On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:38 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> OK, I can use tennis balls just as easy to dig into the issue. > > I agree that a magnetic detector at rest with respect to the two > negatively charged tennis balls will not register a magnetic field. This > is as expected. > > I also agree that they will be repelled apart by an easily calculated > equation. Again, nothing unusual here. > > Yes, the moving observer will detect a varying magnetic field due to the > motion of the tennis balls and he can read that no field is seen by the > stationary magnetic field detector. This is certainly to be expected. > > Now I see an issue that we can discuss. It is not insane for one observer > to see a state of fields that is different from the second one. This is > always the case except in some very special conditions. > > Each and every observer will detect a different magnetic field even though > you seem to think this is not possible. On the contrary, I have stated that there are an infinite number of different magnetic fields of varying axis, strength and direction around every charged particle (erm, tennis ball) in various other reference frames. The field that one observer detects can be at odds with the field another observer detects. > They will all agree that the stationary detector tells them that there > is no field in that reference frame. > Good. yes. Before you seemed to be saying otherwise. > > That is an interesting way to put it regarding Schroedinger's field. But > you will find that this is exactly what is required in order to satisfy the > net forces seen between the moving objects. You have the electric field > pushing the like charged tennis balls apart and the magnetic field tending > to reduce that push. And we were going so well. The magnetic field does not reduce that push, since that magnetic field and any influences of it does not occur for the tennis balls. The magnetic field only reduces the push if you pair each negatively charged tennis ball up with a positively charged tennis ball that is moving relative the the negatively charged tennis balls. This is an accurate depiction of what happens in a wire. > At zero velocity, you have zero reduction in push. As the velocity > increases, the net amount of push continues to be reduced until it reaches > zero at the speed of light. > No it doesn't, because the negatively charged tennis balls occupy the same reference frame, so at 99.999% of the speed of light means nothing. They can be at 99.999% of the speed of light relative to some highly energetic cosmic ray, and in SR the cosmic rays reference frame is just as privileged at the lab's reference frame. the view that the cosmic ray is stationary and the lab is moving quickly through the cosmic rays space is just as valid as accelerating these tennis balls together with a supernaturally energetic serve. > > This is why electrical currents flowing in the same direction within two > wires are attracted to each other. No, it isn't. At least not in SR's view. The net static charge is zero due to the protons in the wire, but the > moving electrons generate an attractive magnetic force just as with tennis > balls. The electrons are moving relative to the protons, the the protons are moving relative to the electrons. But the electrons are all stationary relative to each other and produce no field that they can see, hence no attraction occurs if the protons are eliminated from this experiment. Not just because the 2 currents now have an electric force to overcome, but because they have nothing to react to. Of course the tennis balls do not have a matching positive charge that is > moving along with the observer to balance out the electric field effects. > This attraction was once used to calibrate currents by the force generated > between two wires. > > Think about what I have written since this is a good beginning for our > discussion. You might wish to change you opinion about the sanity of the > different observers making different determinations. If you can not make > that leap, then it is apparent that we will not be able to move forward > since I have great confidence in that conclusion. I have experienced > mental blocks of this nature before and sometimes it takes a lot of effort > to overcome them. I suspect that eventually you will accept that what I > have been saying it true. > I think you need to reconsider here. My question is this: Do you appreciate that the electrons moving in the wire should see the protons (net positive relative moving charge) in the other wire as moving past them, and hence making a magnetic field that they should feel an attractive force from? And if not, then why not? John > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 6:12 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law > > I completely agree, it needs to be a macro example. Not only for the > reasons you gave but because it is easier to be tricked when you are > dealing with something invisible, microscopic that is presumed to be moving > at incomprehensible velocities. > > If a negatively charged tennis ball is stationary relative to another > negatively charged tennis ball they will be repelled from another in a > presumably straightforwardly calculable manner from electrostatic repulsion. > > If a magnetic field detector is placed on the tennis balls they would > not measure any magnetic field that they would not detect in the tennis > balls absence. > > If an uncharged observer moves by them, the observer can see that the > magnetic field detector on the balls is not seeing a magnetic field, and > yet the observer can feel a magnetic field from the balls. > > It would be insane to propose that the read out on the detector could be > in one state for one observer and in another state for another. > > And there could be multiple observers, all expecting different results > to read on the detectors on the charged and mutually stationary tennis > balls. (different direction, axis and strength of the magnetic field). > > This is looking like Schroedinger's magnetic field. > > If however one observer was a positively charged tennis ball in motion > relative to the these negatively charged tennis balls, then the tennis > balls would feel forces and the magnetic field detector on the negative > tennis balls would finally react. > > The positively charged tennis ball is an accurate stand in for the > stationary protons in a wire. > > John > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It would be more meaningful if this discussion were move to tennis >> balls from electrons and magnetic fields. Electrons will be present in both >> frames through superposition. The electrons will have a chance to be in any >> frame you can think of and at the same time. When a measurement is made on >> the electron in one frame, it will vanish from all the others. Relativity >> is not meant to locate electrons, It is not the tool for localizing >> electrons, quantum mechanic is or better...quantum electrodynamics. >> >> Use the proper tool for the proper job. This Mills like discussion is >> not productive just like the results of this type of thinking. Use tennis >> balls... >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:26 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >> >> >
