On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:16 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> Slow down a bit John. You get way ahead of yourself and it is too > painful for me to attempt to explain the SR side of the issue without some > agreements. I will attempt to answer a few of your questions, but why not > narrow the field to make my task easier? Why write a book when a paragraph > can explain your point? > I tried that, you didn't seem to ge the point. > > For instance, it should be easy for us to state a position about the > magnetic field generated by a moving particle. My position is that as far as I know, and as far as SR is concerned (however incorrect ultimately) is that there is no magnetic force between 2 charged objects that are occupying the same reference frame. And that no reference frame that does see a magnetic field from them will see any effect on these charges from the field they appear to possess in this other frame. In other words, 2 negatively charged objects (tennis balls, and generally electrons too) moving together (in the same reference frame) will not experience any force or be seen to experience any force even in reference frames that detect a magnetic field from them. Is that not a clear enough position? I say it does and I really can not quite pin down whether or not you > agree. Begin there and we can move forward. > > You clearly are not stating my position correctly when you say that I > expect the electrons to come together in the two electron example. All I > have been saying is that the magnetic force calculated by a person > occupying a moving observation frame relative to the electron pairs is > opposite in direction to the normally expected electric repulsion. Yes, that is obvious. The question is what effect does our observation of such a field do to something not in the same reference frame, and what is it seen to do. We can at any rate remove the repulsion, either by calculation or by placing the 2 negative charged objects in a positively charged channel (a wire) so the direct electric forces is nullified. You are neglecting the larger push due to the electric repulsion that > wins the fight for any value of velocity lower than light speed. Which is all speeds it can possibly attain according to SR. And no, I am not ignoring that, as I said, this force can be negated by having a net zero charge over different reference frames as happens with a wire. And yet the electrons in the wire ARE effected by the magnetic field from the other wire (protonic), they cram to one side of the wire, this is the cause of hall effect and hall voltage generated across a wire carrying a current in a magnetic field. > Please read that again. > > Your examples of how my theory affects the electron pair are entirely off > base. Slow down and give what I have been saying adequate consideration > before you jump so far off the track. > You still have not answered the main question which is why equipment in my > lab can not be used to observe the effects of fields that I measure upon > moving charged particles? Do you insist that equipment can not be used > for this purpose? This is a simple question and you should be able to > construct a simple answer. > I must have missed this question, maybe it went to the spam folder. Please clarify. > Lets build from this very simple position forward. If you are unable to > limit the discussion in a sensible manner then I see little reason to > proceed since you will be doing an enormous amount of writing that may or > may not be pertinent to the discussion. There will be plenty of time to > discuss other issues as they arise out of a common understanding. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 5:26 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:43 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>wrote: > >> John, >> >> Let's think about the magnetic field analysis first since that is >> relatively easy to visualize. First, I think that we are in agreement that >> a magnetic field generated as a consequence of the motion of a charged >> particle is really just another view of the electric field associated with >> that particle. One could continue to change his reference frame and obtain >> an infinite number of combinations of magnetic fields for this single >> charge case. The calculated and measured magnetic field is zero for the >> case of an observer that is at rest relative to the charge. Any other >> frame that is moving relative to the charge will always be able to measure >> a magnetic field. The field is very real and can be both calculated and >> measured. >> > > Agreed, at least according to SR which I would argue isn't and can't be > true. > But a dragged aether version (really the only other reasonable > possibility) of this has no certain answers, just a lot of questions. > > From here n these arguments will be from an SR POV, even though it is > incorrect. > > >> Now, if I measure a magnetic field in my laboratory induced by a moving >> electron, then it is real to me. It does not matter to me whether or not a >> second electron is moving at the same speed as the first one. If a second >> one is moving through the field that I measure associated with the first >> one, then it must be affected by that field according to my instruments. > > > Here is where I would disagree. > > Your instruments only measure if there is a magnetic field in their > reference frame. > It is the same as me zooming by you on a motor cycle, and because there is > wind in my hair I expect to see wind in your hair. > > Only I won't see wind in your hair since you have no relative velocity > relative to the air. > > If what you observed somehow had to be true then yu would expect the > electrons to approach each other, and the electrons would expect to fly > apart. > So now you have electrons getting further apart in their reality, closer > together in your reality. > > And this isn't even a possibility considered by SR, there is length > contraction, but not width contraction. > > According to yet another reference frame they should be even more > powerfully squeezed together. > > Consider that if you rotate a magnet your instruments will see a voltage > field, but if you are rotating with the magnet there is no voltage induce > as there is no relative motion. > > You would not expect the voltage you see in your reference frame to be > reflected in another frame with different or no motion relative to the > magnetic field. > > If you up size this experiment to a car charged negatively with a > compass mounted on it and another in your hand, you would expect the > compass or any magnetometer in your possession to see a magnetic field as > the charged car speeds by you. > > But would you expect the compass in the car to feel the magnetic field > created by the speeding car, since there is no relative motion? > > Of course not, it would be impossible according to SR. > > And if you are standing on the road side, do you expect to see the > compass in the car reacting to the magnetic field when you know those in > the car do not see it react? > > If you are in another car going in the same direction as the charged > car, just faster (overtaking), you would see a magnetic field with the > opposite polarity to the road side observer. > > Now you need the compass in the car to be doing 3 things at once, > pointing in no direction in particular in the car, pointing up to the road > side observer, and down for the overtaking car. > > Just because you see the field does not mean that those you see must be > seen to you to react to the field as you expect if they do not see it or > see it differently. > > > Do you currently believe that the second electron will not be >> deflected by fields that I measure in my lab? > > > Do you mean in practice or in theory if SR was correct? > > In practice I have no idea, it would be up for debate. And might be > different for electrons in a lab .vs a macro scale experiment. > > If SR is correct (impossible) then the second electron would be > unaffected by the magnetic field you measure, no question. > > That would violate all the rules of physics. >> > > No, it wouldn't. > > Make a macro example with something else that exists with relative > motion. > > >> >> You need to consider that each observer will make different >> observations. This does not in any way change what happens to the >> electrons in the reference frame where they are at rest. They are not >> affected at all by anyone else's motion provided the observer does not >> carry matter along with him that generates fields as seen by the electrons. >> > > The problem is that you end up in a situation of dual reality. > It is possible to have something be seen by one reference frame and not > another. > But it is not possible to have the reference frame in which it is seen see > reference frames in which it is not seen react to something when it is not > seen in that frame. > > And it goes both ways, consider that the electrons speeding through a > wire do not see the magnetic field they create (in SR). > So in your view they would demand not to see the lab frame react to the > magnetic field that they aren't creating, if they are effecting a compass > or iron fillings, in your view this would be against their expectations of > reality since there is no magnetic field that they can see for that to > happen. > > >> I have been discussing what alternate observers would view and not what >> happens to the electrons directly. > > > They can't observe something that doesn't occur. > The electrons can't move apart in their own frame and together in the lab > frame. > > >> 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. >> > > Not only is time dilation provably impossible without a preferred > reference frame as I pointed out in the other thread. > But you have to realize that you are going far beyond just time dilation > and length contraction now into completely dissimilar realities. > > Realities where vastly different things take place. > > You might be able to keep this twisted thinking up while you are > imagining electrons speeding past, but you can't retain this > non-nonsensical view if you scale it up. > > >> 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. > > > In SR, the reason the wires attract each other is not because the > electrons see a magnetic field from the electrons in the other wire. > It is because the electrons in each wire see protons that appear to be > moving to them. > > Imagine you are in one of the wires moving with the electrons, as you > look to your side you see electrons in the other wire that are moving with > you, they are stationary to you like traffic going in the same direction. > > But you also see there are protons that are not moving with you, they > are moving past you generating a magnetic field that you can feel. > And yes there are some electrons that appear to be moving past you, but > there are many more protons that are moving past you. > > That is according to SR, and may still be true in an aetheric view. > > Now there is an issue that you may note, if you had just moving > electrons and no wire, then the attraction from magnetic forces would not > be expected (in SR anyway). > > >> 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. >> > > Ok, but a wire is Neutral, except the negative charges move the the > positive ones don't. > This means that when there is a current in a wire, there are more protons > occupying the stationary reference frame than electrons. > > If you are moving relative to this wire with more stationary protons > than electrons you will see a magnetic field produced from these protons. > If you are not moving relative to the drifting electrons you will not see a > magnetic field from them since there is no relative motion. > > But the magnetic field from electrons passing one direction looks > identical to the magnetic field from protons passing the other direction. > > >> 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 say yes. > Otherwise would be moving deeply into unreality as entirely different > scenarios play out. > > >> 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. >> > > None of this is supported by SR, or logic. > > I don't like SR, I can prove SR wrong, but you are misapplying it making > it look sillier than even it deserved to be. > The R is SR means that there are no preferred reference frames, it means > that the electrons in one wire do not see electrons they are moving with to > create a field, they see the protons they in relative motion with to be > making a magnetic field. > > Let me ask you this, if you think that the electrons in one wire are > feeling the magnetic field from the electrons they have no relative > velocity to, then would they not also feel the magnetic field from the fact > that more protons are moving relative to them that electrons? > > Now they should be reacting to twice the magnetic field! > > I think you have simply tried to understand how two wire are attracted > to each other, and failed to consider that the protons are creating a > magnetic field from the electrons POV. > > This has lead you to some reality bending thoughts. please think on this > proton point more. > > John >
