Re: Pioneer anomaly engineering questions

"srp" <srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4454A000.7010808@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
FrediFizzx a écrit :
"srp" <srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4453AF75.2050606@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

FrediFizzx a écrit :

"srp" <srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44536C98.4010003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

FrediFizzx a écrit :

"srp" <srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4451F0A3.10706@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

FrediFizzx a écrit :

"srp" <srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4451533B.9030301@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Just a little note
srp a écrit :

FrediFizzx a écrit :

[snip]
I don't see how defining Ampere = sqrt(mass*length)/time is so
"traditional". ;-)

Can't argue that point. I simply do not work with Amperes, nor
any other complex units, not even with kg.

I found that going to the most elementary dimensions possible
was the only way to really untangle the fundamental
electromagnetic relations.

For example, as you well know, even kg is not an elementary unit.
If you resolve it to its next internal level of constituting units,
you get:

kg = (J s^2)/m^2

I worked with this sub definition quite a while, but as soon
as I really got down into the nature of energy, which involves
charge, even this sub level became inadequate, since Joules
are not elementary in this regard.

You find the real bottom level (linking charge to length and
time) when you resolve J to its own next internal level of
constituting units:

J = (C^2 m) /s^2 (Q^2 L T^-2)

So for mass in terms of (Q L T) you get

kg = (C^2/m)

Well, this is like E = mass = charge^2/length with c = 1. Did you go
relativistic somewhere? But from the expansion of the electron compton
wavelength formula I get in cgs units,

m_e = charge^2*time^2/length^3

Which I think shows better what mass really is. Two charges interacting
in a volume of space with a time factor associated with each charge.
However, if we go relativistic and have time be a length, then it
reduces to your charge^2/length in natural units with c = 1. So it must
be OK fundamentally. Of course in our plan, one of the charges is QVC
so it coincides somewhat with the Higgs mechanism. However, hard to
make this work out for a more complex system like a proton and using
strong charge. But it should be possible since QVC is related to all
charge; even strong charge.

Which when substituting in the first level of kg internal units,
you get

kg = C^2/m (Q^2 L^-1)

Which is the very bottom Maxwell compliant definition of mass.

You may disagree with the method. But it limits dimensions
to only three fundamental units (Q L and T), which allows to much
more clearly examine the really fundamental energy issues.

I don't disagree with any unit system as long as it is consistent and I
know how to convert to other unit systems. ;-)

[snip]
Well, I carefully followed Stratton's very clear description
of the various unit systems. No improvisation at all.


Yeah, as you saw from the other post, I messed this up. Should be
current = sqrt(mass*length)/time and charge = sqrt(mass*length).
Did
Stratton give this system a particular name?

He completely describes both cgs unit systems,
the ESU CGS (Electrostatic CGS unit system) and
the EMU CGS (Electromagnetic CGS unit system)

If you look those up, you should get more detail

I already know what those are. Gaussian cgs is the combination of them
which is what quite a few physics books use including Jackson.

The best description I ever layed eyes on however always
was Statton's tables and conversion method

"Electromagnetic Theory" JA Stratton, McGraw Hill, 1961,
Page 691

He completely explains how and why they relate to MKS
at the beginning of the book.

Jackson does also but at the end of his book in the appendix. But what
does this have to do with your unit system? It is different.

m/s

Do the calculation and you will see that the 10^-7 remains
offset when working in SI


The 10^-7 factor comes from the definition of the Ampere in SI

units.

The real factor is actually 2 x 10^-7 newton/amp^2.

From J A Stratton, it simply comes from converting ergs from
either cgs systems to MKS Joules.

Yes, the Ampere in SI is defined mechanically also as 2 x 10^-7
Joule/m^2 or 2 x 10^-7 N/m.

No arguments here. Not important in my model.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/ampere.html

This factor was arbitrarily multiplied by 2pi to rationalize mu0.

mu0 =

(2pi 2 x 10^-7 newton)/amp^2.

I have had Julius Adams Stratton "Electromagnetic Theory" as a

reference

since the 1960's. No better source available that I know of.

Well, that doesn't change the fact that since the Ampere is defined
mechanically in SI as 2 x 10^-7 N/m that the real SI magnetic
constant
for free space is 2 x 10^-7 N/A^2.


Can't argue with that. I simply don't work with these units, that
are quite misleading at the fundamental level. Couldn't get anywhere
until I dumped them by resolving the whole lot to their really
fundamental dimensions (Q L T)

But why do I get charge = sqrt(mass*length) for your system if charge is
a fundamental unit?

Now we have three sets of units for Z_0

Z_0 = Ohm = (J s) / C^2 = m/s


Well, only two. The first and second are both SI. The third is

André's

unit system with electric current dimensionless.

Not at all. the "pi forms" of both eps0 and mu0 are quite standard.
Perfectly clarified in Stratton.

Well, I have never seen this "pi forms" before in my 4 books on
electrodynamics (ED) and Jackson doesn't mention it in his Appendix
on
the unit systems of ED. It doesn't seem to be very common usage at
all.
Unless you have a specific name for it other than "pi forms", let's
call
it André's unit system for now. ;-)

I didn't imply that they were common usage. I only said that they
are quite standard forms. You just need to get your hands on
an older reference. If you get a Stratton, you will have hit
the jackpot on more than one count about electromagnetism, I tell
you.

Well, it seems to have good reviews on Amazon. Could you scan the
conversion table parts and email to me sometime? So I can see better
what you are talking about.

Hmm... interesting
that making electric current dimensionless results in resistance

being

the magnitude of velocity. I have the feeling that something is

missing

here. ;-)



The only way to reconcile them is to give J the value that we
obtain from the Energy equation mentioned up there, which is

J = (C^2 m) /s^2


Hmm... C^2/s^2 is current squared which is dimensionless so we end

up

with J = m x (a dimemsionless factor). This seems screwy that

energy =

length. ??? This is like an inverse of natural units.

Not more than energy = time (Planck's h) in my view.

Energy associated to transverse integrated amplitude requires
energy being calculated as a function of transverse acceleration.

Makes much more obvious that the total complement of energy of
a photon is always at max which is conform to verified reality,
contrary to the use of h which seems to leave the impression that
one full second needs have elapsed before the complete energy
of a photon can accumulate, which is definitely NOT conform
to observation.

??? Where do you get the "one full second" from?

With h, to get the full complement of a photon's energy, you
mathematically need to multiply h by the number of cycles
per second (the frequency)

??? I still don't get "one full second".

With H, the full complement of a photon's energy relates directly
to the stability of its Poynting vector in the 3-spaces model.

Constantly stable at max photon energy value on account of
the transverse CL oscillation.

Relative to a
detector, a photon has no "length" in its direction of travel.

Of course. I was talking about the calculation method

E = h nu = energy per cycle by number of cycle _per second_

??? I am still lost here.

[snip]
Done many times over. The equation system is fully coherent and
fully Maxwell compliant. That's all I needed to describe the
model.

OK, I will have to think about this some more now that I know charge
sqrt(mass*length) in your system. Seems screwy but any unit system
should be valid as long as it is consistent.

I must say that in my exploration, I ended up with no internal
sub-units for charge, since it was the behavior of charge within
photons that I needed to explore to mathematically address
energy in the 3-spaces model. At the bottom level, I use only
charge, distance, and time (Q L T).

That is fine. I always wondered what a unit system would look like if
elementary charge was taken to be fundamental. Do you have a conversion
table in the new version of your book?

[snip]
Well you have to STATE how to convert from your unit system to any
other
unit system. For sure any unit system is good as long as it is
consistent. SI compliancy is irrelavent. You should have simply
just
said that charge = sqrt(mass*length) with the appropriate conversion
numbers. Or something like that. Don't make people try to guess at
what you are doing. They are bound to make mistakes like I did.
LOL!

Nobody has to guess anything about the units and conversion method I
used. Fully explained in my book.

You certainly relate to the fact that it is difficult to summarily
describe such complex and acute issues in informal conversations
such as this one.

Sure.

[snip]
Because it simply is the nature of electromagnetic energy to be
_transverse_ to the direction of motion in vacuum.


??? I really don't know what you mean by this statement.

I can't explain any more clearly. To really understand, you
would need to clearly integrate the 3-spaces geometry, or
to dig into Stratton. No doubt other sources could clarify
the issue.

Standard Plane wave treatment also allows to apprehend
the transverse nature of EM energy. Even my old Halliday
and Resnick is clear about it.

I guess you mean the electric and magnetic field vectors are transverse
wrt a detector. I don't see why that makes EM energy "transverse". I
think you are implying that energy is a vector when it is a scalar.

And since quanta of energy are isolated in my model, they simply
have no choice but to oscillate LC between both states. If they
oscillate, the energy has no choice but to reverse direction after
having reach max E, at which point, transverse velocity is zero,
to accelerate back until max reverse velocity c is reached, then
decelerate until max B is reached, at which point transverse
velocity is also zero, to reverse direction again, accelerate until
max velocity of c is reached to decelerate again until max E is
reached and so on: very standard run of the mill LC oscillation.

There is no oscillation in a "quanta of EM energie's" "frame".

In the 3-spaces geometry, there is, by definition. That's the
nature of the beast.

Any "oscillation" can only come from a photon's helicity.

I see it in your QVC model. In mine it is as above.

I just don't see how that can be possible. An EM wave's energy can
oscillate wrt a detector but I just don't see how it could in its
"frame". Imagine yourself riding on the crest of an EM wave. It never
oscillates wrt you. I am obviously missing something important in your
"mechanism".

That's simply the nature of electromagnetic LC oscillating motion
of photons while moving longitudinally at c in the 3-spaces model.


With respect to a detector,
transverse acceleration would be a "ghost" much like the fact that

if

you pointed a laser beam out into space and moved it, the beam very

far

from the source would appear to be moving faster than the speed of

light

transversely and also accelerating in the tranverse direction. But

it

is just an illusion.

Maybe. But that's absolutely not what "transverse acceleration"
refers
to in fundamental Maxwell. It is acceleration on the transverse
electromagnetic plane orthogonal to the direction of motion in
vacuum of EM energy.

Well, I tried to explain. Thanks anyway for the confirmation
of the values of C and L. Great stuff.

Well, now that I finally know what unit system you are working in
with
some of this, maybe it will make more sense.

If you really want to deal with my equation set, I garantee you
that the easiest way is to go (Q L T)

Well, I would like to see how you deal with protons using your unit
system.

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps

http://www.vacuum-physics.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Pioneer anomaly engineering questions
    ... What unit system are you in here? ... From the converted equation for Energy (that I already mentioned ... energy being calculated as a function of transverse acceleration. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Pioneer anomaly engineering questions
    ... as I really got down into the nature of energy, ... charge, even this sub level became inadequate, since Joules ... I don't disagree with any unit system as long as it is consistent and I ... have no choice but to oscillate LC between both states. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Pioneer anomaly engineering questions
    ... What unit system are you in here? ... more clearly examine the really fundamental energy issues. ... energy being calculated as a function of transverse acceleration. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Pioneer anomaly engineering questions
    ... unit system with electric current dimensionless. ... obtain from the Energy equation mentioned up there, ... simplifying the equation for H (transverse EM acceleration constant). ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: 2015
    ... You are not in charge, ... As to lord Mook, and others of your kind, I think that you're all ... energy that reaches the surface of Earth isn't the WorldFactBook 346 w/ ... I am not Jewish and I have no Jewish tradition ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Quantcast