Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[David Roberson]

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 
To: vortex-l 
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  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

[David Roberson]

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 
To: vortex-l 
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  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 
To: vortex-l 
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

[John Berry]

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  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:10 AM, John Berry 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

[H Veeder]

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  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 
> To: vortex-l 
> 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

[H Veeder]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:10 AM, John Berry  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

[David Roberson]

 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 
To: vortex-l 
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

[John Berry]

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  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:53 PM, H Veeder  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

[John Berry]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:53 PM, H Veeder  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

[H Veeder]

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  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:51 PM, David Roberson 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

[John Berry]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:51 PM, David Roberson  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

[David Roberson]

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 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Feb 20, 2014 12:29 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law



 5:42 PM, David Roberson  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

[John Berry]

 5:42 PM, David Roberson  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

[David Roberson]

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 
To: vortex-l 
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  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 
To: vortex-l 


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  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

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[John Berry]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:56 PM, David Roberson  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 
> To: vortex-l 
> 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 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

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Axil Axil  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

[David Roberson]

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 
To: vortex-l 
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  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 th

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[John Berry]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:38 PM, David Roberson  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 Me

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[David Roberson]

I responded to the tennis ball concept when I had an opportunity.  Use that as 
a basis.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: John Berry 
To: vortex-l 
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  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 
To: vortex-l 

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  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 argu

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[David Roberson]

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 
To: vortex-l 
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  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 
produ

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[John Berry]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:16 PM, David Roberson  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 
> To: vortex-l 
> 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 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 wh

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[David Roberson]

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 
To: vortex-l 
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  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 fie

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[John Berry]

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  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 wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:43 AM, David Roberson 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 mot

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[Axil Axil]

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  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:43 AM, David Roberson 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 

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[John Berry]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:43 AM, David Roberson  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

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[ChemE Stewart]

I agree with that summary

On Wednesday, February 19, 2014, Axil Axil  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 wrote:
>
> 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  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 wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Axil Axil  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

[Axil Axil]

oubtful of this, is it
>>> not the electric field that is of the electron that is rotating, spinning.
>>>
>>> This would create a dipole field.
>>>
>>> So it is still the motion of the electric field, in theory is this spin
>>> is actually deserving of the term spin then it involves the motion of
>>> something which means that is you were spinning with it, the magnetic field
>>> would disappear.
>>>
>>> Looking more at this subject (which I have avoided) apparently electrons
>>> are torqued by a magnetic field, great so why is a north pole and a south
>>> pole not going to result in attraction?
>>> If it did then I think particle accelerators would not work so well, the
>>> particles would stick to the magnets.
>>>
>>> I'm going to go ahead and assume that this isn't a real 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 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 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 

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[John Berry]

:07 AM, John Berry 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 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 
>>>>> To: vortex-l 
>>>>> 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 
>>>>> 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 fab

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[David Roberson]

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 
To: vortex-l 
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  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 

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[Axil Axil]

magnetic field, it
>>> already existed in that reference frame.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:03 PM, David Roberson 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 
>>>> To: vortex-l 
>>>> 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 
>>>> 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 com

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[John Berry]

 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 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>> 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 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 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 observe

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[Axil Axil]

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  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 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 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> 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 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. 

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[John Berry]

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  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 
> To: vortex-l 
> 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 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.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[David Roberson]

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 
To: vortex-l 
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  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 generated by this process when the ob

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[John Berry]

inated by communicating time rate at
right angles to the direction of relative motion.

John


>
> Perhaps this line of reasoning is interesting to further pursue.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: H Veeder 
> To: vortex-l 
> 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 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 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> 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 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 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>>  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 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 
>>>> 

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[David Roberson]

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 
To: vortex-l 
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  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  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 
To: vortex-l 
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  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 

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[David Roberson]

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 
To: vortex-l 
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  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 
To: vortex-l 
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 ever

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[John Berry]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:51 AM, H Veeder  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 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 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> 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 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 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>>  Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 11:41 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent mo

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[H Veeder]

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  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 
> To: vortex-l 
> 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 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 
>> To: vortex-l 
>>  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 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 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>> 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 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 

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:52 PM, David Roberson  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

[David Roberson]

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 
To: vortex-l 
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  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 
To: vortex-l 

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  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 
To: vortex-l 
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  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

[David Roberson]

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 
To: vortex-l 
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  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 
To: vortex-l 

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  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 
To: vortex-l 
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  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

[John Berry]

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  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 
> To: vortex-l 
> 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 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 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> 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 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

[David Roberson]

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 
To: vortex-l 
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  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 
To: vortex-l 
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  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

[John Berry]

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  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

[John Berry]

>
>
> 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

[H Veeder]

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  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

[H Veeder]

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  wrote:

> What is the source of the magnetism?
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 6:24 PM, David Roberson 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 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> 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 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

[John Berry]

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 5:41 PM, H Veeder  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 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 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> 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 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

[H Veeder]

What is the source of the magnetism?

Harry


On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 6:24 PM, David Roberson  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 
> To: vortex-l 
> 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 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

[John Berry]

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  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 
> To: vortex-l 
> 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

[David Roberson]

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 
To: vortex-l 
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

[Jones Beene]

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

[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 
To: vortex-l 
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  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

[Axil Axil]

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,  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

[H Veeder]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:44 AM, 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
>
>
>

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

[pagnucco]

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

[David Roberson]

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 
To: vortex-l 
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 Axil]

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,  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 
> > To: vortex-l 
> > 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

[pagnucco]

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 
> To: vortex-l 
> 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

[Jones Beene]

Correction-
... due to increase in opposite polarity in the central zone
Should be: ... due to increase in same polarity in the central zone
 

<>

RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[Jones Beene]

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

[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?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: pagnucco 
To: vortex-l 
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

[ChemE Stewart]

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  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

[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

[pagnucco]

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 Beene]

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 Beene]

 

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

[ChemE Stewart]

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
Oklahoma
 and 
Texas
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  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

[pagnucco]

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,  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

[Jones Beene]

 

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

[ChemE Stewart]

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  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  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  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,  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

[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




On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Jones Beene  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  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,  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

[Jones Beene]

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  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,  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

[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)
  - 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  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,  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

[Nigel Dyer]

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, > 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

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM,  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

[pagnucco]

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 21–3) 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 −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 −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

[ChemE Stewart]

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  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'

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[H Veeder]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 12:55 PM, H Veeder  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

[H Veeder]

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  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 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  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

[Jones Beene]

 

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

[David Roberson]

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 
To: vortex-l 
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 
wrote:

  
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 
  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 on vortex   
 sometime ago although

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[Nigel Dyer]

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 > 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 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

[H Veeder]

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  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  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

[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.



On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:09 PM, H Veeder  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

[Kevin O'Malley]

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  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
>