Re: GR ?

"sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:42e5a0d3\$0\$18639\$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1122328998.99698.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >
| > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:42e546f9\$0\$18647\$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | > snip
| > | > | > | Why not just tell people "action" is invariant, or
| > | > | > | is typing your forte. Planck's "h",
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | h= N*ergs*secs = N*ergs'*secs' .
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Let's try to explain why action is invariant.
| > | > | > | Ken
| > | > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | > That a broad one Ken but is not action defined as a product of
time
| > and
| > | > | > distance ?
| > | > |
| > | > | 20/20 hindsight suggest to me that *action* needs an energy
qualifer.
| > | > | IOW... mass or the energy equivalent must be displaced.
| > | >
| > | > I was hoping at some stage to define energy and\or mass as products
of
| > | > length/time or time * length but this has not meet with much
enthusiasm
| > so
| > | > still have the plugs out on that one{:-)
| > | >
| > | > | That is the bugaboo with Maxwell. The speed of light limitation is
| > | > | applied to purely reactive components where no mass or energy is
| > | > | involved.
| > | >
| > | > You are referring to field changes ? if so why would you not expect
the
| > | > propagation constant to apply.
| > |
| > | Assemble a model railroad (must have railroad in relativity
| > | tales ) with gumbands between each car. Say... 10 cars?
| > |
| > | OK... " ten cars " :o)
| > |
| > | Jerk the locomtive forward and measure the delay till the last car
| > | starts to move. Call it dl.
| > |
| > |
| > | Then...
| > | Anchor the last car and stretch the train out.
| > |
| > | When you release the locomotive, do you expect any
| > | delay like dl or 10/dl before the locomotive begins to move?
| > |
| > | Of course not. It begins moving the instant you let go of it.
| > | The *potental* to move exist locally.
| > |
| > | The scalar component of an EM act similarly. A charged
| > | plate will move relative to it's sibling the instant you release it.
| > | The distance to the sibling is not a factor.
| > |
| > | Suppose you are the power company's only customer and you
| > | have a huge applicance. Do you expect a SOL delay before
| > | your appliance gets power from the plant?
| >
| > I might argue that the potential does not appear at the output until a
| > of some sort is applied and that there is a c delay from the application
of
|
| You would have a hard time explaining how there is ever current at
| the feed point of a 1/2 wavelength dipole because there is never a load
| at the end, a 1/4 wave distant.

I was referring to a DC potential at that moment AC waveforms
propagate due to a finite impedance but I dont think you can say that for a
DC potential, the delay is when you connect your potential to the feeder
untill the potential appears at the end of your feeder and this must apply
to AC waveforms so there must be a phase delay between the drive and
load\output structure. Not sure what the propagation delay is at the moment
in a wire.

|
| >
| > | Do you expect a
| > | SOL delay before the plant slows from the load from your
| > | appliance?
| >
| > Yes from the moment of application of the load.
|
| OK
|
| >
| > |
| > | So... an EM radiating structure by it's mere presense defines
| > | how Coulomb forces will be shaped or stretched in the structure's
| > | domaim.
| >
| > Do you mean before the application of any EMF to the feed to the
structure ?
|
| Correct. Look at all the junk on a Yagi antenna without any
| wires on it.

Yes I understand your point now but you might be able to get most things to
radiate to some degree so the Coulomb forces are an inherent state of
matter.

|
| >
| > | The force lines, perpendicuar to a charges motion can
| > | apply a *force* to another charge without the SOL delay.
| > | Quanrum Tunneling... :o)
| >
| > Hang on the charge must be moving to apply this force so delay happened
| > before the charge started moving.
|
| <<``But, hang on a minute,'' you might say, ``everybody knows that
| electromagnetic waves can't travel backwards in time. If they did
| then causality would be violated.'' Well, you know that electromagnetic
| waves do not propagate backwards in time, I know that electromagnetic
| waves do not propagate backwards in time, but the question is do
| Maxwell's equations know this? Consider the wave equation for the
| scalar potential: >>
| http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node51.html

Demonstrate the valididity of ta = t + | r - r' | /c in the context of the
validity of tr = t - | r - r' | /c and notational coherence and physical
reality but it is an interesting idea and I will think on it some more in a
retarded potential way {:-).

|
| > Mind you changes in the force being applied to another charge would be
| > delayed by c from the motion of the first charge.
|
| "But, hang on a minute,'' if a pair of tiny short elements Waaaay out on
| the end of a Yagi wants to reject radition coming from the side, do
| they have to send a request to the driven element and wait for it to
| be granted ? :o)

No their structure defines the rejection. {:-)

|
| > I didn't think that Tunnelling happened faster than SOL it just a none
| > classical potential breakdown effect.
|
| Tunneling is a poor choice of words. The effect is related but I should
| stick to more classical magnetism that we also don't know enough about.

You are talking about tunnelling as in tunnel diodes etc not some fancy
new\old ? form of tunnelling that I may not have picked up on ? No I see
from latter that you are referring to quantum spin tunnelling that I know

|
| And that is the point. These aparently FTL couplings which produce
| the inductive reactance in the near-field should not be expected to
| behave the same as far-field (1/r^2 ) propagation.
|
| Just because you mental model is a swarm of bees or swishing
| fluid, you don't arbitrarily apply the wing or fluid dynamics when
| experiments show otherwise.
|
| Let me try and state another way. The near-field H plane
| change-in-potential propagates faster than light,

Does it ? tell me how.

| but to sense it
| you will have to use a massive electron whose inertia,
| through the fine structure constant, will prevent your ever
| measuring that change-in-potential as faster than light.
|
| You don't *really* believe these two curves converge
| toward infinity way out there where there is no matter
| just to please a bunch of conformists on
| some committee do ya?
|
| http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif (two curves)
| http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_susceptibility

What do you mean 'converge to infinity' as it appears from the link as if it
end up as 377 ohms.
I knew RFI would come back to haunt me when I let the other guy do all the
work on that because I needed a nap after doing the other components of the
test system{:-)

|
|
| >
| > | The secondary charge won't actually move faster than it's
| > | inertia can be overcome by a force diminishing by 1/d^3.
| > | (dee-up-three, just as you see on a near-field E/H plot)
| > |
| > | http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif
| > | http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html
| > |
|
| snip abstracts
| http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9706292
| http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9912025
|
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:cond-mat/0006
035
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > | <<I have only ever argued that the velocity of
| > | particles can be made to exceed the SOL not field as locally measured.
Mud
| > | fight ? {:-) >>
| > |
| > | Indeed! What you lacked in a merit of your case, you made
| > | up for in ferocity of your arguement. :o)
| > |
| >
| > What you made up for in merit for your case was we all suffocated in the
mud
| > you applied and I for one am still trying to get my breath {:-)
|
| Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
| Time-independent Maxwell equations
| http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
|
| :o)
|
| >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | Thus, retarded and advanced potentials show up where
| > | > | correct near/far field solutions are supposed to be.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > Reactance based delay lines produce signal phase delays AFAIR.
| > |
| > | That is how Maxwell tried to build the structure. Take one of your
| > | LC delay lines apart an see if the manufacture was fool enough to
| > | place solenoid coils in a colinear arrangement.
| >
| > At this moment I cant remember how they are made but I seem to remember
it
| > was coil capacitor in a series parallel arraignment.
|
| Another poor choice of words on my part. I wonder if the Einstein
| estate could use a ghost writer. :-(
|
| >
| > |
| > | << why would you not expect the
| > | propagation constant to apply. >>
| > |
| > | In a word... quantum tunneling but that as you can see is
| > | a gross oversimplification. If your math is a bit better than
| > | mine you might also notice I don't count my words. :o)
| >
| > I dont remember quantum tunneling breaking the SOL ?
| No... you just don't remember ever measuring it.

True I original thought you were talking about electron tunneling as in
tunnel diodes but you appear to have moved into a new detail that I'm not
familiar with.

|
| Sue...
|
| anip
|
|

.