by what an observer believes is happening to objects that he measures and in this case it is the moving pair of electrons. In that observers world both are moving at a velocity through his instrumentation so he measures the field of one of them first at the location of the second one. The effect of that field then can be calculated as it modifies the movement of the other electron. This is similar to us looking at two electrons that are in motion within an accelerator. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 17, 2014 3:13 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law David, if the electrons do not see that in their world view, then the second one is hardly exposed to something that does not exist for it. Every electrically charged object has in other reference frames various magnetic fields, the axis and direction of the magnetic field is decided by the relative motion of the observer. Since radiation of various forms exists moving in every possible direction towards every charged object, that we can propose that every charged object has multiple magnetic fields with every possible magnitude, direction and axis in different reference frames that are being regularly observed in those frames. Of course none of this is true if SR is incorrect, and if the motion in question is relative to an aether providing an unknown frame of reference... On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: 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
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 18, 2014 5:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law Dave, John is saying is that the Biot Savart law for a point charge only makes sense if the velocity refers to the relative motion between the point charge and another charge. Since there is no relative motion between the charges in your example there should be no magnetic force. However, I have been looking at a few presentations of the law and they all make it appear as if the velocity can be taken relative to an independent reference frame. If these presentations are logically correct than it should be possible for an observer to increase or decrease the magnetic force between point charges by simply choosing to move relative the charges at speeds much less than c. Since this does not happen, these presentations of the Biot Savart are misleading. Therefore, it also seems to me that the Biot Savart law cannot provide a logically consistent explanation of the phenomena of relativistic electron bean confinement described by Jones. Harry On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:58 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: You are describing the case of zero electron motion when you use the observation frame that is synchronized to the electron motion. That is just one of an infinite series of view points. In that frame only the coulomb effect is seen. Time dilation is determined by what an observer believes is happening to objects that he measures and in this case it is the moving pair of electrons. In that observers world both are moving at a velocity through his instrumentation so he measures the field of one of them first at the location of the second one. The effect of that field then can be calculated as it modifies the movement of the other electron. This is similar to us looking at two electrons that are in motion within an accelerator. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 17, 2014 3:13 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law David, if the electrons do not see that in their world view, then the second one is hardly exposed to something that does not exist for it. Every electrically charged object has in other reference frames various magnetic fields, the axis and direction of the magnetic field is decided by the relative motion of the observer. Since radiation of various forms exists moving in every possible direction towards every charged object, that we can propose that every charged object has multiple magnetic fields with every possible magnitude, direction and axis in different reference frames that are being regularly observed in those frames. Of course none of this is true if SR is incorrect, and if the motion in question is relative to an aether providing an unknown frame of reference... On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: 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.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
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
John, It would be difficult to answer your questions without taking a lot of time so I think that you should keep one main thought in mind. All of the effects that I am describing are those seen by an observer and not actually evident to the pair of electrons. They view the world from their perspective while everyone else sees something different. This is similar to special relativity where the guys on the spaceship moving at nearly light speed are not aware of anything unusual happening to them. We observe that they are living in a slowed down manner. My take on it is that time dilation is our observation only and not real to them. The forces acting upon the electron pair is somewhat similar. There is no magnetic force present to someone that happens to be moving along with them. But, this is not true in the case where they are moving rapidly past an observer as I have been describing. The observer will see a magnetic and electric field that is generated by each of them. Are you willing to state that a moving electron does not generate this type of changing fields as seen by a stationary observer? Perhaps that is what you believe which would explain your responses to my points. If instead you realize that a moving electron generates a magnetic field seen by a stationary observer as I am pointing out, then it follows that a second moving electron must respond to that field. This is difficult to understand but it would be a good exercise for you to consider. So, before we proceed with this thought experiment please explain why an electron in motion, according to an observer, does not generate complex electric and magnetic fields that vary in both time and position according to his instruments. Then explain why a second electron in motion within the observer's lab does not respond to the fields measured by that observer. If you can adequately explain how this might be possible then I will reconsider my position. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 18, 2014 7:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:14 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Harry, I see your objection and I certainly would agree that two electrons moving in parallel to each other would not see any relative motion. The question that we need to address is how does a randomly moving observer make a determination that a magnetic field would influence the forces appearing between the electrons How can an observer possibly change such though? Only if it effects the fabric of space so that there is now motion created by the observer dragging aether/higgs field/something through the experiment. For the stationary electrons there is no magnetic field but instead coulomb repulsion. But the electrons are stationary according to SR if they aren't moving relative to each other, since all reference frames are equal. So having an observer that sees things differently can only change what happens if SR is largely wrong about things being, well, relative. If we now assume that we occupy a new frame that is moving relative to the two electrons then what should we measure? First, the movement of the first electron should result in the generation of a magnetic field along with the electric field that is normally expected. This magnetic field will have a component that appears in the location of the second electron from our point of view. I assume that we are in agreement about this issue. Also, we observe that the second electron is moving through the magnetic field component that is a result of the motion of the first electron. I can think of no reason that we would not be able to calculate the force experienced by the second electron due to the field. The field does not exist to the other electron because there is no relative motion. Only if space or some field that creates an electromagnetic reference frame blows through the experiment can this occur. A moving observer may be near or far so even if they drag space with them, this area of entrained reference frame would not effect the electrons. Consider that there is radiation moving at near light speed and light speed from every direction regularly, each one would be an observer of the electrons generating a magnetic field to their perspective (IF SR is correct) and yet such forces do not and can not causally arise. Each one would bring a different axis, strength and direction of magnetic flux from the electrons as they see it. This still can't have any effect on the electrons. This is how I approached the problem. One of the expectations for this line of reasoning is that there should be an infinite number of values for the force encountered by the second electron depending upon the relative movement of the observer. When I plugged in the force
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Dave, I think the simple answer is to recognize that a magnetic field only exists due to motion, and if SR is correct (it isn't and can't be) then we should consider that every electric field can be seen as a magnetic field in a different reference frame. No magnetic field exists in all frames of reference, at least not caused by the same thing, a wire creates a magnetic field from the moving electrons, if you move with the electrons a different magnetic field pops up from the protons. The motion of the observer doesn't establish a magnetic field, it already existed in that reference frame. John On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:03 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: John, It would be difficult to answer your questions without taking a lot of time so I think that you should keep one main thought in mind. All of the effects that I am describing are those seen by an observer and not actually evident to the pair of electrons. They view the world from their perspective while everyone else sees something different. This is similar to special relativity where the guys on the spaceship moving at nearly light speed are not aware of anything unusual happening to them. We observe that they are living in a slowed down manner. My take on it is that time dilation is our observation only and not real to them. The forces acting upon the electron pair is somewhat similar. There is no magnetic force present to someone that happens to be moving along with them. But, this is not true in the case where they are moving rapidly past an observer as I have been describing. The observer will see a magnetic and electric field that is generated by each of them. Are you willing to state that a moving electron does not generate this type of changing fields as seen by a stationary observer? Perhaps that is what you believe which would explain your responses to my points. If instead you realize that a moving electron generates a magnetic field seen by a stationary observer as I am pointing out, then it follows that a second moving electron must respond to that field. This is difficult to understand but it would be a good exercise for you to consider. So, before we proceed with this thought experiment please explain why an electron in motion, according to an observer, does not generate complex electric and magnetic fields that vary in both time and position according to his instruments. Then explain why a second electron in motion within the observer's lab does not respond to the fields measured by that observer. If you can adequately explain how this might be possible then I will reconsider my position. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 18, 2014 7:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:14 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Harry, I see your objection and I certainly would agree that two electrons moving in parallel to each other would not see any relative motion. The question that we need to address is how does a randomly moving observer make a determination that a magnetic field would influence the forces appearing between the electrons How can an observer possibly change such though? Only if it effects the fabric of space so that there is now motion created by the observer dragging aether/higgs field/something through the experiment. For the stationary electrons there is no magnetic field but instead coulomb repulsion. But the electrons are stationary according to SR if they aren't moving relative to each other, since all reference frames are equal. So having an observer that sees things differently can only change what happens if SR is largely wrong about things being, well, relative. If we now assume that we occupy a new frame that is moving relative to the two electrons then what should we measure? First, the movement of the first electron should result in the generation of a magnetic field along with the electric field that is normally expected. This magnetic field will have a component that appears in the location of the second electron from our point of view. I assume that we are in agreement about this issue. Also, we observe that the second electron is moving through the magnetic field component that is a result of the motion of the first electron. I can think of no reason that we would not be able to calculate the force experienced by the second electron due to the field. The field does not exist to the other electron because there is no relative motion. Only if space or some field that creates an electromagnetic reference frame blows through the experiment can this occur. A moving observer may be near or far so even if they drag space with them, this area of entrained reference frame would not effect the electrons. Consider
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
A magnetic field is produced by the spin of a particle and movement of spin is not required. On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:07 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Dave, I think the simple answer is to recognize that a magnetic field only exists due to motion, and if SR is correct (it isn't and can't be) then we should consider that every electric field can be seen as a magnetic field in a different reference frame. No magnetic field exists in all frames of reference, at least not caused by the same thing, a wire creates a magnetic field from the moving electrons, if you move with the electrons a different magnetic field pops up from the protons. The motion of the observer doesn't establish a magnetic field, it already existed in that reference frame. John On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:03 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: John, It would be difficult to answer your questions without taking a lot of time so I think that you should keep one main thought in mind. All of the effects that I am describing are those seen by an observer and not actually evident to the pair of electrons. They view the world from their perspective while everyone else sees something different. This is similar to special relativity where the guys on the spaceship moving at nearly light speed are not aware of anything unusual happening to them. We observe that they are living in a slowed down manner. My take on it is that time dilation is our observation only and not real to them. The forces acting upon the electron pair is somewhat similar. There is no magnetic force present to someone that happens to be moving along with them. But, this is not true in the case where they are moving rapidly past an observer as I have been describing. The observer will see a magnetic and electric field that is generated by each of them. Are you willing to state that a moving electron does not generate this type of changing fields as seen by a stationary observer? Perhaps that is what you believe which would explain your responses to my points. If instead you realize that a moving electron generates a magnetic field seen by a stationary observer as I am pointing out, then it follows that a second moving electron must respond to that field. This is difficult to understand but it would be a good exercise for you to consider. So, before we proceed with this thought experiment please explain why an electron in motion, according to an observer, does not generate complex electric and magnetic fields that vary in both time and position according to his instruments. Then explain why a second electron in motion within the observer's lab does not respond to the fields measured by that observer. If you can adequately explain how this might be possible then I will reconsider my position. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 18, 2014 7:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:14 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Harry, I see your objection and I certainly would agree that two electrons moving in parallel to each other would not see any relative motion. The question that we need to address is how does a randomly moving observer make a determination that a magnetic field would influence the forces appearing between the electrons How can an observer possibly change such though? Only if it effects the fabric of space so that there is now motion created by the observer dragging aether/higgs field/something through the experiment. For the stationary electrons there is no magnetic field but instead coulomb repulsion. But the electrons are stationary according to SR if they aren't moving relative to each other, since all reference frames are equal. So having an observer that sees things differently can only change what happens if SR is largely wrong about things being, well, relative. If we now assume that we occupy a new frame that is moving relative to the two electrons then what should we measure? First, the movement of the first electron should result in the generation of a magnetic field along with the electric field that is normally expected. This magnetic field will have a component that appears in the location of the second electron from our point of view. I assume that we are in agreement about this issue. Also, we observe that the second electron is moving through the magnetic field component that is a result of the motion of the first electron. I can think of no reason that we would not be able to calculate the force experienced by the second electron due to the field. The field does not exist to the other electron because there is no relative motion. Only if space or some field that creates an electromagnetic reference frame blows through the experiment can this occur
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
-Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 18, 2014 7:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:14 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Harry, I see your objection and I certainly would agree that two electrons moving in parallel to each other would not see any relative motion. The question that we need to address is how does a randomly moving observer make a determination that a magnetic field would influence the forces appearing between the electrons How can an observer possibly change such though? Only if it effects the fabric of space so that there is now motion created by the observer dragging aether/higgs field/something through the experiment. For the stationary electrons there is no magnetic field but instead coulomb repulsion. But the electrons are stationary according to SR if they aren't moving relative to each other, since all reference frames are equal. So having an observer that sees things differently can only change what happens if SR is largely wrong about things being, well, relative. If we now assume that we occupy a new frame that is moving relative to the two electrons then what should we measure? First, the movement of the first electron should result in the generation of a magnetic field along with the electric field that is normally expected. This magnetic field will have a component that appears in the location of the second electron from our point of view. I assume that we are in agreement about this issue. Also, we observe that the second electron is moving through the magnetic field component that is a result of the motion of the first electron. I can think of no reason that we would not be able to calculate the force experienced by the second electron due to the field. The field does not exist to the other electron because there is no relative motion. Only if space or some field that creates an electromagnetic reference frame blows through the experiment can this occur. A moving observer may be near or far so even if they drag space with them, this area of entrained reference frame would not effect the electrons. Consider that there is radiation moving at near light speed and light speed from every direction regularly, each one would be an observer of the electrons generating a magnetic field to their perspective (IF SR is correct) and yet such forces do not and can not causally arise. Each one would bring a different axis, strength and direction of magnetic flux from the electrons as they see it. This still can't have any effect on the electrons. This is how I approached the problem. One of the expectations for this line of reasoning is that there should be an infinite number of values for the force encountered by the second electron depending upon the relative movement of the observer. When I plugged in the force generated by this process when the observer is moving at the speed of light, I obtained a magnetic force that is exactly equal to the coulomb force but opposite in direction. This seemed to be quite a coincidence. A bit of reflection suggested that this calculation might well be an indication that electrons moving at approximately the speed of light relative to an observer are indeed frozen in position due to infinite time dilation and not repelled apart. Using opposite charges also yields the same result. I suppose that I tend to think of particles moving within an accelerator at nearly the speed of light as being similar to the case I am describing. They should experience time dilation due to the movement and should tend to remain grouped together instead of springing apart as you might expect from like charges. Particle accelerators need a lot of energy to keep electrons moving at near light speed, this seems a bit odd that in a vacuum they would need a great deal of energy to keep moving at a constant speed, I have heard of this being used as an argument for them moving through a background aether frame. Maybe this does happen, but if it doesn't equal an observer moving past charges since there are always near light speed observers that would be stopping all electric forces if this were so. Consider that your argument (and such a force) only makes sense if there is a difference between 2 electrons sitting still relative to the earth with near superluminal observers passing by... And 2 electrons moving with one another (but stationary relative to each other) through an accelerator. According to SR these 2 examples are equal as the earths reference frame is not special. Now time Dilation in a more complex issue if you want to argue that they experience too little time to move apart, but really except for gravitational time dilation, I consider a no preferred reference frame time dilation based on relative
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
David, if the electrons do not see that in their world view, then the second one is hardly exposed to something that does not exist for it. Every electrically charged object has in other reference frames various magnetic fields, the axis and direction of the magnetic field is decided by the relative motion of the observer. Since radiation of various forms exists moving in every possible direction towards every charged object, that we can propose that every charged object has multiple magnetic fields with every possible magnitude, direction and axis in different reference frames that are being regularly observed in those frames. Of course none of this is true if SR is incorrect, and if the motion in question is relative to an aether providing an unknown frame of reference... On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: 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.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
You are describing the case of zero electron motion when you use the observation frame that is synchronized to the electron motion. That is just one of an infinite series of view points. In that frame only the coulomb effect is seen. Time dilation is determined by what an observer believes is happening to objects that he measures and in this case it is the moving pair of electrons. In that observers world both are moving at a velocity through his instrumentation so he measures the field of one of them first at the location of the second one. The effect of that field then can be calculated as it modifies the movement of the other electron. This is similar to us looking at two electrons that are in motion within an accelerator. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 17, 2014 3:13 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law David, if the electrons do not see that in their world view, then the second one is hardly exposed to something that does not exist for it. Every electrically charged object has in other reference frames various magnetic fields, the axis and direction of the magnetic field is decided by the relative motion of the observer. Since radiation of various forms exists moving in every possible direction towards every charged object, that we can propose that every charged object has multiple magnetic fields with every possible magnitude, direction and axis in different reference frames that are being regularly observed in those frames. Of course none of this is true if SR is incorrect, and if the motion in question is relative to an aether providing an unknown frame of reference... On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: 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
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
One point that arises from this discussion is that time dilation varies across an infinite range of values for the exact same system of particles. There is no one valid value that is fixed for all observers. This concept seems to be difficult for many to accept. Time dilation is in the eyes of the beholder and not the system being observed. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 17, 2014 3:13 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law David, if the electrons do not see that in their world view, then the second one is hardly exposed to something that does not exist for it. Every electrically charged object has in other reference frames various magnetic fields, the axis and direction of the magnetic field is decided by the relative motion of the observer. Since radiation of various forms exists moving in every possible direction towards every charged object, that we can propose that every charged object has multiple magnetic fields with every possible magnitude, direction and axis in different reference frames that are being regularly observed in those frames. Of course none of this is true if SR is incorrect, and if the motion in question is relative to an aether providing an unknown frame of reference... On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: 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
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Speed them up to nearly the speed of light and my calculation is that they do not attract or repel each other. Note that the drift velocity of electrons moving through a conductor such as a wire is generally quite slow. One calculation estimates that an electron in a copper wire of 1m length and 1mm in diameter moving under 3 amps of current migrates at a rate of 1m per hour [1]. So the relativistic example will probably need to be in a superconductor (?) or in an accelerator or pulsar jet or something similar. Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity#Numerical_example
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]: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]: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]: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]: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]: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]: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
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
I may be being stupid here, but if you have two charged particles moving towards each other then can they not be thought of as generating magnetic fields, and that these magnetic fields would form the basis of an additional attraction alongside the column force. electric and magnetic fields differ only in their frame of reference. I could well imagine that there are multiple ways of showing this, including Burchells, and it may well be that this might be a better way of modelling it in some circumstances, but is his extra velocity term for the colomb attraction not just something that we are familiar with but under a different guise? Nigel On 15/02/2014 07:37, H Veeder wrote: He is certainly not the first person to formulate a velocity dependent version of Coulomb's law, but I think his formulation is the first to make use of a distinction between the velocity of approach and the velocity of recession. (If I have understood him correctly, it would mean if one was only interested in the force on an electron orbiting a proton in a perfectly circular orbit, the force would be described by the standard Coulomb's law since there would be no velocity of approach or recession.) He tries to explain gravity using his theory but he concedes that there still may be a significant portion of gravity which is not explained by his theory. http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/Gravity.htm Harry On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:40 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: It would make sense, a Doppler like effect is very reasonable with electric fields. Now if this is so, it is very possible that gravity could be explained this way. On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:09 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery and other vortex members, Today I learned about the the work of Bernard Burchell. He argues for a velocity dependent version 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. The reverse is true for opposite charges. The revised law: F = {K(q1)(q2)/r^2} {1 + [(q1)(q2)(v1- v2)]/c}^3 He goes into more detail here: http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/RelativisticMass.htm This is just a small fraction of his work. He has many bold and wonderful ideas in his free on-line book. http://www.alternativephysics.org/ - * I made a similar proposal on vortex sometime ago although it was nothing more than an intuition and I only considered like charges: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45063.html Harry
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
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 -Original Message- From: Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 15, 2014 3:08 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law I may be being stupid here, but if you have two charged particlesmoving towards each other then can they not be thought of asgenerating magnetic fields, and that these magnetic fields wouldform the basis of an additional attraction alongside the columnforce. electric and magnetic fields differ only in their frame ofreference. I could well imagine that there are multiple ways of showing this, including Burchells, and it may well be that this might be a betterway of modelling it in some circumstances, but is his extra velocityterm for the colomb attraction not just something that we arefamiliar with but under a different guise? Nigel On 15/02/2014 07:37, H Veeder wrote: He is certainly not the first person to formulate avelocity dependent version of Coulomb's law, but I think hisformulation is the first to make use of a distinction betweenthe velocity of approach and the velocity of recession. (If Ihave understood him correctly, it would mean if one was onlyinterested in the force on an electron orbiting a proton in aperfectly circular orbit, the force would be described by thestandard Coulomb's law since there would be no velocity of approach or recession.) He tries to explain gravity using his theory but heconcedes that there still may be a significant portion ofgravity which is not explained by his theory. http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/Gravity.htm Harry On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:40 PM,John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: It would make sense, a Doppler likeeffect is very reasonable with electric fields. Now if this is so, it is very possible that gravity could be explained this way. On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:09 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery and other vortex members, Today I learned about the the work ofBernard Burchell. He argues for a velocity dependent version 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. The reverse is true for opposite charges. The revised law: F = {K(q1)(q2)/r^2} {1 + [(q1)(q2)(v1-v2)]/c}^3 He goes into more detail here: http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/RelativisticMass.htm This is just a small fraction of hiswork. He has many bold and wonderful ideasin his free on-line book. http://www.alternativephysics.org/ - * I made a similar proposal
RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
From: John Berry It would make sense, a Doppler like effect is very reasonable with electric fields. Now if this is so, it is very possible that gravity could be explained this way. Since Stewart is stuck in the ice, he may be delayed with his Doppler radar metaphor. So here is another slant on it. Since gravity already produces its own Doppler shift (we call it redshift), it would be an interesting exercise to look at this possibility in extra dimensions. that is of gravity itself being the 4-space relic of a 3-space electric field - which is of course, another way to look at electrogravity. The Doppler shift is the frequency shift caused by relative motion, but the gravitational version - which is redshift - does not involve apparent motion in 3-space, but it does if you consider to the effect as being over billions of years. IOW the relative motion is in hidden in spacetime. Because clocks in a strong gravitational field tick slower - the effect is similar to light leaving the surface of a strong field which will gradually have its frequency extended so that the signal (light spectra) arrives at a longer wavelength. You can also think of gravitational redshift on light as photons losing energy as they work their out of the strong gravitational field but it is no different than if it was a strong electric field, other than that time must be considered. For whatever reason, the Finn's seem to mull over these things more than most of us (probably the long winters) http://www.redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V00NO18PDF/NR18JAA.PDF Phil did not see his shadow so let's let the Finns sort it out.
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Nigel, You are correct. I failed to remember that each charge sees a changing electric field due to the motion of the other charge, and if the electric field is changing this generates a changing magnetic field which generates a force. However, my excursion into velocity dependent coulomb forces and your criticism has brought clarity to my intuition: Charge is a relative to motion. Harry On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: I may be being stupid here, but if you have two charged particles moving towards each other then can they not be thought of as generating magnetic fields, and that these magnetic fields would form the basis of an additional attraction alongside the column force. electric and magnetic fields differ only in their frame of reference. I could well imagine that there are multiple ways of showing this, including Burchells, and it may well be that this might be a better way of modelling it in some circumstances, but is his extra velocity term for the colomb attraction not just something that we are familiar with but under a different guise? Nigel On 15/02/2014 07:37, H Veeder wrote: He is certainly not the first person to formulate a velocity dependent version of Coulomb's law, but I think his formulation is the first to make use of a distinction between the velocity of approach and the velocity of recession. (If I have understood him correctly, it would mean if one was only interested in the force on an electron orbiting a proton in a perfectly circular orbit, the force would be described by the standard Coulomb's law since there would be no velocity of approach or recession.) He tries to explain gravity using his theory but he concedes that there still may be a significant portion of gravity which is not explained by his theory. http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/Gravity.htm Harry On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:40 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: It would make sense, a Doppler like effect is very reasonable with electric fields. Now if this is so, it is very possible that gravity could be explained this way. On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:09 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery and other vortex members, Today I learned about the the work of Bernard Burchell. He argues for a velocity dependent version 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. The reverse is true for opposite charges. The revised law: F = {K(q1)(q2)/r^2} {1 + [(q1)(q2)(v1- v2)]/c}^3 He goes into more detail here: http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/RelativisticMass.htm This is just a small fraction of his work. He has many bold and wonderful ideas in his free on-line book. http://www.alternativephysics.org/ - * I made a similar proposal on vortex sometime ago although it was nothing more than an intuition and I only considered like charges: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45063.html Harry
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 12:55 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Nigel, You are correct. I failed to remember that each charge sees a changing electric field due to the motion of the other charge, and if the electric field is changing this generates a changing magnetic field which generates a force. However, my excursion into velocity dependent coulomb forces and your criticism has brought clarity to my intuition: Charge is a relative to motion. Harry More fully, Charge consists of a basic charge and through the relative motion other charges the basic charge can increase or decrease. harry
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Jones, Thanks for the lead in, here is some more weird thoughts/doppler stuff I have been blogging. I think gravity is a type of quantum vacuum entanglement that decays space between all of these vacuum branes in the universe (like our Sun's core and the Earth core). Vacuum is streaming between branes (in our solar wind), decaying our 3 dimensions as well as itself is decaying through hawking radiation (full spectrum, very weak). It pops back out as protons in the solar wind as it decays, creating water vapor wherever it encounters oxygen, like in our atmosphere: http://phys.org/news/2014-01-solar-space-source-laboratory.html I think the Earth core and possible the Sun are massive 6-D torroidal vacuum cores. It is responsible for our weakly ionizing radiation background on Earth, which increases during storms. The weather unfolding along jet streams is really the inflation phase of this vacuum decaying from high energies to low energy clouds in our atmosphere, creating more water vapor. It pulls a vacuum in our gaseous atmosphere, creating low pressure disturbances. That is the reason Doppler Radar is able to detect the weather due to the vacuum in our atmosphere, which forms strings and particles and is bending it and lensing it. Which is unfortunate for us humans because I think we are all getting vacuum formed and this stuff is redirecting and attenuating doppler microwave radiation back to Earth around the radar towers, creating chronic hypoxic conditions in waterways(ionizing dissolved oxygen from the water) killing fish and triggering algae blooms and in bloodstreams creating chronic hypoxic conditions in biology triggering an increase in autism, alzheimers and some cancers. Our Earth brane and human brains are becoming hypoxic in areas around radar towers. I have statistics on both now. http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/02/08/sending-out-an-sos/ http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/02/14/never-hire-me-to-do-research/ Also, after plotting sinkholes nightly for a year, yes I am a geek, I have concluded the atmosphere is triggering many of them through a local increase in ionizing vacuum energy discharge (protons act like an acid-proton donor) during storms and such, which is increased around the overlappng doppler radar towers. The eight corvettes that just plummeted into a sinkhole in Kentucky happened to be in an atrium with a glass ceiling directly above where the sinkhole opened and within 50 miles of 3 or 4 high powered radars. I think metal conducts this stuff (think st. elmos fire) but that it penetrates through most organic stuff. http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/02/15/little-red-corvette/ I have also concluded many of the mirages that humans see over water, including magnified ships over the ocean are actually gravitational lensing and string lensing, which is also bending the doppler EMR at the same time. http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/02/13/milwaukeemiragemiraclesay-5-times-fast/ In other words guys, we reside in a vacuum with a little bit of air and water vapor surrounding us. We reside on the crust from a LENR decaying Earth core brane, which suffers chronic indigestion, else we would all be sucked in. Best I can figure and yes it/I am strange. Stewart On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* John Berry It would make sense, a Doppler like effect is very reasonable with electric fields. Now if this is so, it is very possible that gravity could be explained this way. Since Stewart is stuck in the ice, he may be delayed with his Doppler radar metaphor. So here is another slant on it. Since gravity already produces its own Doppler shift (we call it redshift), it would be an interesting exercise to look at this possibility in extra dimensions... that is of gravity itself being the 4-space relic of a 3-space electric field - which is of course, another way to look at electrogravity. The Doppler shift is the frequency shift caused by relative motion, but the gravitational version - which is redshift - does not involve apparent motion in 3-space, but it does if you consider to the effect as being over billions of years. IOW the relative motion is in hidden in spacetime. Because clocks in a strong gravitational field tick slower - the effect is similar to light leaving the surface of a strong field which will gradually have its frequency extended so that the signal (light spectra) arrives at a longer wavelength. You can also think of gravitational redshift on light as photons losing energy as they work their out of the strong gravitational field but it is no different than if it was a strong electric field, other than that time must be considered. For whatever reason, the Finn's seem to mull over these things more than most of us (probably the long winters) http://www.redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V00NO18PDF/NR18JAA.PDF Phil did not see his shadow so let's let the Finns sort it out...
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Nigel, The collision of two oppositely charged particles can be far more energetic when they collide within a current than in isolation. How much more depends on the current strength/density and particles' location. The particles borrow field momentum from the magnetic vector potential(A) the current collectively creates. For example, see - '(Section 213) Two kinds of momentum' The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol. III Ch. 21 http://www.feynmanlectures.info/docroot/III_21.html If the two particles collide with nearly the same momentum (in the lab frame), suddenly they see an almost immediate drop in the magnetic vector potential which generates an additional huge electric field(E) gradient propelling the particles into each other, i.e., see Feynman's (Equation 21-16) E = -dA/dt As Feynman notes: That electric field is enormous if the flux is changing rapidly, and it gives a force on the particle. The force is the charge times the electric field, and so during the build up of the flux the particle obtains a total impulse (that is, a change in mv) equal to #8722;qA. In other words, if you suddenly turn on a vector potential at a charge, this charge immediately picks up an mv-momentum equal to #8722;qA. If you are interested in how the vector potential stores momentum, sse- Thoughts on the Magnetic Vector Potential http://abacus.bates.edu/~msemon/thoughts.pdf The extra energy picked up by light particles like electrons and positrons will be far higher than by much heavier protons and nuclei. (Another different approach to calculating the extra energy is via the Darwin Hamiltonian/Lagrangian.) This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation due to random motion. It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though. -- Lou Pagnucco Nigel Dyer (Sat, 15 Feb 2014) wrote: I may be being stupid here, but if you have two charged particles moving towards each other then can they not be thought of as generating magnetic fields, and that these magnetic fields would form the basis of an additional attraction alongside the column force. electric and magnetic fields differ only in their frame of reference. I could well imagine that there are multiple ways of showing this
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation due to random motion. It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though. Is this a confirmed effect, or one that has been hypothesized? I'm reminded of my drawing of what I think might be going on in LENR, where such an effect might be relevant: http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png (Also relevant in this model would be the accumulation of charge at the left hand side, due to the blocking of the protons once they get to the recess in the surface of the metal grain.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
I also think it may be relevant to certain classes of LENR, particularly the Graneau/Papp systems. Even low voltage systems may see localised very high voltage differences as a result of back-emf effects when currents are flowing between two surfaces that are initially in contact and are then separated. Nigel On 15/02/2014 21:54, Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com mailto:pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation due to random motion. It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though. Is this a confirmed effect, or one that has been hypothesized? I'm reminded of my drawing of what I think might be going on in LENR, where such an effect might be relevant: http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png (Also relevant in this model would be the accumulation of charge at the left hand side, due to the blocking of the protons once they get to the recess in the surface of the metal grain.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Any open minded guys here have any thoughts/ideas/theories on how the installation of a Doppler microwave weather radar with the following specs might trigger a ten-fold increase in seismic events/sonic booms within a 50 mile radius of the tower for the past 3 years compared to the previous 10? My p-Value stats over two years data says there is a correlation (which does not prove causation) - I looked at 3 states of seismic data and approx 30 radar locations - Operating frequency: 5510 MHz (C-band) - Wavelength: 5.44 cm - Pulse Length: 0.4, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0 µs - Pulse Repetition Frequency: 300-2000 Hz, 1 Hz step - *1 MW Peak Power (magnetron with solid-state modulator) * - 8.5-meter Andrew precision C-band dish - High angular resolution: 0.45 degrees @ -3 dB points - Gain: 50 dBi - Sidelobe Level: Better than -26 dB one-way - Cross-Pol: Better than -30 dB - Rotation rate: 6-25 deg/s under typical scanning (30 deg/s max) - Minimum Detectable Signal: -112 dBm - Radar Sensitivity: -15 dBZ at 50 km - Noise Figure: 3 dB - Simultaneous dual-polarization On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: I also think it may be relevant to certain classes of LENR, particularly the Graneau/Papp systems. Even low voltage systems may see localised very high voltage differences as a result of back-emf effects when currents are flowing between two surfaces that are initially in contact and are then separated. Nigel On 15/02/2014 21:54, Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation due to random motion. It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though. Is this a confirmed effect, or one that has been hypothesized? I'm reminded of my drawing of what I think might be going on in LENR, where such an effect might be relevant: http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png (Also relevant in this model would be the accumulation of charge at the left hand side, due to the blocking of the protons once they get to the recess in the surface of the metal grain.) Eric
RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
What three states? Im thinking there could another factor not in evidence From: ChemE Stewart Any open minded guys here have any thoughts/ideas/theories on how the installation of a Doppler microwave weather radar with the following specs might trigger a ten-fold increase in seismic events/sonic booms within a 50 mile radius of the tower for the past 3 years compared to the previous 10? My p-Value stats over two years data says there is a correlation (which does not prove causation) - I looked at 3 states of seismic data and approx 30 radar locations * Operating frequency: 5510 MHz (C-band) oWavelength: 5.44 cm oPulse Length: 0.4, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0 µs oPulse Repetition Frequency: 3002000 Hz, 1 Hz step * 1 MW Peak Power (magnetron with solid-state modulator) * 8.5-meter Andrew precision C-band dish oHigh angular resolution: 0.45 degrees @ -3 dB points oGain: 50 dBi oSidelobe Level: Better than -26 dB one-way oCross-Pol: Better than -30 dB * Rotation rate: 6-25 deg/s under typical scanning (30 deg/s max) * Minimum Detectable Signal: -112 dBm oRadar Sensitivity: -15 dBZ at 50 km oNoise Figure: 3 dB * Simultaneous dual-polarization On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: I also think it may be relevant to certain classes of LENR, particularly the Graneau/Papp systems. Even low voltage systems may see localised very high voltage differences as a result of back-emf effects when currents are flowing between two surfaces that are initially in contact and are then separated. Nigel On 15/02/2014 21:54, Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation due to random motion. It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though. Is this a confirmed effect, or one that has been hypothesized? I'm reminded of my drawing of what I think might be going on in LENR, where such an effect might be relevant: http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png (Also relevant in this model would be the accumulation of charge at the left hand side, due to the blocking of the protons once they get to the recess in the surface of the metal grain.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Kansas The area of North Texas, Oklahoma, So. Kansas and Western Arkansas has had 3000 seismic events which jumped in 2009 Fracking has been going on for years and there does not seem to be a direct link but it may have some impact http://www.examiner.com/article/oklahoma-s-4-yr-long-quake-swarm-is-not-normal-and-it-ain-t-freakin-fracking On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: What three states? I'm thinking there could another factor not in evidence ... *From:* ChemE Stewart Any open minded guys here have any thoughts/ideas/theories on how the installation of a Doppler microwave weather radar with the following specs might trigger a ten-fold increase in seismic events/sonic booms within a 50 mile radius of the tower for the past 3 years compared to the previous 10? My p-Value stats over two years data says there is a correlation (which does not prove causation) - I looked at 3 states of seismic data and approx 30 radar locations · Operating frequency: 5510 MHz (C-band) oWavelength: 5.44 cm oPulse Length: 0.4, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0 µs oPulse Repetition Frequency: 300-2000 Hz, 1 Hz step · *1 MW Peak Power (magnetron with solid-state modulator) * · 8.5-meter Andrew precision C-band dish oHigh angular resolution: 0.45 degrees @ -3 dB points oGain: 50 dBi oSidelobe Level: Better than -26 dB one-way oCross-Pol: Better than -30 dB · Rotation rate: 6-25 deg/s under typical scanning (30 deg/s max) · Minimum Detectable Signal: -112 dBm oRadar Sensitivity: -15 dBZ at 50 km oNoise Figure: 3 dB · Simultaneous dual-polarization On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: I also think it may be relevant to certain classes of LENR, particularly the Graneau/Papp systems. Even low voltage systems may see localised very high voltage differences as a result of back-emf effects when currents are flowing between two surfaces that are initially in contact and are then separated. Nigel On 15/02/2014 21:54, Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation due to random motion. It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though. Is this a confirmed effect, or one that has been hypothesized? I'm reminded of my drawing of what I think might be going on in LENR, where such an effect might be relevant: http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png (Also relevant in this model would be the accumulation of charge at the left hand side, due to the blocking of the protons once they get to the recess in the surface of the metal grain.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
I posted the earthquake chart on my blog: http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/02/15/expanded-quantum-capabilities/ and I posted my statistics a month ago. http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/12/26/boom-bang-shake-quake/ I also believe p-Values are only a tool and do not identify cause, they just imply a relationship, which I was seeing visually. Oklahoma City is Home to the National Weather Research Center and along with the air force base has ~ 9 overlapping microwave radars within a 50-100 mile radius (range on dopplers is approx. 150 miles) I have developed a very bad feeling a microwave radars over the past 6 months, especially when 3 or 4 are overlapped. Stewart On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:25 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Kansas The area of North Texas, Oklahoma, So. Kansas and Western Arkansas has had 3000 seismic events which jumped in 2009 Fracking has been going on for years and there does not seem to be a direct link but it may have some impact http://www.examiner.com/article/oklahoma-s-4-yr-long-quake-swarm-is-not-normal-and-it-ain-t-freakin-fracking On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: What three states? I'm thinking there could another factor not in evidence ... *From:* ChemE Stewart Any open minded guys here have any thoughts/ideas/theories on how the installation of a Doppler microwave weather radar with the following specs might trigger a ten-fold increase in seismic events/sonic booms within a 50 mile radius of the tower for the past 3 years compared to the previous 10? My p-Value stats over two years data says there is a correlation (which does not prove causation) - I looked at 3 states of seismic data and approx 30 radar locations · Operating frequency: 5510 MHz (C-band) oWavelength: 5.44 cm oPulse Length: 0.4, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0 µs oPulse Repetition Frequency: 300-2000 Hz, 1 Hz step · *1 MW Peak Power (magnetron with solid-state modulator) * · 8.5-meter Andrew precision C-band dish oHigh angular resolution: 0.45 degrees @ -3 dB points oGain: 50 dBi oSidelobe Level: Better than -26 dB one-way oCross-Pol: Better than -30 dB · Rotation rate: 6-25 deg/s under typical scanning (30 deg/s max) · Minimum Detectable Signal: -112 dBm oRadar Sensitivity: -15 dBZ at 50 km oNoise Figure: 3 dB · Simultaneous dual-polarization On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: I also think it may be relevant to certain classes of LENR, particularly the Graneau/Papp systems. Even low voltage systems may see localised very high voltage differences as a result of back-emf effects when currents are flowing between two surfaces that are initially in contact and are then separated. Nigel On 15/02/2014 21:54, Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation due to random motion. It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though. Is this a confirmed effect, or one that has been hypothesized? I'm reminded of my drawing of what I think might be going on in LENR, where such an effect might be relevant: http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png (Also relevant in this model would be the accumulation of charge at the left hand side, due to the blocking of the protons once they get to the recess in the surface of the metal grain.) Eric
RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Aha. With those states, you have to think that fracking is involved to some extent- so the only real question is if the fracking is exacerbated by the RF. ROTFL. I see that the Does not seem to be a direct link comment comes from renowned seismic expert.. cough, cough. one Barbara Schneider, Certified Hypnotherapist, Reiki Master, and Feng Shui Consultant, and a regular contributor to San Jose Psychic Examiner. . doubt if we should be trusting Babs' insight on this issue, Feng Shui notwithstanding From: ChemE Stewart Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Kansas The area of North Texas, Oklahoma, So. Kansas and Western Arkansas has had 3000 seismic events which jumped in 2009 Fracking has been going on for years and there does not seem to be a direct link but it may have some impact http://www.examiner.com/article/oklahoma-s-4-yr-long-quake-swarm-is-not-norm al-and-it-ain-t-freakin-fracking
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Eric, This is a direct consequence of the formula for computing the magnetic vector potential. When all particles flow in a narrow channel, in the same direction, all of their (vector) contributions to the potential are nearly parallel and are additive. When they move in random directions, the vector potential is a sum of random vectors, so destructive interference greatly attenuates it. Toy examples of a four particle fusor vs. an arc might look like - | | V --- --- ^ | | The fusor will only produce relatively small magnetic vector fields. Yes, I think your diagram does convey a correct concept for a plasma arc impacting an +ion rich surface. The impacting electrons will acquire extra energy from the momentum store in the magnetic field. -- LP Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation due to random motion. It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though. Is this a confirmed effect, or one that has been hypothesized? I'm reminded of my drawing of what I think might be going on in LENR, where such an effect might be relevant: http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png (Also relevant in this model would be the accumulation of charge at the left hand side, due to the blocking of the protons once they get to the recess in the surface of the metal grain.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
OK, I agree, here are a couple more articles http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Oklahoma-Scientist-to-Test-if-Fracking-Causes-Earthquakes.html The parts I keyed on in addition to the locations clustered around areas with multiple dopplers, is that many people say they sound more like sonic booms. http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/14/is-fracking-causing-earthquakes/ And as quakes increase in frequency, residents of Oklahomahttp://www.npr.org/2014/01/02/259127792/a-sharp-rise-in-earthquakes-puts-oklahomans-on-edge and Texashttp://www.npr.org/2014/02/09/273372026/oil-gas-drilling-seems-to-make-the-earth-slip-and-go-boom are taking notice. More noticeable than the shaking, for many, is the noise these quakes make: a loud boom, like artillery fire. I wonder if it is a combination of both, microwaves interacting with the atmosphere/water vapor and or a discharge into the Earth interacting with the underground water. On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Aha. With those states, you have to think that fracking is involved to some extent- so the only real question is if the fracking is exacerbated by the RF. ROTFL. I see that the Does not seem to be a direct link comment comes from renowned seismic expert.. cough, cough... one Barbara Schneider, Certified Hypnotherapist, Reiki Master, and Feng Shui Consultant, and a regular contributor to San Jose Psychic Examiner. ... doubt if we should be trusting Babs' insight on this issue, Feng Shui notwithstanding *From:* ChemE Stewart Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Kansas The area of North Texas, Oklahoma, So. Kansas and Western Arkansas has had 3000 seismic events which jumped in 2009 Fracking has been going on for years and there does not seem to be a direct link but it may have some impact http://www.examiner.com/article/oklahoma-s-4-yr-long-quake-swarm-is-not-normal-and-it-ain-t-freakin-fracking
RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
From: ChemE Stewart I wonder if it is a combination of both, microwaves interacting with the atmosphere/water vapor and or a discharge into the Earth interacting with the underground water. This is possible. and worth pursuing, especially if grant money is available. but microwaves would not penetrate very far into the earth, and shale is deep. There are three different ecosystems which need to be analyzed. Surprised you did not mention dark matter, and the Mills identification of this species with fractional hydrogen, which he claims is produced in the solar corona. It is carried to earth in the solar wind. If RF radiation from Doppler radar is involved somehow, and it seems to be more than coincidental, based on limited data - then RF could interact with the atmosphere to nucleate more of the dark-matter arriving from the solar corona into rain, which then percolates with water down to the shale layer. This could alter the normal random distribution of f/H. This process would take several years - but there does seem to be several years of lag time. Have you compared areas with 1) Radar and no shale deposits against 2) areas with both shale and radar and areas with 3) shale only ? If there was enough data to compare all three, you might make a statistical case. Of course, that could require a staff of researchers to put this kind of data together.
RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
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
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
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 best I can theorize, as I have shown on my blog is that there is dark matter(collapsed hydrogen) stringing around the equatorial jet streams (originating from the solar wind) and overhead in the jet streams, triggering low pressure weather events and decaying all of the time and releasing gravitational radiation to the Earth. Somehow the pulsed microwaves are energizing this dark/vacuum, possibly causing it to kink up and break off (through string interactions) and these smaller loops or branched strings (low pressure troughs) of vacuum energy are then accelerating into the Earth around the towers, triggering pressure/seismic events as well as an increase in mesovortex events and even sinkholes around the towers as my statistics are showing. If this is happening it would also possibly trigger an increase in weakly ionizing background radiation in the local surroundings around the towers which is ionizing the dissolved oxygen in the waterways around the towers triggering hypoxia and oxidative stress. That is the only way I can tie it all together. This is only theory, but I have good statistics on an increase in hypoxia, algae blooms/red tide around the radar towers in Florida over two years with strong indications in other States. I make my income from engineering, I am doing my research for fun so I am not looking for grant money, you guys have been a great help in trying to understand what is happening at the atomic/subatomic level Stewart On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* ChemE Stewart I wonder if it is a combination of both, microwaves interacting with the atmosphere/water vapor and or a discharge into the Earth interacting with the underground water. This is possible... and worth pursuing, especially if grant money is available... but microwaves would not penetrate very far into the earth, and shale is deep. There are three different ecosystems which need to be analyzed. Surprised you did not mention dark matter, and the Mills identification of this species with fractional hydrogen, which he claims is produced in the solar corona. It is carried to earth in the solar wind. If RF radiation from Doppler radar is involved somehow, and it seems to be more than coincidental, based on limited data - then RF could interact with the atmosphere to nucleate more of the dark-matter arriving from the solar corona into rain, which then percolates with water down to the shale layer. This could alter the normal random distribution of f/H. This process would take several years - but there does seem to be several years of lag time. Have you compared areas with 1) Radar and no shale deposits against 2) areas with both shale and radar and areas with 3) shale only ? If there was enough data to compare all three, you might make a statistical case. Of course, that could require a staff of researchers to put this kind of data together.
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
One of the implications of Mills's Hydrino theory is that gravity acts differently on a molecule in motion. I'm not sure I understand it. Perhaps this is just another area where the hydrino theory describes the mechanics better than QM. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:09 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery and other vortex members, Today I learned about the the work of Bernard Burchell. He argues for a velocity dependent version 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. The reverse is true for opposite charges. The revised law: F = {K(q1)(q2)/r^2} {1 + [(q1)(q2)(v1- v2)]/c}^3 He goes into more detail here: http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/RelativisticMass.htm This is just a small fraction of his work. He has many bold and wonderful ideas in his free on-line book. http://www.alternativephysics.org/ - * I made a similar proposal on vortex sometime ago although it was nothing more than an intuition and I only considered like charges: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45063.html Harry
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
It would make sense, a Doppler like effect is very reasonable with electric fields. Now if this is so, it is very possible that gravity could be explained this way. On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:09 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery and other vortex members, Today I learned about the the work of Bernard Burchell. He argues for a velocity dependent version 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. The reverse is true for opposite charges. The revised law: F = {K(q1)(q2)/r^2} {1 + [(q1)(q2)(v1- v2)]/c}^3 He goes into more detail here: http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/RelativisticMass.htm This is just a small fraction of his work. He has many bold and wonderful ideas in his free on-line book. http://www.alternativephysics.org/ - * I made a similar proposal on vortex sometime ago although it was nothing more than an intuition and I only considered like charges: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45063.html Harry
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
He is certainly not the first person to formulate a velocity dependent version of Coulomb's law, but I think his formulation is the first to make use of a distinction between the velocity of approach and the velocity of recession. (If I have understood him correctly, it would mean if one was only interested in the force on an electron orbiting a proton in a perfectly circular orbit, the force would be described by the standard Coulomb's law since there would be no velocity of approach or recession.) He tries to explain gravity using his theory but he concedes that there still may be a significant portion of gravity which is not explained by his theory. http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/Gravity.htm Harry On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:40 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: It would make sense, a Doppler like effect is very reasonable with electric fields. Now if this is so, it is very possible that gravity could be explained this way. On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:09 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery and other vortex members, Today I learned about the the work of Bernard Burchell. He argues for a velocity dependent version 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. The reverse is true for opposite charges. The revised law: F = {K(q1)(q2)/r^2} {1 + [(q1)(q2)(v1- v2)]/c}^3 He goes into more detail here: http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/RelativisticMass.htm This is just a small fraction of his work. He has many bold and wonderful ideas in his free on-line book. http://www.alternativephysics.org/ - * I made a similar proposal on vortex sometime ago although it was nothing more than an intuition and I only considered like charges: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45063.html Harry
[Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
James Bowery and other vortex members, Today I learned about the the work of Bernard Burchell. He argues for a velocity dependent version 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. The reverse is true for opposite charges. The revised law: F = {K(q1)(q2)/r^2} {1 + [(q1)(q2)(v1- v2)]/c}^3 He goes into more detail here: http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/RelativisticMass.htm This is just a small fraction of his work. He has many bold and wonderful ideas in his free on-line book. http://www.alternativephysics.org/ - * I made a similar proposal on vortex sometime ago although it was nothing more than an intuition and I only considered like charges: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45063.html Harry