Re: Charged spinning disks

On May 20, 1:35 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 20, 7:39 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 20, 8:14 am, RP <no_mail_no_s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<<  Who knows  which it really modifies? >>

Should we care ?

We should.  FWIW, the factor could just as easily be taken to be a
modification to r, the radial separation between the charges. Their
relative motions may for unknown reasons cause them to "think" that
they are closer together than what we measure them to be.  

I've no problem imbuing fundamental particles with the
complexities of thought processes. The relativity quacks get
by with far less.

This was
just hypothetical, but there is no doubt that the answer lies in the
structure of spacetime, at least according to my version of the
theory.

Lightning propagated long before space-time was formulated,
or so we could infer from ancient texts so I have a little
problem with your time-line.

http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node113.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_time


What say we refer to natures construction rather than
a mathematician's construction?

What is the Interstellar Medium?
http://espg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html

Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html


If the Coulomb force itself (between macroscopic
electrostatic charges at rest) is due to the motions of the
fundmanetal particles of charge relative to each other, then we no
longer have available a relativistic adjustment to the Coulomb force
to produce magnetism (per Purcell), but rather only one fundamental
influence that in turn requires relative motion before this influence
is seen.  In such a case it seems likely that a fundmental particle of
charge affects the very metric in which the other particles move.

So don't use Purcell. You will have plenty of company.

Electrons tell space how to curve, and space tells electrons how to
move.

~~Wheeler?

Whoa!

That is a gravitational expression. You don't even know
if electrons know how to fall. Coulomb force is ~10^42
greater than gravity so I won't ask if you have an experiment.


There is no longer such a concept as "static force".  And when
you look closely at that expression it seems self contradictory
anyway.  A static condition cannot induce dynamism.  

Purcell needs "dynamism" . That is the penalty for teaching
Pythagorean theorem to students that are paying to learn
multiple integrals.




In my theory
there is no output without some input, which seems more tolerable than
Coulomb's magical energy from nowhere.  Of course the same arugment
can be applied to Newton's universal law of gravitation, and here
again we have the mutually exclusive terms coupled together "static"
"interaction" to account for the graviational interaction.

It might not be good idea to assume gravity is a fundamental
force 'till we have a good picture of an indivisible Higgs boson.

Emergent gravity
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25.html#x34-720006.3

 In short,
F (force), only has meaning when there is m and a, where both of the
latter are nonzero values. A static force is quite an impossibility.


So ditch Purcell. My fridge magnets haven't moved all
day and they are sticking just fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zitterbewegung

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applications






In my version, the electrons are taken to already be moving at c wrt
each other, and the drift is just an increase in the already existing
relative tangential speeds of the electrons. This requires that the
linear speed of the electron actually be (sqrt2)c, and thus this
version is inherently not in conformity with special relativistic
constraints on speed.  The Coulomb force itself is thus also due to
the motions of electrons wrt each other, the drift of electrons
(current) is just an enhancement to the preexisting relative motion,
and thus also provides merely an an agumentation of the Coulomb
force.  The equation is however mathematically identical to Webers,
since the factor (sqrt2)c cancels out when Coulombs force is solved
for. FWIW, some accounts of Weber's force seem to suggest that he held
the same view, some don't.  I am not an expert on Weber, only on my
own independently derived version of the theory.

You assume some constraints that don't apply in subatomics.
But that is the beauty of the exercise... a better understanding
of the electron and positron.

Comparison between Weber's electrodynamics
and classical electrodynamics
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000Prama..55..393A

Faraday's law method
Lorentz force law method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applica...

Sue...

=========

You're full of links. :)

I get more laughs and insults posting links to the material
of others, so it has become a bad habit. I am saving my creative
juices for something more useful, like poetry. :-)

Sue...


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Charged spinning disks
    ... the radial separation between the charges. ... If the Coulomb force itself (between macroscopic ... influence that in turn requires relative motion before this influence ... Electrons tell space how to curve, and space tells electrons how to ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Reiseberichtund Bilder Hamata - Zabargad
    ... Sand fotografiert (und das auf 30m unter dem Boot), und nicht nachkommt - selbst nach Aufforderung - dann ist man machtlos - oder wie siehst du das? ... Ich schüttel auch manchmal den Kopf, ... Soll doch die Basis für ihn einen Guide stellen! ...
    (de.rec.sport.tauchen)
  • Re: Time Dilation Mistakes
    ... I suppose I always found Special Relativity confusing, ... charges and the negative moving charges because of length ... dilation that effects the moving charges, ... I do not recall ever calculating the force by keeping the electrons ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Proposing Physics Experimentation with Eff. Premises
    ... >> gave the results such as the relativity of simultaneity, ... >> of each relative to inertial frames of reference. ... The relative motion of magnet and wire is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
    ... demonstrates the reality of the Lorentz contraction of a real physical ... experiments are seldom done to "prove" relativity. ... diffraction as proof that the Lorentz contraction formula is accurate ... relativistic electrons is experimentally observed at small angles to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading