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
O
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 t
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 ridicul
sage-
> 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 c
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.
>
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 ima
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
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 t
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
re
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 y
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 Rob
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
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
e
>
>
>
> -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 bal
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
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
ing charge) in the
other wire as moving past them, and hence making a magnetic field that they
should feel an attractive force from?
And if not, then why not?
John
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Berry
> To: vortex-l
> Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 6:12 pm
> Subj
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,
efore 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 mod
e 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
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
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
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 e
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
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/arti
netic 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
t;>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>
ght.
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'
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, bef
ion, 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
&
27;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
>&
y 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 m
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
aps 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,
>
> Joh
.
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 pos
: 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
t; 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
>>
>>
>
otion 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 t
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
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 s
early 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
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
>
>
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 o
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 w
>
>
> 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 increa
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 w
;>
>>
>> -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
eeder
>> 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 att
-
> 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 cha
d 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, 20
, 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
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
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 3:20 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
http://phys.org/news/2012-01-propagation-non-relativistic-lattice.html
*Researchers observe speed of propagation in non-relativistic lattice*
Regarding the theoretical speed limit of information described by the
Lieb-Robinson bound.
The velocity of particles in a lattice must be under the Lieb-R
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 a
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
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
harges 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: R
; 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
>
Correction-
... due to increase in opposite polarity in the central zone
Should be: ... due to increase in same polarity in the central zone
<>
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 C
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 s
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 gra
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
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 electron
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 potent
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 w
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
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 v
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 Schneid
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
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/okla
What three states?
Im thinking there could another factor not in evidence
From: ChemE Stewart
Any open minded guys here have any thoughts/ideas/theories on how the
installation of a Doppler microwave weather radar with the following specs
might trigger a ten-fold increase
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
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
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 t
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 cu
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
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.
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
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
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
attra
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 di
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 i
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
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:
> Ja
86 matches
Mail list logo
