Re: Detecting Space-Time
From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 11/15/04
- Next message: AllYou!: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- Previous message: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: Long-Period Eclipsing Binary Stars and GR"
- In reply to: jahn: "Re: Detecting Space-Time"
- Next in thread: jahn: "Re: Detecting Space-Time"
- Reply: jahn: "Re: Detecting Space-Time"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:11:16 GMT
"jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2vq740F2pes1kU1@uni-berlin.de...
:
: "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
: news:aoPld.13660$P7.8454@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >
: > "jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
: > news:2vpofaF2ocd03U1@uni-berlin.de...
: > :
: > : "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
: > : news:7NKld.31567$Q7.18914@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: > : >
: > : > "jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
: > : > news:2vo38lF2kctcqU1@uni-berlin.de...
: > : > :
: > : > : "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
: > : > : news:27yld.10201$P7.6527@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: > : > : >
: > : > : > "jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
: > : > : > news:2vna5lF2nl42gU1@uni-berlin.de...
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
: > : > : > : news:5Osld.9808$P7.1484@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > "jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
: > : > : > : > news:2vmnvbF2mjqj8U1@uni-berlin.de...
: > : > : > : > : [spinning logic snip]
: > : > : > : > : > :
: > : > : > : > : > :
http://www.chem4kids.com/files/atom_structure.html
: > : > : > : > : > :
: > : > : > : > : > : Good Luck!
: > : > : > : > : > : Sue...
: > : > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > : > I don't see anything spinning on that page. All I
see
: > is
: > : > : > : > : > a diagram of some electrons in orbit about a
nucleus.
: > : > : > : > : > What is spinning? It certainly doesn't explain you
: > POV.
: > : > : > : > : > Androcles.
: > : > : > : > :
: > : > : > : > : Firstly, my POV doesn't rely on semantics for
support.
: > : > : > : > : If the earth moon-system can spin on its barycenter
: > then
: > : > : > : > : just as well the electron-neucleus system can spin
: > : > : > : > : the proton can spin, the electron can spin,
: > : > : > : > : the core-winding system of a relay can spin
: > : > : > : > : (it's electrical field spins, not the wires of
course)
: > : > : > : > : All these spins are detectable on magnetic imaging
: > systems.
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > I fail to see what sematics has to do with it. You
pointed
: > : > : > : > me to a page with blue cones spinning on their own
axis
: > and
: > : > : > : > said "look, spin". Then you point me to a kiddy page
: > : > : > : > with orbiting electrons and say "look, spin".
: > : > : > : > I do not understand your PoV. Please decide whether
: > : > : > : > you mean barycentre spin or axis spin.
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > Androcles.
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : I mean either one and rectangular and octagonal paths
too.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Neither depends on spin. Imagine a square one light year
on a
: > : > side.
: > : > : > There will still be a local B-field adjacent to the
conductor,
: > and
: > : > it
: > : > : > "spins". There will not be much field at the centre of the
: > square.
: > : > :
: > : > : Let Fizpatrick imagine... less typing.
: > : > : << In other words, the line integral of the magnetic field
: > around
: > : > some
: > : > : circular loop C, centred on a current carrying wire, is
equal to
: > u0
: > : > times
: > : > : the current flowing in the wire. Note that this answer is
: > : > *independent* of
: > : > : the radius of the loop: i.e., the same result is obtained
by
: > taking
: > : > the
: > : > : line integral around *any* circular loop centred on the
wire.
: > : >
: > : > Yes, but what does this have to do with spinning electrons?
: > : >
: > : > :
: > : > : In 1826 Ampère demonstrated that Eq. (6.28) holds for *any*
: > closed
: > : > loop
: > : > : which circles around any distribution of currents. Thus,
: > Ampère's
: > : > circuital
: > : > : law can be written: [or clicked]
: > : > : The line integral of the magnetic field around some closed
loop
: > is
: > : > equal to
: > : > : the u0 times the algebraic sum of the currents which pass
: > through
: > : > the loop.
: > : > : >>
: > : > :
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node60.html
: > : > :
: > : > :
: > : > : cgs u0 = 4Pi x 10^-7 henry per meter.
: > : >
: > : > Yes, but what does this have to do with spinning electrons?
: > : Absolutlely nothing. It is pure concidence that the poles of an
: > electron
: > : *seem* to always correspond to the poles of a solenoid wrt the
: > charge's
: > : direction of motion.
: >
: > What poles of an electron?
:
: The ones that exclude Wolfgang from the theatre?
My Floridian girlfriend happens to be of Polish descent.
It's not her fault.
:
: << Electron spin resonance (ESR),
: magnetic resonance phenomenon involving the electron spin. MR
imaging and
: MR spectroscopy rely on the resonant behaviour of the atomic nucleus
in an
: external magnetic field. A similar phenomenon occurs with the
electron.
: Although most electrons exist in pairs with no net spin, electron
spin
: resonance may be observed from the unpaired electrons that exist,
for
: example, in free radicals.The ESR phenomenon occurs at much higher
: frequencies than the NMR phenomenon, and therefore the technique is
: inherently more sensitive than its nuclear equivalent. In principle,
the
: methods of MR imaging can be applied to ESR, but such experiments
are
: hampered by very short relaxation times, typically in the
microsecond range.
: An alternative approach is to administer free radicals such as
nitroxides
: and, by the Overhauser effect, enhance the proton polarization in a
: proton/electron double resonance experiment. Such experiments have
been
: proposed for very low field imaging. PS
: The Encyclopaedia of Medical Imaging Volume I
: >>
:
http://www.amershamhealth.com/medcyclopaedia/medical/volume%20I/ELECTRON%20S
: PIN%20RESONANCE%20%20ESR%20.ASP
:
: Note that free electrons in conductors, accelerators CRT's
: etc are "unpaired"
Yeah yeah.. and note that we orginally began with light traversing
nothing.
:
: >
: > It is due the Hilbert Jackpot function. Millions of
: > : observations have shown this relationship but it is surely
random
: > chance
: > : running afoul. ;-)
: > :
: > : >
: > : > :
: > : > :
: > : > : It works for light years just the same as for millimeters.
: > : > :
: > : > : > There is no requirement for the electrons in the
conductor
: > : > : > to spin.
: > : > :
: > : > : What happens when they stop? {rhetorical)
: > : >
: > : > I'll give a rhetorical reply. Would there still be years if
the
: > Earth
: > : > kept one face to the Sun as the Moon keeps one face to the
: > : > Earth? How about if it kept the same orientation with respect
: > : > to the stars?
: > :
: > : That is a rectal reply. The earth will still have it's identity
as a
: > : planet. The electoron will shine itself away as gamma
radiation.
: >
: >
: > Didn't know the elector Ron had a vote.
: > We know that Mr Positron and Miss Electron will elope when
: > married, giving birth to a pair of wayward gamma children
inheriting
: > DNA from both parents, but I STILL don't see why you are putting
: > spin on it before the dance begins.
:
: So thick black smoke won't pour out of the ESR machines that your
: local radiologist just aquired. Besides... ya don't want to mess
with
: the ghost of anybody named "Wolgang".
:
Something makes light traverse nothing. I still say that is an E-field
alternating with a B-field, so there!
:
: >
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > : I'll assume you really mean it is insignificant in the
: > : > : examples below. Nuclear spin is significant however.
: > : >
: > : > The Sun spins. Being a fluid, not all latitudes spin
: > : > at the same rate. I have yet to see any proof that the nucleus
: > : > of the hydogen atom is spinning, though. How fast does
: > : > a deuterium nucleus spin, and which axis does it spin on?
: > : > Does this affect the field, producing Lagrange points now
: > : > that we have three bodies, Electron, Neutron and Proton?
: > : > Does deuterium have any magnetic properties that differ
: > : > from hydrogen?
: > :
: > : <<The proton (1Hydrogen nucleus) is the most sensitive (apart
from
: > tritium)
: > : nucleus and usually yields sharp signals. Even though its
chemical
: > shift
: > : range is narrow, its sharp signals make proton NMR very useful.
>>
: > : http://drx.ch.huji.ac.il/nmr/techniques/1d/row1/h.html
: > :
: > : What did your search engine die of, atrophy?
: > :
: > : > :
: > : > : > A beam in the TV tube is a current and is deflected
: > : > : > by magnetic attraction and repulsion.
: > : > :
: > : > : Lorentz force perhaps ?
: > : >
: > : > I don't care what names you give it. The deflection is real.
: > : But Lorentz force is between massive entities not the divine
: > : guidance of space faries. If you leave a hole like that some
: > : philosopher will try to drive a truck thru it... in reverse
gear.
: >
: > They are your fae.
: >
: >
: >
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > :
: > : > : > Similar deflection by the
: > : > : > charged plates of an oscilloscope cannot be magnetic.
: > Deflection
: > : > : > by the magnetic yoke of a TV tube has to be.
: > : > : > Yes, I know there are coils to produce the field, but I'm
: > talking
: > : > : > about
: > : > : > the field itself. How it gets there is irrelevant. It
exists
: > in a
: > : > : > vacuum.
: > : > :
: > : > : But does it exist absent a moving charge?
: > : >
: > : > Does an electric field exist absent a moving flux?
: > :
: > : YES!
: >
: > Good. So a magnetic field can exist without a moving charge too.
:
: We shouldn't exclude the possiblily 'cause how could four
generations
: of Minkowski etherians possibly be wrong? OTOH... they might be
: wrong about a lot of things.
: Ditching SR doesn't fix Maxwell.
Something makes light traverse nothing. I still say that is an E-field
alternating with a B-field, so there!
:
: >
: >
: > Again...
: > :
: > : Charge two capacitor plates with a battery.
: > : Measure the force between them with a fish scale.
: > : Remove the battery.
: > : What does the scale do when the battery is removed?
: > : Measure the current through the disconnected battery
: > : or the disconneted capacitor (they should be the same)
: > : and compute the force using Amperes law.
: > : Compare your result with the scale's indication.
: >
: > Again...
: > My fridge has magnets attached.
: > No current inside the magnet,
: Yes there is.
: A charge in motion is a current.
Something makes light traverse nothing. I still say that is an E-field
alternating with a B-field, so there!
:
: > and it is NOT a superconductor.
: It is not a glass of chablis either.
: You're a refrigerator abuser aren't cha?
I keep beer in it. Chardonnay, Beaujolais and Champignon
are for fungus eating visitors. The odd truffle is okay.
:
: > Betcha I can measure the force without using fish, and it is more
: > than your wimpy capacitor can manage. You manage a few scraps
: > of paper, I can suspend a human being on a permanent magnet.
:
: Add up the Lorentz force of all the co-moving charges in the magnet
: and you'll see why.
:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=orbital+nickel+cobalt+iron&btnG=Google+
: Search
:
:
: >
: >
: > :
: > : > Does mass exist?
: > : > What do we mean by "existence"?
: > : Whadday mean "WE" Kimosabe?
: > :
http://www.planetmike.com/jokes/misc/the_lone_ranger_and_tonto.shtml
: > :
: > : The electron ceases to exist AFAIK when it shines away as a
: > : gamma.
: >
: > So does water when you cook it. We call that change of state.
: > Where does the electron's gravity go?
: > B-field. Big time force.
: > E-field. Not so big.
: > G-field. Wimpy.
: > A lumpy magnet I can carry in one hand can outpull the entire
Earth,
: > and you are saying that's because of some tiny spinning electrons
that
: > can barely manage to lift a scrap of paper.
:
: Electric repulsion is what keeps a Blacksmith's anvil from touching
: the floor and you have never seen magnets get close enough to
: overcome that force.
: http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/gallery.html
: http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/library.html
I can put your puny litle anvil on this.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993153
Na nah nana nah.
: >
: > :
: > : > :
: > : > : > The electron beam curves in it.
: > : Curve in what? An ether? Like photons curving in a gas density
: > : gradient ya mean?
: > : > :
: > : > : More specifically:
: > : > : The Lorentz force between the beam and the charges moving in
: > : > : the coils/cores exerts a lateral force to propell the yoke
: > through
: > : > : the side of your new VGA monitor. :o)
: > : > :
: > : > : > The electron doesn't have to spin to
: > : > : > do that, and if it did then we can discuss Stern-Gerlach,
but
: > that
: > : > is
: > : > : > very much a secondary and minor effect with two electrons
have
: > : > : > a less than 1 degree separation angle while both are
deflected
: > 45
: > : > : > degrees.
: > : > :
: > : > : Right... there is plenty of energy but little extent. So
the
: > : > circular
: > : > : component of an electrons charge must have a very tiny
diameter.
: > : > : Smaller than a gamma wavelength if synchrontron radiation is
any
: > : > : indication.
: > : > :
: > : > : > This observation makes it difficult for me to understand
your
: > PoV.
: > : > :
: > : > : What is difficult about:
: > : > : << The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained
in
: > two
: > : > straight
: > : > : parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible
circular
: > : > : cross-section, and placed 1 metre apart in vacuum, would
produce
: > : > between
: > : > : these conductors a force equal to 2 x 10-7 newton per metre
of
: > : > length.
: > : > : ???
: > : >
: > : > I see nothing about spinning electrons in that, particularly
since
: > the
: > : > cross
: > : > section of the conductor is negligible. Removing the conductor
: > : > entirely,
: > : > we then have an electron beam as the current. Two electron
beams
: > going
: > : > in the same direction 1 meter apart should diverge because of
the
: > : > force of
: > : > 2.0E-06 newtons per meter.
: > : > Two electron beams going in opposite directions 1 meter apart
: > should
: > : > eventually meet because of the force of 2.0E-06 newtons per
meter.
: > :
: > : Ya forgot the space faries role in all of that but I'm lettin'
ya
: > off the
: > : hook
: > : 'cause I think you're making them up anyway.
: >
: > I never made then up in the first place, you did. Permeability of
: > free space and her little sister, Permittivity. A right pair of
: > fairies,
: > they are.
: >
: > :
: > : > Removing the mass component of the electron,
: > : > we then have moving (set of) E-fields producing a magnetic
field.
: > :
: > : Massless charges Eh? Are they sold by the dozen?
: >
: > Yep. 12 neutrinos + 12 photons per dozen, non-negotiable.
: >
: > : > Using conductors once again, the windings in an electric motor
: > should
: > : > be spreading apart, so we use a glue to stick them together
and
: > pack
: > : > them tightly in the (straight) slots.
: > : > That is my PoV that you are having so much difficulty with.
: >
: > : Are you saying that Amperes long wire law is backward?
: >
: > I'm saying gold leaf electroscopes separate when you charge them
: > with one of those E-fields that exist without a magnetic field.
:
: Fair enough. So in a world where the best man gets the most votes
: in the electronic college you think the man with a magnetic
: personality should fare as well. Sadly Virginia... there is
: eeveeil in this world so things are seldom equitable.
: http://www.sorryeverybody.com/
:
:
: Note the force when q = 0
: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/limg801.gif
: From:
: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/LorentzForce.html
:
: >
: > : > I am still unable to understand your PoV that the electron has
to
: > : > spin.
: > :
: > : It is part of it's mechanism to contain it's 0.511 MeV.
: > :
: > : << On the other hand, when p/q is a fraction (and, in some
cases, an
: > odd
: > : integer) there is no simple "single particle" way to understand
: > where the
: > : gap comes from. We now understand that these QHE's are
spectacular
: > : signatures of complex many-body states whose existence relies
: > totally on the
: > : Coulomb interaction between electrons. >>
: > : http://www.cmp.caltech.edu/~jpe/fqhe.html
: >
: > Again, I do not see "spin" in your quotation.
: > Your PoV, as I understand it, is that electron spin creates a
magnetic
: > field. Now you are talking about half a million electron volts.
What
: > IS
: > it you are trying to say?
: No ... Relative moviing charges experience a Lorentz
: force. Unless their motion maintains their proximity,
: the force will diminish quickly.
: Wasn't it 1/ d ^3 or 1/ 4pi d^2 for a loop?
: I fergit.
Me too.
: >
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > : Note that the effect of this definition is to fix the
: > permeability
: > : > of vacuum
: > : > : at exactly 4pi x 10-7 H · m-1.
: > : > : >>
: > : > :
: > : >
: >
http://www1.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/2-1-1/ampere.html
: > : >
: > : > I note that the property you assign to nothing is actually a
: > property
: > : > of the field, not the nothing. You seem to be quite happy that
: > nothing
: > : > has properties, but unable to accept that fields can exist
unless
: > : > caused
: > : > by spinning matter.
: > : > If the nothing has properties of its own, why can't a field?
: > :
: > : "Nothing" only has geometrical properties. Ya care to
: > : gusess how they know the value isn't really
: > : 3.9999999999 pi ?
: >
: > Lobachevsky, last I heard. Reimann's value is 2.99999999.
: >
: >
: > : They took a spray can inside of a sphere and counted droplets.
;-)
: >
: > Nah. that's 4pi.(r^3)/3
: Why didn't put that 30 lines ^ up where we needed it.
: >
: > http://www.mathstutor.com/Volume.html
: >
: >
: >
: > :
: > : 'Twas you, I recall who pointed out a sphere only has an axis if
: > : it spins.
: >
: > Yep.
: >
: >
: > : If all the magnetic fields we can observe are associated
: > : with a moving charge,
: >
: > I see no moving charges in my fridge magnets. Why do insist
: > there are?
: Because I can put a coil of wire around them and make
: them fall off by moving an equivalent amount of charge
: in the opposite direction.
Ah.... so a spinning helicopter rotor is an anti-gravity device.
Why do I have this strange idea that when your coil runs
out of energy my magnets will will jump right back on again?
:
: >
: >
: > : it is no small assumtion that some unknown
: > : property of space will substitute for the spinning (circulating,
: > orbiting)
: > : entities when an EM wave is propagating far from any matter.
: > : There seems to be an intuitve rejection of Huygen principle
: > : resulting from similar reasoning.
: > :
: > : <<Huygens's Principle:
: > : every point on a propagating wavefront serves as the source of
: > spherical
: > : secondary wavelets, such that the wavefront at some later time
is
: > the
: > : envelope of these wavelets. >>
: > : http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae471.cfm
: >
: > Antenna radiate in circles.
: > I agree with Huyghens.
: > The generated E-field, like the cork bobbing on water, is
stationary
: > with respect to the source.
: > I agree with Huyghens.
: > The magnetic field travels radially, like the ripples on water.
: > I agree with Huyghens.
: > I do not agree with you that the radiation is caused by millions
: > of corks on the water spinning to make it happen.
: So we don't need millions of spin fairies.
They are your fae, not mine.
: > I do not believe it because you have yet to provide any evidence
: > to support it, and I'm a stickler for evidence and abhor
assumption.
: It is you that has to provide a Lorentz force, absent a charge.
Not so. See Lorentz, it's not my force.
Burden of proof is upon the claimant.
: >
: >
: > : Imagine one of these things:
: > : http://www.magnet.okayama-u.ac.jp/magword/light/eh1.gif
: > : where the H decays but the E builds in the first few
wavelengths.
Imagine a bright green flying elephant.
: > : Then imagine the revese process in the last few
aperture-lengths.
Then imagine it laying and egg
: > :
: > : << Thus, in the antenna near field there is stored energy. (The
: > complex
: > : radiation field equations have imaginary terms indicating
reactive
: > power.)
: > : Figure 4 shows normalized power density for three different
: > illuminations.
: > : >>
: > : https://ewhdbks.mugu.navy.mil/ANTNRFLD.HTM
: >
: >
: > There is oodles of stored energy at the point where the rock hits
: > the water, where the amplitude is at its greatest.
: "Reactive" is the key word. Also called "Apparent Power".
: As you know, only near sighted mathematicians will complain
: if we "apparently" violate c, conservation of energy or charge.
: (-1)^(-2) sprinked over Maxwell's equations might even make
: them work without fiddling with your watch.
: >
: > :
: > : [Stump speech]
: > : Does this not remove some of the magic in Feynman's sum over
: > : paths technique?
: > : Does this not eliminate the need for retarded potential and
: > : displacement current?
: > : Does this not explain the near-field H predominance ?
: >
: > Answered above.
: Yep.
:
: It looks like we are proxys for a Feynman-Huygens duel.
Nope. Bottom line, light propagates in nothing by an alternating
B field and E-field 90 degrees phase shifted, That's how it leaves
the antenna and that's how it drives the next one. Weirder stuff
happens when there is a medium involved (i.e. air, shape of antenna,
and I'll leave you to nitpick the details of that. :-)
Androcles.
:
: Kind regard,
: Sue...
: >
: >
: > : Kind regards,
: > : Sue...
: > :
: > : > Androcles.
: > : > :
: > : > : Sue...
: > : > :
: > : > : > Androcles
: > : > :
: > : > :
: > : > :
: > : > : >
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : << By direct incorporation of relative motion between
: > charges
: > : > into
: > : > : > the
: > : > : > : Coulomb force, it was possible to accomodate the force
: > between
: > : > two
: > : > : > : currents - something we normally look at by means of a
: > magnetic
: > : > : > field.
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : While we normally think of a magnet generating a
magnetic
: > field
: > : > : > which then
: > : > : > : acts on other objects, according to this approach, the
: > moving
: > : > : > charges in the
: > : > : > : magnet each directly act on the other objects. We
correct
: > the
: > : > force
: > : > : > between
: > : > : > : them for the fact that the charges are moving .... and
viola
: > !
: > : > We
: > : > : > have the
: > : > : > : same result as we would get from a magnetic field.
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : By incorporating the acceleration between the two
charges,
: > it
: > : > was
: > : > : > possible
: > : > : > : to incorporate the effects of varying current - that is,
: > : > transformer
: > : > : > action.
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : One important contributor was Ritz. He showed how many
of
: > the
: > : > then
: > : > : > known
: > : > : > : experiments could be explained using Ritzian principles
: > rather
: > : > than
: > : > : > : Maxwell's theory.
: > : > : > : >> http://arachnid.apana.org.au/johna/ritz5.html
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : As you have twice now forgotten the Stern-Gerlach
experiment
: > : > : > : and are dismissing the g-2 expeiment because it has .gov
: > : > : > : at the end of the URL, I have to be guessing that the
tail
: > is
: > : > : > : wagging the dog on your end of the line.
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : When your argument reduces to the denial of atomic
motion
: > : > : > : your theory might just be due for an overhaul. ;-)
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : As I mentioned earlier, the notion that magnetism can't
: > exist
: > : > : > : absent a moving charge is fairly new to me too so I
haven't
: > : > : > : developed a repretoire of simple gedankens yet. My best
: > example
: > : > : > : seems to be the near/far field anomalies and that is
beyond
: > many
: > : > : > : "trained" physicists and completly out of the reach of
: > : > lay-people.
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : I realize you have a lot of work in you double star
project
: > so
: > : > : > : it is hard to abandon the work ethic that says "never
give
: > up"
: > : > : > : but I know you have seen, as I have, others who let
: > investment
: > : > : > : become inertia. (I won't mention names) ;-)
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : Kind regards,
: > : > : > : Sue...
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : > :
: > : > : > : > : When one charge moves relative to another charge,
the
: > : > : > : > : Lorentz force acts to displace them 90 degrees to
the
: > : > : > : > : relative motion, whether they are spinning, orbiting
or
: > : > : > : > : moving on parallel paths.
: > : > : > : > :
: > : > : > : > : If you agree with all of that then we can proceed
with
: > : > : > : > : what the discussion of what space isn't made of.
: > : > : > : > :
: > : > : > : > : Kind regards,
: > : > : > : > : Sue...
: > : > : > : > :
: > : > : > : > : [spinning logic snip]
: > : > : > : > :
: > : > : > : > :
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > :
: > : > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > :
: > : > :
: > : >
: > : >
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
:
:
- Next message: AllYou!: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- Previous message: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: Long-Period Eclipsing Binary Stars and GR"
- In reply to: jahn: "Re: Detecting Space-Time"
- Next in thread: jahn: "Re: Detecting Space-Time"
- Reply: jahn: "Re: Detecting Space-Time"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
