Lorentz's own Law would **END** Einstein's RELATIVITY
gu...@hotmail.com
When two electrons travel at the same velocity "OR" on the SAME
platform with velocity "v", to them the velocity is zero thus "B"
above MUST EQUAL ZERO.
If in any experiment these two electrons exhibit the Lorentz Force
Law: F = q(E + v X B), then Einstein Relatvity would ****END****.
Instead, they must ONLY exhibit the force of repulsion which is: F=
qE, if the force measured is any less due to magnetic attraction then
Goodbye Relativity.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anything this important must have been tested, does anyone know about
it and can point to any relevant documents?
harry
<gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191497445.0...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>B = v X E/c^2
>
> When two electrons travel at the same velocity "OR" on the SAME
> platform with velocity "v", to them the velocity is zero thus "B"
> above MUST EQUAL ZERO.
>
> If in any experiment these two electrons exhibit the Lorentz Force
> Law: F = q(E + v X B), then Einstein Relatvity would ****END****.
>
>
> Instead, they must ONLY exhibit the force of repulsion which is: F=
> qE, if the force measured is any less due to magnetic attraction then
> Goodbye Relativity.
Congratulations for rediscovering an old paradox! In fact, Lorentz's laws
and Einstein's laws agree.
The solution: The electrons are indeed repelled by the electrostatic force.
Thus when they move together very fast (such as in a high energy electron
beam), they should - thanks to the magnetic attraction - accelerate sideways
more slowly than when in rest. I don't know if reliable tests exist that
demonstrate this. Anyway, this is all about appearances. In a co-moving
frame the clocks ("time") also go more slowly, so that in that frame it
appears that there is only static repulsion and the electrons accelerate
sideways as expected.
Cheers,
Harald
gu...@hotmail.com
> <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1191497445.0...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >B = v X E/c^2
>
> > When two electrons travel at the same velocity "OR" on the SAME
> > platform with velocity "v", to them the velocity is zero thus "B"
> > above MUST EQUAL ZERO.
>
> > If in any experiment these two electrons exhibit the Lorentz Force
> > Law: F = q(E + v X B), then Einstein Relatvity would ****END****.
>
> > Instead, they must ONLY exhibit the force of repulsion which is: F=
> > qE, if the force measured is any less due to magnetic attraction then
> > Goodbye Relativity.
>
> Congratulations for rediscovering an old paradox! In fact, Lorentz's laws
> and Einstein's laws agree.
> The solution: The electrons are indeed repelled by the electrostatic force.
> Thus when they move together very fast (such as in a high energy electron
> beam), they should - thanks to the magnetic attraction - accelerate sideways
> more slowly than when in rest.
You do NOT understand. There CANNOT be any MAGNETIC ATTRACTION even at
very slow velocities.
B = v X E/c^2.
To each other the electron observe no velocity therefore they must
have ZERO magnetism between each other.
The observation above is not an Einstein Relativity, it is a Galilean
Relativity.
But without Galilean Relativity, Einstein's Relativity also cannot
exist (the only difference is the additional Lorentz factor).
If magnetism occurs even at very slow velocities then it is the END of
Einstein's RELATIVITY and Galilean Relativity.
And possibly the birth of absolute spacetime.
harry
<gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191505222.0...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 4, 8:47 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote:
>> <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1191497445.0...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >B = v X E/c^2
>>
>> > When two electrons travel at the same velocity "OR" on the SAME
>> > platform with velocity "v", to them the velocity is zero thus "B"
>> > above MUST EQUAL ZERO.
>>
>> > If in any experiment these two electrons exhibit the Lorentz Force
>> > Law: F = q(E + v X B), then Einstein Relatvity would ****END****.
>>
>> > Instead, they must ONLY exhibit the force of repulsion which is: F=
>> > qE, if the force measured is any less due to magnetic attraction then
>> > Goodbye Relativity.
>>
>> Congratulations for rediscovering an old paradox! In fact, Lorentz's laws
>> and Einstein's laws agree.
>> The solution: The electrons are indeed repelled by the electrostatic
>> force.
>> Thus when they move together very fast (such as in a high energy electron
>> beam), they should - thanks to the magnetic attraction - accelerate
>> sideways
>> more slowly than when in rest.
>
> You do NOT understand. There CANNOT be any MAGNETIC ATTRACTION even at
> very slow velocities.
I implied here below that there can be (as everyone knows!) no magnetic
attraction when both electrons have zero speed. Now clear?
> B = v X E/c^2.
>
> To each other the electron observe no velocity therefore they must
> have ZERO magnetism between each other.
That's what I wrote here below - just read it again. ;-)
Harald
jcon
> B = v X E/c^2
>
> When two electrons travel at the same velocity "OR" on the SAME
> platform with velocity "v", to them the velocity is zero thus "B"
> above MUST EQUAL ZERO.
>
> If in any experiment these two electrons exhibit the Lorentz Force
> Law: F = q(E + v X B), then Einstein Relatvity would ****END****.
>
E and B are frame dependent. See, eg, Jackson,
or any E&M book book for that matter. Generally, if
you consider the frame where the two electrons
are at rest relative to each other, they
experience only electrostatic repulsion, and
would fly apart.
On the other hand, if you examine the same system
in a different frame where the electrons are moving
with the same parallel velocities, then the
electrostatic repulsive force is *partially*
canceled by an attractive magnetic force, and
they fly apart more slowly.
You of course get the same answer if you solve it
in the rest frame and transform it into the frame in
which they are moving, taking into account time dilation.
In the limit where the electrons are moving very
close to the speed of light, the magnetic force
~exactly cancels the electric force, and the time dilation
factor goes to infinity. Again, same answer.
> Instead, they must ONLY exhibit the force of repulsion which is: F=
> qE, if the force measured is any less due to magnetic attraction then
> Goodbye Relativity.
>
No, actually it means you need relativity.
In your example, without magnetism, you'd get a different
answer solving the same problem in the lab or solving
it in the frame of the electrons and transforming it.
In fact,
Purcell's introductory E&M text starts with electrostatics
and relativity and proves that you *have* to have the
magnetic force.
You should consider reading it - or reading any book for
that matter.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Anything this important must have been tested, does anyone know about
> it and can point to any relevant documents?
It's tested every day in particle accelerators all over
the world. If it weren't for magnetic forces canceling
electrostatic repulsion (or, equivalently, time dilation
between the bunch frame and the lab frame), particle
bunches would not stay together for more than a few
microseconds at most. Google "space charge effects".
As for documents, have you considered the occasional
textbook? You spend a lot of time discussing hundred
year old topics.
-jc
Igor
You do understand that the above quantity must vanish entirely in
Galilean relativity? You probably don't.
> But without Galilean Relativity, Einstein's Relativity also cannot
> exist (the only difference is the additional Lorentz factor).
You're just babbling incoherently. The Lorentz force components
transform as a vector under Lorentz transformations.
> If magnetism occurs even at very slow velocities then it is the END of
> Einstein's RELATIVITY and Galilean Relativity.
The jokes on you. Magnetism cannot even exist in Galilean relativity.
gu...@hotmail.com
>
Hey stupid dummy, if you could even read the very few sentences I
wrote, that is EXACTLY what I said.
What an idiot and a-hole.
gu...@hotmail.com
>
No but what r u a complete imbecile, if it doesn't exist in Galilean
relativity then it definately cannot exist in Einstein relativity. Get
your head examined.
Hey dummy show me an example where it doesn't exist in Galilean but
does exist in Einstein's relativity and EXPLAIN why. Impossible what
an idiot.
No but did the doctor overslap you when u were born.
gu...@hotmail.com
> On Oct 4, 6:30 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > B = v X E/c^2
>
> > When two electrons travel at the same velocity "OR" on the SAME
> > platform with velocity "v", to them the velocity is zero thus "B"
> > above MUST EQUAL ZERO.
>
> > If in any experiment these two electrons exhibit the Lorentz Force
> > Law: F = q(E + v X B), then Einstein Relatvity would ****END****.
>
> E and B are frame dependent. See, eg, Jackson,
> or any E&M book book for that matter. Generally, if
> you consider the frame where the two electrons
> are at rest relative to each other, they
> experience only electrostatic repulsion, and
> would fly apart.
>
> On the other hand, if you examine the same system
> in a different frame where the electrons are moving
> with the same parallel velocities, then the
> electrostatic repulsive force is *partially*
> canceled by an attractive magnetic force, and
> they fly apart more slowly.
>
> You of course get the same answer if you solve it
> in the rest frame and transform it into the frame in
> which they are moving, taking into account time dilation.
>
reference frame instead of Einstein's.
The Galilean rest frame will notice a distance change due to magnetism
but the Galilean moving frame will not.
And they are both Galilean because we are solely using the equation F
= q(E + v X B) = qE(1 + v^2/c^2) to determine the distance in BOTH
FRAMES.
You cannot add time dilation until the Lorentz gamma factor is
introduced which is a different equation.
As well the distance above is perpendicular to the velocity, no length
contraction can occur.
And as well time dilation is proportional to gamma which is "sqrt (1 -
v^2/c^2)" where as above the equation is proportional to "v^2/c^2",
thus time dilation will not incorporate this discrepency, nor will
length contraction (because it's perpendicular to the motion, as
mentioned above).
> microseconds at most. Google "space charge effects".
>
no where do they mention magnetic interaction.
gu...@hotmail.com
You said time also moves more slowly, no not yet for this equation is
a Galilean Relativity equation, only after you add the Lorentz gamma
factor, does time dilation take effect on the measruments but not in
Galilean reference frames.
Example: I'm on a train, you throw ball same velocity as train.
#1. I notice no distance change between ball and train.
#2. ***YOU*** notice no distance change between ball and train both
forward and perpendicular
But in case of F = q(E + v X B) = qE (1 +v^2/c^2)
#1 is the same as #1 above = no distance change between the electrons.
#2 ***You*** notice a distance change between the electrons (forward
the same but NOT perpendicular).
>
>
> > The observation above is not an Einstein Relativity, it is a Galilean
> > Relativity.
>
> > But without Galilean Relativity, Einstein's Relativity also cannot
> > exist (the only difference is the additional Lorentz factor).
>
> > If magnetism occurs even at very slow velocities then it is the END of
> > Einstein's RELATIVITY and Galilean Relativity.
>
> > And possibly the birth of absolute spacetime.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
gu...@hotmail.com
Many are making reference frame mistakes.
The correlation between observations for F = q(E + v X B) is NOT a
LORENTZ GAMMA FACTOR that's a different equation.
Example:
E1= Mc^2 versus E2 = gamma Mc^2
One observer sees E1 the 2nd sees E2.
but for F = q(E + v X B) there is two different observations
MEASUREMENTS ****but without the USE of the gamma factor**** thus
making it a Galilean relativistic observation and NOT an Einstein
relativistic observation.
For Einstein's relativity to remain true, the electrons must not have
any magnetic attraction at any velocity. Thus the v above would have
to change to delta_v between the electrons instead of between the
electron and the observer.
---------------------
---------------------
-----------------------
And for the above to concure, a definite experiment must prove there
is no magnetic attraction at both small and high velocitites and/or
the magnetic attraction is based on the difference of velocity between
the two electrons if both are not the same (so as one approaches the
other, the deflectiond distance is measured versus the velocity
difference between both electrons).
jcon
No, I was analyzing it correctly. Having a PhD in physics
and working with particle accelerators for a living
gives me some degree of confidence.
> The Galilean rest frame will notice a distance change due to magnetism
> but the Galilean moving frame will not.
> And they are both Galilean because we are solely using the equation F
> = q(E + v X B) = qE(1 + v^2/c^2) to determine the distance in BOTH
> FRAMES.
>
It looks like you got the dimensions right, which is
pretty good for around here, but except for that,
it's just a made up equation.
> You cannot add time dilation until the Lorentz gamma factor is
> introduced which is a different equation.
>
> As well the distance above is perpendicular to the velocity, no length
> contraction can occur.
>
> And as well time dilation is proportional to gamma which is "sqrt (1 -
> v^2/c^2)" where as above the equation is proportional to "v^2/c^2",
> thus time dilation will not incorporate this discrepency, nor will
> length contraction (because it's perpendicular to the motion, as
> mentioned above).
>
There's no nicer way to say this than that you're just
totally confused. Have you considered that textbook
suggestion I've given you?
> > microseconds at most. Google "space charge effects".
>
> no where do they mention magnetic interaction.
Jeeezus! Do I have to do everything for you? Try here:
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/~dugan/USPAS/Lect20.pdf
Please either learn something of find a hobby you
can understand.
-jc
Randy Poe
> Jeeezus! Do I have to do everything for you? Try here:http://www.lns.cornell.edu/~dugan/USPAS/Lect20.pdf
>
> Please either learn something of find a hobby you
> can understand.
>
Too late, he's gone. Started a new thread,
with your name in the subject line.
- Randy
gu...@hotmail.com
I love this guy!
harry
Sorry but that is too garbled for me to understand. "Galilean frames"
are simply inertial frames.
> Example: I'm on a train, you throw ball same velocity as train.
>
> #1. I notice no distance change between ball and train.
> #2. ***YOU*** notice no distance change between ball and train both
> forward and perpendicular
Sure - when acceleration a is 0, also k*a = 0. Nothing can be learnt
from that.
> But in case of F = q(E + v X B) = qE (1 +v^2/c^2)
No that is erroneous.
> #1 is the same as #1 above = no distance change between the electrons.
No that is erroneous - there ALWAYS is acceleration.
> #2 ***You*** notice a distance change between the electrons (forward
> the same but NOT perpendicular).
Yes. EVERYONE notices a distance change.
> > > The observation above is not an Einstein Relativity, it is a Galilean
> > > Relativity.
It is neither.
Please go to the library and borrow a good textbook - such as by
Feynman.
Harald
gu...@hotmail.com
Galilean relativisitic frames are the exact same as Einstein
relavitivistic frames with only one single exception which is Lorentz
gamma factor is not used.
> > Example: I'm on a train, you throw ball same velocity as train.
>
> > #1. I notice no distance change between ball and train.
> > #2. ***YOU*** notice no distance change between ball and train both
> > forward and perpendicular
>
> Sure - when acceleration a is 0, also k*a = 0. Nothing can be learnt
> from that.
>
> > But in case of F = q(E + v X B) = qE (1 +v^2/c^2)
>
> No that is erroneous.
>
Are you drunk, that is only the equation for Lorentz force law, there
is no error you can comment on yet.
> > #1 is the same as #1 above = no distance change between the electrons.
>
> No that is erroneous - there ALWAYS is acceleration.
>
Poor Harry, a person moving at the same speed as the electrons (thus
the electrons have no velocity to him) will not observe any magnetic
field thus no distance change in terms of magnetism (only due to
repulsion). Thus to him F= qE only.
> > #2 ***You*** notice a distance change between the electrons (forward
> > the same but NOT perpendicular).
>
> Yes. EVERYONE notices a distance change.
NOOOOO not due to magnetism (due to repulsion only).
>
> > > > The observation above is not an Einstein Relativity, it is a Galilean
> > > > Relativity.
>
You need to use your head a little to understand and concentrate
otherwise you will simply and ignorantly complain that there's a
distance change due to repulsion.
Igor
No, that's not even remotely close to what you said. You asserted
that the vanishing B field ends Einsteinian relativity, while I just
reminded you that it only points out the limitations of Galilean
relativity. Einsteinian relativity deals with vanishing B fields just
fine. But if you had any clue about the subject, you would have
already known that. Good luck on your clueless trolling.
harry
<gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191664097....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 5, 2:21 pm, harry <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 12:32 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
That still doesn't ungarble what you said. If you'd put down a derivation or
calculation example, there would be something to discuss.
>> > Example: I'm on a train, you throw ball same velocity as train.
>>
>> > #1. I notice no distance change between ball and train.
>> > #2. ***YOU*** notice no distance change between ball and train both
>> > forward and perpendicular
>>
>> Sure - when acceleration a is 0, also k*a = 0. Nothing can be learnt
>> from that.
>>
>> > But in case of F = q(E + v X B) = qE (1 +v^2/c^2)
>>
>> No that is erroneous.
>
> Are you drunk, that is only the equation for Lorentz force law, there
> is no error you can comment on yet.
Sure I can. Here's one: F <= qE.
>> > #1 is the same as #1 above = no distance change between the electrons.
>>
>> No that is erroneous - there ALWAYS is acceleration.
>
> Poor Harry, a person moving at the same speed as the electrons (thus
> the electrons have no velocity to him) will not observe any magnetic
> field thus no distance change in terms of magnetism (only due to
> repulsion). Thus to him F= qE only.
Try again: F = m * dv/dt =~ m * a. What do you think a stands for? ;-)
>> > #2 ***You*** notice a distance change between the electrons (forward
>> > the same but NOT perpendicular).
>>
>> Yes. EVERYONE notices a distance change.
>
> NOOOOO not due to magnetism (due to repulsion only).
Sure. Now try to MEASURE the difference in acceleration due to the one or
due to the other. ;-)
>> > > > The observation above is not an Einstein Relativity, it is a
>> > > > Galilean
>> > > > Relativity.
>
> You need to use your head a little to understand and concentrate
> otherwise you will simply and ignorantly complain that there's a
> distance change due to repulsion.
See above: it's the KEY to understanding it. Ignoring that fact won't bring
you anywhere.
>> > > > But without Galilean Relativity, Einstein's Relativity also cannot
>> > > > exist (the only difference is the additional Lorentz factor).
>>
>> > > > If magnetism occurs even at very slow velocities then it is the END
>> > > > of
>> > > > Einstein's RELATIVITY and Galilean Relativity.
>>
Please look up a textbook, and work out the correct calculations - if you
can.
Success!
Harald
gu...@hotmail.com
Error. ur trying to combine the deviations (distance change) together
where as they can ***ALSO BE COMPLETELY SEPERATE****.
**************
Excluding gravity, example of electric and magnetic forces below:
#1. Observation#1: Determine relativistic distance change over dilated
time only due to the ELECTRIC FORCE. Thus after "t" time interval,
"Delta_x" difference in distance change observed due to only electric
force equation.
(where Delta_x = Distance change in moving frame due to electric
repulsion - distance change in rest frame due to electric repulsion).
******* MOST IMPORTANT ********
#2. Observation#2: Same time interval "t" and for very very low
velocity (say 100km/hour) F = qvX B still holds true otherwise the
equation is useless (example: E= 1/2mv^2 is true for low velocities
otherwise why would they write down the equation if it never applies
to any observation).
Thus the "slow" moving frame observer NEVER notices any deviation due
to a magnetic force NO MATTER WHAT TIME INTERVAL HAS PAST.
BUT the rest frame observer notices an infinite deviation as the TIME
INTERVAL becomes infinately substantial.
Say time = 1 trillion years, "slow" moving frame observer still
notices ZERO distance deviation due to magnetic force
(ZERO MEANS ZERO: F = (q)zero X B)
but the same is not for the "rest" frame observer who using F= qv X B,
where F does not equal zero will observe a substantial distance
change, the more the clock keeps ticking.
TICK TOCK TICK TOCK TICK TOCK: 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 +...+ n_infinti = 0
distance deviation, where as .0000000000001+...+ n_infinti =
substantial deviation.
gu...@hotmail.com
> The jokes on you. Magnetism cannot even exist in Galilean relativity.-
NOTE AAA:
E= 1/2 mv^2 is an accurate observation for slow velocities, Lorentz
factor not needed.
F= qv X B is accurate also for some velocities since it corresponds
with observation.
------------------------
Some hope distance change due to electric force will include distance
change due to magnetic force = incorrect; both equations can be
isolated.
Using very slow velocity, say v = 100 km/hr.
After "t" time interval, moving frame observer will calculate distance
change due to electric repulsion force and rest frame observer will
calculate distance change due to electric repulsion force. TIME
DILATION between frames is included in the measurements (no length
contraction because distance is perpendicular to velocity).
But after a trillion years F = q(0) X B = 0 thus zero distance change
due to magnetic force in moving frame observation, where as
substantial distance change due to magnetic attraction in rest frame
observation where F= qV X B still holds true for slow velocities. (SEE
NOTE AAA above)
Igor
Nobody is saying that it doesn't exist for slow velocities. What I
was saying is that B cannot exist at all in a purely Newtonian world,
since c goes to infinity. The very existence of B implies that
Einstein's relativity is correct and that Newtonian physics has
drastic limitations. But then, if you actually understood physics the
way you claim you do, you wouldn't spend days and days debating such a
trivial point.
gu...@hotmail.com
Well then that nobody is stupid, because that nobody says it is true
for slow velocities yet that nobody CANNOT COMPUTE IN HIS BRAINS WHY
it DOES NOT COME TRUE in observation for SLOW VELOCITIES.
Let nobody "clearly" explain why (CASE #1) observation does not match
with equation at SLOW VELOCITIES, where as (CASE #2) E=1/2mv^2 does
match with observation at slow velocities.
USING this same nobody's answer which was snipped then CASE#2 should
ALSO not match with observation. Does nobody wish the truth or to deny
the truth by giving another run-around explanation to the difference
between case#1 & case#2.
Igor
I just hope you don't drive the same way you think and post.
gu...@hotmail.com
In brief, the equation should at least be valid for small velocities
(as is with 1/2mv^2) where as it is not.
Even at a slow velocity, the Moving frame observer will see no
distance change DUE to the magnetic force even after a million years,
where as the Rest frame observer according to the same equation will
notice a LARGE distance change after a million years.
And time dilation cannot prove a factor because it only affects the
rate of change where as the net change remains zero at any time
interval for the moving observer.
----------------------------
You have problems with reference frames as you claimed to Tom Roberts
that E must equal zero at some reference frame where as he told
you.................no. If you do the same to the above then your
conclusion will also be false.
Igor
You still don't have a clue. He was talking SR. I was talking GR.
And as usual, you prove you understand very little about physics. The
header on this post proves it right from the start.
gu...@hotmail.com
>
You explained yourself to Tom Roberts afterwards, and he still told
you......no.
Igor
And you're hardly qualified to understand what he or I have ever
said. Period. If you had any understanding at all, neither he nor I
would have ever addressed you in first place, since you would never
have posted your nonsense. So enough of you ignorance.
gu...@hotmail.com
Nice way of turning things around. When Tom Roberts says "NO" to "YOU"
it means "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND".
P.E.R.I.O.D.
gu...@hotmail.com
You were contradicting what I wrote DUMMY by your stupid E=0 and then
Tom Roberts told you ....NO.
Such stupidity, it's all Doctor Frank-Einstein's fault when he gave
Igor his brains.
Igor
Just more proof that you have no clue what either one of us is
actually talking about.
Come back when you learn some real physics.
gu...@hotmail.com
I ain't playing I know you are but what am I with you. What I said
above stands.