On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:56 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> It is obvious that we will not be able to make any headway in this > discussion. Apparently we do not agree upon basic measurements that any > lab can make so for now there is no reason to continue. > I thought we were about to make headway. Please let me ask you again this very simple question. If you have either: 2 parallel wires carrying a DC current in the same direction, or: An analogue of this with moving negatively charged tennis balls in a pipe with an equal density of positively charged tennis balls fixed along the pipe. In both cases there is no net charge. So if you were moving with the electrons/neg-balls, would you see a magnetic field from the protons/pos-balls in the other wire/pipe? Since those protons are moving relative to your reference frame? And if the electrons/balls moving with you did see such a protonic B-field would they not be attracted from cutting through it like that? Maybe if we work on one point at a time we can get somewhere. John > Perhaps later we can pick up where we are leaving off. It does neither of > us any good to beat a dead horse. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 9:20 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:38 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>wrote: > >> OK, I can use tennis balls just as easy to dig into the issue. >> >> I agree that a magnetic detector at rest with respect to the two >> negatively charged tennis balls will not register a magnetic field. This >> is as expected. >> >> I also agree that they will be repelled apart by an easily calculated >> equation. Again, nothing unusual here. >> >> Yes, the moving observer will detect a varying magnetic field due to the >> motion of the tennis balls and he can read that no field is seen by the >> stationary magnetic field detector. This is certainly to be expected. >> >> Now I see an issue that we can discuss. It is not insane for one >> observer to see a state of fields that is different from the second one. >> This is always the case except in some very special conditions. >> >> Each and every observer will detect a different magnetic field even >> though you seem to think this is not possible. > > > On the contrary, I have stated that there are an infinite number of > different magnetic fields of varying axis, strength and direction around > every charged particle (erm, tennis ball) in various other reference frames. > > The field that one observer detects can be at odds with the field > another observer detects. > > >> They will all agree that the stationary detector tells them that there >> is no field in that reference frame. >> > > Good. yes. Before you seemed to be saying otherwise. > >> >> That is an interesting way to put it regarding Schroedinger's field. But >> you will find that this is exactly what is required in order to satisfy the >> net forces seen between the moving objects. You have the electric field >> pushing the like charged tennis balls apart and the magnetic field tending >> to reduce that push. > > > And we were going so well. > The magnetic field does not reduce that push, since that magnetic field > and any influences of it does not occur for the tennis balls. > > The magnetic field only reduces the push if you pair each negatively > charged tennis ball up with a positively charged tennis ball that is moving > relative the the negatively charged tennis balls. > > This is an accurate depiction of what happens in a wire. > > >> At zero velocity, you have zero reduction in push. As the velocity >> increases, the net amount of push continues to be reduced until it reaches >> zero at the speed of light. >> > > No it doesn't, because the negatively charged tennis balls occupy the > same reference frame, so at 99.999% 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 >>>> >>> >>> >> >
