Re: A guide for students of physics in the art of spin Part 2

On Nov 18, 2:53 am, John Kennaugh <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Tim BandTech.com wrote:
On Nov 16, 1:00 pm, xray4abc <lemhen...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 16, 10:49 am, John Kennaugh <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

xray4abcwrote:
On Nov 12, 12:02 pm, John Kennaugh <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi, John
I have really enjoyed your post !
I think too that there is a great deal of cleaning work
to be done in the matter of relativity theory versus reality!
Today, after learning about the many properties of a
quantum vacuum, there should be a lot more voices questioning
the "non-existence" of aether or vacuum-matter.
The thing is that, as Max Von Laue noticed, a new view or a new
theory can not win the hearts and minds of its adversaries, it
just can over-live them.

I was told it was Planck who said that.
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way
by gradually winning over and converting its opponents…
What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out,
and that the growing generation is familiarized with the
ideas from the beginning." - Max Planck

Well, I have not the book with me, to make 100% sure
who said it !It may have been Max Planck's autobiography where I
have read it, but still referring to Max von Laue and his book on
the history of physics as I can recall. It was quite a time ago
I've read it, so I may be wrong regarding the person, yet I think
I'm not!

Then,the best thing for guys like us is, not to fight with
mathe-fantasizers but, go to the facts and try to see how things
really are and of course ignore the "noise of beothiens".
Right now there are a lot more of facts known then a hundred years ago
, which could lead to
a breakthrough this time.

Unfortunately I do not share your optimism. You need two sides to a
debate and the stranglehold of orthodoxy means that there is only one.

If there is a debate!
Why debate now? It has passed over a hundred years of new
experiences and debates.
It would be time to reassess things, rethink the basics.
Many of us are feeling this way and some are even trying
to do it, more or less successfully.
I have seen rarely, if any, an honest debate or collective
effort
to get things straight.
I have taught physics for over 20 years. One thing that I noticed
was that we, people, think differently....due to so many factors.
I have seen only once or twice in this group somebody saying
'Oh, yes, you are right" meaning that he/she understood what
was said. In all other cases I just could see ...monologues!
From my part, I was encouraging you, as I was doing with my
students,
to pursue ,what I consider to be, a worhty goal!
I am pursuing a similar path, yet, I am quite positive, I have to
do it ...alone! Otherwise, I would need probably..at least 100 years
more
to get the slightest achievements.

Nice context. Thanks for getting a thread on spin going.
Every time I try to get into a discussion on spin it dead ends.
The subject gets thick very rapidly so I hope to get one simple
concern addressed:

Maxwell developed his equations upon the assumption of raw charge
without a magnetic moment.
Upon allowing the magnetic moment as inherent then Maxwell's equations
come into question.

This is apt since the intertwining of electricity and magnetism were
supposedly perfectly described by Maxwell. Next we can ask if Maxwell
unified electricity and magnetism

He didn't. Oersted, Ampere and Faraday did that. They showed that
Magnetism was caused by moving charge and that charge could be moved by
magnetism. Maxwell showed a link with light i.e. Maxwell showed that
there is a link between charge and light - so it follows that there is a
link between photons and charge.

Thanks for the correction. I just reviewed Maxwell's Part I of his
1864 paper
http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Maxwell_1864_1.pdf
and see that he is thinking largely off of Weber and does mention
electric potential but not charge as a raw basis, which is more what
I've been claiming for awhile here.

However, my semimodern education has been of accuracy of Maxwell's
equations and built from raw electric charge with familiar equations
such as
F = q E + q v X B
There are so many names involved in the historical development.
Lorentz is much more distant than Maxwell as far as names go yet I
suppose his expression is more what I think of when I think of
electromagnetism. So I should refine my statement:

Electromagnetism has been developed upon the assumption of raw charge
without a magnetic moment.

This is apt since the intertwining of electricity and magnetism were
supposedly perfectly described by Maxwell. Next we can ask if Maxwell
unified electricity and magnetism.

I do not see his theory as unifying, but instead as a tight
relationship between two distinct forces.
The answer as I see it is to consider structured spacetime and so do
away with the insistence on isotropic space. If relative reference
frames within a structured spacetime are incorporated properly then I
predict a clean solution will be forthcoming, these relative reference
frames allowing for what was isotropic space from a structured basis.

Thanks for the correction. So few bother here.

- Tim
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 4th Maxwell equation and Lorentz force equation
    ... > | it again in my old copy of "Electricity and Magnetism" by Harris ... > | you end up noticing that the only difference seems to be charge. ... > derivation of the Lorentz force law as a problem 12.66 to the reader. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: A guide for students of physics in the art of spin Part 2
    ... Maxwell developed his equations upon the assumption of raw charge ... This is apt since the intertwining of electricity and magnetism were ... They showed that Magnetism was caused by moving charge and that charge could be moved by magnetism. ... that relativity theory is an instance of structured spacetime. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: 4th Maxwell equation and Lorentz force equation
    ... I do think the the Lorentz force law is separate from Maxwell's ... it again in my old copy of "Electricity and Magnetism" by Harris ... you end up noticing that the only difference seems to be charge. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: electromagnetic fields
    ... EM has nothing to do with electrons per-se. ... If you are curious to see what Maxwell actually did look at, ... moving charge using just the Lorentz transformations. ... Hence I'll stick with learning about the modern view of magnetism, ...
    (sci.physics.electromag)
  • Re: Magnetism and Light
    ... > There are simple experiments that show a connection between magnetism ... Maxwell came up with a connection between electricity ...
    (sci.physics)