Magnetism is a false or fictatious force.
gu...@hotmail.com
Therefore electrons, particles or objects of the same velocity (rest
mass) feel no magnetic force between each other.
An observer of a different platform will observe a magnetic field
where as an observer moving at the same velocity will observe no
magnetic field.
Tom Roberts
Yes. Both E and B are merely components of an underlying electromagnetic
force, which is real (in the sense of being a valid model of some
physical phenomenon). Separating the EM force into E and B is coordinate
dependent, and as I keep saying, no coordinate-dependent quantity can be
a valid model of any physical phenomenon.
This is, however, a different situation that that of the truly
fictitious forces, like "centrifugal or Coriolis force" -- they are
PURELY coordinate dependent, while the EM force underlying E and B is
"real".
Tom Roberts
gu...@hotmail.com
Correct but B is not in the same league as E. Excluding the Lorentz
factor, E remains constant where as B is strictly a phenomena related
to a difference of velocity, the bigger the difference then the bigger
B.
At zero difference of velocity B = 0 where as E = E.
Eric Gisse
<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>gu...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> B = v X E/c^2
>> Therefore electrons, particles or objects of the same velocity (rest
>> mass) feel no magnetic force between each other.
>> An observer of a different platform will observe a magnetic field
>> where as an observer moving at the same velocity will observe no
>> magnetic field.
>
>Yes. Both E and B are merely components of an underlying electromagnetic
>force, which is real (in the sense of being a valid model of some
>physical phenomenon). Separating the EM force into E and B is coordinate
>dependent, and as I keep saying, no coordinate-dependent quantity can be
>a valid model of any physical phenomenon.
NO.
He is not prepared to understand the field tensor. Don't even hint at
it - he cannot even grasp the Lorentz force.
gu...@hotmail.com
Erica should note that "every" time she's gone into detail with her
objections I've always corrected her and highlighted her mistakes. no
coincidence.
Proper time is invariant. Temperature is invariant. Tensors are used
for the spacetime manifold. You are my protege, i'm NOT yours.
Igor
Apparently you don't understand the difference between field and
force. It doesn't matter that the magnetic field can be made to
vanish in a particular frame. A truly fictitious force is a force
that can be found to vanish in some particular frame. So the question
is whether you can find a transformation that makes a non-trivial
Lorentz force vanish. This cannot be done.
Igor
What about transformations that make E vanish but not B?
And sorry about the serious brain cramp that this question must be
giving you.
Tom Roberts
> What about transformations that make E vanish but not B?
In general, it is not possible to find a frame in which E vanishes, if E
is nonzero in some inertial frame. In general the same is true about B
[#]. The difference is: for a single point charge moving inertially, one
can find an inertial frame in which B=0 everywhere; there is no
corresponding frame for E.
[#] just consider two charges moving differently; one cannot
make both of them be at rest.
Tom Roberts
adoptee
thank you pointing this out, that this igor is an
extremly stoopid troll moron, not even knowing,
as guskz also correctly sensed, that it is a
fundamentally huge difference between B and E
adoptee
actually fool, lorentz force is not a force or any force
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:a3bNi.11272$JD....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
: Igor wrote:
: > What about transformations that make E vanish but not B?
:
: In general, it is not possible to find a frame in which E vanishes
Fucking idiot.
gu...@hotmail.com
Myabe he thinks that when two charges are null then E = 0 which is
false because the Electric force *between them* is not null.
gu...@hotmail.com
You do not understand the difference between Galilean relativity
reference frame (no time dilation is yet added) and Einstein
relativity reference frame.
Igor
Well, actually I wasn't referring to an inertial frame. Surely it
must be possible to construct a general spacetime transformation that
leaves E = 0 but not B.
Androcles
"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1191614238.9...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
You cannot get pearls of wisdom from swine. Roberts is clueless.
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.
John Kennaugh
Perhaps we should start with charge. Is charge 'real' by your somewhat
arbitrary definition of 'real'. I rather assume so and I assume also
that you would describe the force of attraction between two like charged
particles (or objects) as also 'real'. At this point there is a problem
in that in classic electrodynamics as per Maxwell that force was the
result of stress in the aether, (stress in the aether = electrostatic
field) caused by charge.
Accepting that the aether is not something you would consider 'real'
then clearly an 'electrostatic field' cannot be a 'real' stress in that
unreal 'aether'.
Is it a case of pragmatism whereby having got rid of the aether on which
it depended, physics decided to keep those properties of the aether it
found useful namely the physical concept of 'field' or has the
understanding of what an 'electrostatic field' *is* changed.
Our ancestors saw the action-at-a-distance attraction of magnets and
charged objects as something strange defying the known laws of nature
and therefore requiring explanation - hence the origin of the aether. We
now know that the laws of nature show these phenomena to be in no way
strange or unusual. We know that all force ultimately acts at-a-distance
and the very fabric of our physical world is stitched together by
action-at-a-distance forces. It could be argued therefore that contrary
to our instincts action at a distance force requires no explanation and
has to be assumed to be axiomatic. If one takes this view however then
an 'electrostatic field' ceases to be 'real' in the physical sense but
rather metaphysical in that it is a 'field of influence' of natural
action at a distance forces and cannot exist without the presence of a
charge.
Another alternative is that a field is real physical 'stuff' of some
sort but it is hard to see how that fundamentally differs from the
concept of the aether. i.e. the aether is the sum total of the real
physical stuff which we call fields. Remembering that Einstein believed
that the only thing wrong with the classic view of the aether was
ascribing to it a unique FoR.
As Scott Murray put it you do not solve anything by renaming the aether
"fields" or as Silagadze says "According to our modern perspective, the
quantum vacuum is seething with activity of creating and destroying
virtual quanta of various fields if probed locally. Therefore,
it is much more like to aether than to empty space".
Yet another possibility is that the force is transferred by streams of
magic messenger particles - a digital version of the aether and equally
undetectable but something a politically correct modern physicists is
allowed to believe in while belief in the aether, or the use of the
'aether' word is taboo.
Personally I think physics went off the rails 100 years ago and took a
further leap into absurdity with the Copenhagen school. I see the
increasing complexity of modern physics as showing that to be the case.
My money is on space being empty, the seething quantum vacuum a myth and
the idea of the aether being rightly ditched but properly ditched rather
than paying lip service to getting rid of it. It was invented to explain
action at a distance and it is time we considered that to be axiomatic
in which case a 'field' is metaphysical and cannot exist without a
charge. Hence a photon must be made up of equal numbers (probably 1) of
massless positive and negative charges rotating about the axis of
forward motion. The faster it spins the higher the frequency and greater
the energy.
--
John Kennaugh
SR requires that the speed at which light separates from its source is
determined by an observation which may occur in the future - that is silly.
Igor
> "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote in message
Ignorance of the scientific method is rampant. He understands it.
You don't. Get over it.
gu...@hotmail.com
And "He" told you that you were incorrect, understand IT.
Repulsive charges are used only = "on purpose", so as to NOT correlate
magnetic forces with rest frames or rely on the vague knowledge of the
atom's (neutral charge) structure and the probability location of it's
charges.
Androcles
Roberts understands Gibberish and repeats it constantly. I learnt
mathematics.
You didn't. Get over it, flaming cunt of a troll.
gu...@hotmail.com
Newtonian physics is the law, chemistry and quantum physics is the
simulation and theory.
In newtonian physics there's no such thing as attraction, only
repulsion through collision.
Therefore all form of substance (stress tensor in the fabric of
spacetime manifold tensor) that generates collision is attracted
together as one entity, most probably only due to momentum = a moment
and/or a difference in time interval between energy dissipation
(intervals of uneven (or perhaps reverse) energy flow).
Tom Roberts
> [... discussion in which words like "real" change meaning several times]
If you want to make a sensible argument, you MUST AVOID PUNs. When words
change meaning throughout your discussion nothing definitive can be
concluded at all.
> Personally I think physics went off the rails 100 years [...]
That's because your "rails" are based on your personal GUESSES and
WISHES about how you personally think the world OUGHT TO BEHAVE. By
remaining willfully ignorant of the experiments and phenomena discovered
during the past century you prevent yourself from having an informed
opinion.
Your NAIVE expectations about "causality" and "reality" do not apply to
quantum phenomena, or to relativistic phenomena. The physics community
has recognized this and adapted; you have not. The problem is YOURS --
your "rails" do not apply to the world we inhabit, they only apply to
the fictitious world you WISH that you inhabited.
This should not really be a surprise -- there is no expectation
that changes of scale by factors of a million or more would
not affect the underlying behavior of phenomena. Flies can walk
on the ceiling, but humans cannot; that is merely a change of
scale of a few hundred or so. Your excessively naive assumption
that everyday behavior you are familiar with should apply at
scales a billion times smaller or a million times faster is
not actually respected by the world we inhabit; your wishes and
desires do not change this.
Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> John Kennaugh wrote:
> > [... discussion in which words like "real" change meaning several times]
>
> If you want to make a sensible argument, you MUST AVOID PUNs. When words
> change meaning throughout your discussion nothing definitive can be
> concluded at all.
>
> > Personally I think physics went off the rails 100 years [...]
>
> That's because your "rails" are based on your personal GUESSES and
> WISHES about how you personally think the world OUGHT TO BEHAVE. By
> remaining willfully ignorant of the experiments and phenomena discovered
> during the past century you prevent yourself from having an informed
> opinion.
Roberts Roberts in your despair you look like an ordinary zombie (e.g.
like Moortel or Gisse or Wormley). Consider this:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Now think Roberts Roberts: if John Norton is right and "later writers
almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of
special relativity" while "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY
COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE", this could only mean that "off the rails" is a euphemism:
in fact, physics is dead and criminals like you, Steve Carlip, John
Baez, Paul Davies, Lee Smolin, Stephen Hawking etc. etc. have
converted Einstein's idiocies into a money-spinner. Do you agree
Roberts Roberts?
Pentcho Valev
Michel Actis
MA
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1191844279.9...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
I like some of your thinking here. Yet if you do attribute a bipolar
charge to the photon then do these also have magnetic moments? The
inseperability of the two seem to be upheld. Then further there may be
some polarization issues. Are you conceiving of wavelength as a period
of orbit? But then if the radius of these poles is small why isn't
their wavelength miniscule? Instead we observe appreciable wavelengths
of pristine quality.
-Tim
PD
>
> In newtonian physics there's no such thing as attraction, only
> repulsion through collision.
How many outrageously idiotic statements does it take to get to the
center of a Tootsie Pop?
PD
Androcles
: John Kennaugh wrote:
: > [... discussion in which words like "real" change meaning several times]
:
: If you want to make a sensible argument, you MUST AVOID PUNs.
If you want any sense you must avoid Roberts.
gu...@hotmail.com
OOps, correct PD, it is rather Newtonian Mechanics (instead of
physics) where NO FIELDS are involved only entities.
Based mostly the laws of Inertia where ball never changes trajectory
unless collision with another ball...which is a form of repulsion as
they distance each other with time (space surrounding it does not need
to be involved).
WHERE AS for ATTRACTION forces:
A "moment of inertia" (momentum) where time is a factor "may" involve/
generate a form of attraction. Where the space surrounding the ball
contracts (warps) thus permitting/simulating attraction between the
two balls (rather the balls trajectory changes with the orientation of
the space about it, but still moving in a straight inertial path).
Mechanical Secret of Attraction, only time there's no Newtonian
collision (Newton's viscous craddle) is when "PARTICLE" viscosity
permits wave motion instead of collision (no em fields involved):
Example of Mechanical Secret of Attraction:
Two boats (two entities) have a motorized plunger in their center that
generates waves (field) propagating away form the boat in all
directions (isotropic).
If the waves of each boat are of two different frequencies the boats
move away from each other (because the waves of the other boat are
colliding against the walls of the neigboring boat and pushing it away
with a force similar to sound waves that weakens by the distance
square).
***BUT*** if those waves have the SAME fequencies, then the waves
between the two boats get cancelled (wave superposition) where as the
waves in ALL other directions do not (same as a paddling from all
directions except the direction between the boats)....this will cause
the boats to move closer together and thus SIMULATE ATTRACTION.
-----------------------------
The above "could" be the attraction process for gravity, electric and
magnetic ...
.....but instead it's most likely the flow of spactime (the manifold)
is the one that gets modified (warped spacetime) MEANING the water
(the manifold) around the boats is not still but moving and the boats
form a resistance to the currents path, that bends the path (or the
flow rate of the path) and this difference in flow rate (and possibly
the tempo of the flow rate) would cause the boats to move closer
together.
Let us not forget that a TENSOR:
#1. is a TENSION force
#2. and a force VECTOR.
#3. sometimes a vibrating tension (tension repeatedly fluctuates with
time)
#4. sometimes a spiralling tension (vortex trajectory known as quantum
spin).
Igor
Could you please translate that into something that someone with an
actual physics education could understand? Your gibberish can
sometimes be entertaining, but it's getting old fast.
Igor
Frankly, I would like to know where you are getting all this
outlandish gibberish. Either that or could you please let us know
where you are obtaining your drugs?
John Kennaugh
>John Kennaugh wrote:
>> [... discussion in which words like "real" change meaning several times]
I did not write anything of the kind
>
>If you want to make a sensible argument, you MUST AVOID PUNs. When
>words change meaning throughout your discussion nothing definitive can
>be concluded at all.
You must be responding to someone else's post [shrug]
I am simply pointing out the dilemma identified by Einstein
"The next position which it was possible to take up ... appeared to be
the following. The ether does not exist at all. The electromagnetic
fields are not states of a medium, and are not bound down to any bearer,
but they are independent realities which are not reducible to anything
else, exactly like the atoms of ponderable matter. ...... More careful
reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity
does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an
ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it."
"In the equations of the electromagnetic field there occur, in addition
to the densities of the electric charge, only the intensities of the
field. The career of electromagnetic processes in vacuo appears to be
completely determined by these equations, uninfluenced by other
physical quantities. The electromagnetic fields appear as ultimate,
irreducible realities, and at first it seems superfluous to postulate a
homogeneous, isotropic ether-medium, and to envisage electromagnetic
fields as states of this medium.
But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in
favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to
assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever.
The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view."
Put simply if you want 'fields' to be physically real you need an aether
for the fields to be states in. If you don't want an aether you cannot
have physically real fields only 'fields of influence' and you need a
charge to be the source of that 'influence'.
You are an exceedingly shallow fellow Tom Roberts. You just snip what
you can't cope with. If you can't find an answer to quote from your book
you just snip.
--
John Kennaugh
John Kennaugh
I would assume that the wavelength is the forward distance travelled for
one revolution. Polarization may be the angle between the axis of
rotation and the direction of travel. I merely put forward the
suggestion. Although I consider Maxwell's theory to some degree
compromised by the discovery of the particulate nature of light the
success of Maxwell's equations must mean something. Maxwell's equations
are essentially describing the properties of charge based upon Faraday's
relationships which showed charge and magnetism to be different aspects
of the same phenomena. So surely the success of those equations in
modelling light implies that charge has something to do with light. As
Photons also have 'something to do with light' Photons must be related
to charge in some way. They are certainly related to the fields
associated with moving charge and I don't see how you can have
disembodied fields with either nothing to create them nor nothing they
can be 'states' in e.g. states of stress in the aether.
>
>-Tim
>
--
John Kennaugh
gu...@hotmail.com
<J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> >John Kennaugh wrote:
> >> [... discussion in which words like "real" change meaning several times]
>
> I did not write anything of the kind
>
>
>
> >If you want to make a sensible argument, you MUST AVOID PUNs. When
> >words change meaning throughout your discussion nothing definitive can
> >be concluded at all.
>
> You must be responding to someone else's post [shrug]
>
> I am simply pointing out the dilemma identified by Einstein
>
> "The next position which it was possible to take up ... appeared to be
> the following. The ether does not exist at all.
Oh and what generate such a deduction, certainly not Michelson &
Morley's Experiment.
Light is also constant speed in air, water, ect..., doesn't mean
there's no air or water.
gu...@hotmail.com
>
Just remember that only negative charges are used, thus there will
never and could never be E = 0 in any reference frames what so ever,
as Tom Roberts specified.
gu...@hotmail.com
>
what/where?
A Tensor is not a tension?
Tension is not a force?
A Tensor is not a vector?
EM fields cannot generate a force or a tensor?
Fluctating EM waves cannot generate forces that fluctuate with time?
gu...@hotmail.com
Arrogance and Insulting to not understand or appreciate the forces of
attraction as explained by the two boat example above.
Frankly, do you deny the boats will not approach each other, lack the
abitity to comprehend the example, or lack the capacity to recognize
it is "extremely" rare to develop such a model? If neither of the
mentioned then please troll and heckle someoen else.
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
Alright John. It is my belief that that the isotropic claim of
relativity theory is mistaken and that this is a lead into a new
interpretation of electromagnetism. Particularly unidirectional time
is enough to destroy the claim of isotropic behavior. Beyond this my
own model predicts that spacetime takes the form
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 ...
where the dimension of these entities is
0D 1D 2D | 3D 4D ...
The first three terms of the progression are well behaved under
distance conservation whereas the higher terms (P4+) are not. This is
an arithmetic product relation which is responsible for spacetime
correspondence of the polysign numbers (Pn). You can learn more about
polysign on my website
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned
however a full physical model awaits arrival. One way to consider the
progressive topology is as brane theory or possibly sub-brane theory.
Most of the brane people are working at high dimension but when they
come down here they will be able to reformulate electromagnetics
within their dimensional paradigm or something akin to it. For me the
root basis is polysign which is a new marriage of continuous and
discrete at a level that begets dimension. The real number is not
fundamental; magnitude is fundamental. Their is a chain of reasoning
that runs deep and is critical of many aspects of modern math and
physics but ultimately I am just happy to have an open puzzle in front
of me to work on. Some parts seem to be put together right? Well as I
look at the fit of those pieces and see cracks in their foundation and
glue holding them I am caught questioning the human race and its
belief systems and their errant nature. As humans we ought to own up
to our weaknesses and accept that social behaviors rule the roost
rather than logic and principle. This is unfortunate but by keeping an
eye on such things perhaps we can be more grounded with reality.
I do regard your openness with interest but I think a stronger system
lays elsewhere. To seek pure math as natural and physical should allow
the math to lead us. At some level modern physics is just empirical
behaviors wrapped with curves to fit and some see this as good enough.
Certainly the experimentalists have the upper hand in all of this and
down at cold temperature their are fascinating behaviors. In that
those behaviors are natural then to what degree are our ambient
experiences merely a hazy view of reality? So our sensorial intuition
can be fed by the cold temperature experiments. In particular I point
you to the fractional quantum Hall effect which Sue was kind enough to
point me to some years ago. Here we see a magnetic field intensity
controlling quantized behaviors and in that this is nature at work we
have got deeper puzzles to resolve. It may be necessary to go for it
and take all in one fell swoop.
-Tim
John Kennaugh
One is tempted to reply to all his posts by snipping the text and then
having a rant about a selected line taken out of context but I resist
the temptation as that would be coming down to his level.
--
John Kennaugh
Igor
No. Not even remotely true.
> Tension is not a force?
It could be, but doesn't have to be.
> A Tensor is not a vector?
A vector is a first rank tensor, so not necessarily so.
> EM fields cannot generate a force or a tensor?
EM fields make up a second rank antisymmetric tensor. The Lorentz
force is a vector.
> Fluctating EM waves cannot generate forces that fluctuate with time?
Yes, they can, but what does that have to do with everything else
you're babbling about?
By the way, you're original premise of magnetic forces being
fictitious was already shown to be nonsense, so why are you still
insisting on backing it up?
gu...@hotmail.com
Oh My God, stress and strain are a tension.
> > Tension is not a force?
>
> It could be, but doesn't have to be.
>
Look here Jezebel, Tension is a force and nothing else.
> > A Tensor is not a vector?
>
> A vector is a first rank tensor, so not necessarily so.
Mass is not a vector, but the action it produces is a vector and a
tensor.
There's a REASON why it's 2nd rank, you would give a pre-memorized
word for word definition, where as it's because you need two vectors
to define it, unfortunately you'll probably refuse it and go back to
your word for word definition.
Example: mass is a unit of density, you would say know because it says
that mass exerts a force influenced by gravity or acceleration.
> > EM fields cannot generate a force or a tensor?
>
> EM fields make up a second rank antisymmetric tensor. The Lorentz
> force is a vector.
>
Both mass and em fields generate a force, let me know when you find
one that does not.
> > Fluctating EM waves cannot generate forces that fluctuate with time?
>
> Yes, they can, but what does that have to do with everything else
> you're babbling about?
>
You were babbling what I wrote was COMPLETELY incorrect and now you're
agreeing with them.
> By the way, you're original premise of magnetic forces being
> fictitious was already shown to be nonsense, so why are you still
> insisting on backing it up?- Hide quoted text -
>
You're moving slowing while I'm standing, you yell there's no magnetic
force, I insist there is = fictatious for it depends on ones
displacement likewise for Centrifugal, etc...
Nitpick at rest is not a displacement while some would say it's a
displacement = 0, it's not a motion vs it's a motion = 0.
----------------------
PS Trolling Hecklers are ones that nitpick on details instead the main
body of the subject. Did you get the main body or are still obstinated
with the word "fictatious".
Igor
Face it. You're just plain wrong all the way around. Magnetic forces
are not fictitious by any definition of the word. You simply cannot
find a frame where B = 0 without affecting E in some way. No matter
how you slice it, the Lorentz force is a vector. That doesn't sound
like a fictitious force to me. Or do you even understand what I'm
talking about?
gu...@hotmail.com
Difference in E observation between reference frames is explained by
time dilation and length contraction. When B=0 no time dilation
interval will explain why one sees distance change where as one see
zero distance change.
You do not kow the true meaning of permeability because you don't know
that permeability affects a force in an inverse fashion to
permittivity simply because of the way "they decided" to define it
EVEN THOUGH c^2 = 1/ (permittivity x permeability).
> No matter
> how you slice it, the Lorentz force is a vector. That doesn't sound
> like a fictitious force to me. Or do you even understand what I'm
> talking about?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -