Re: Charged spinning disks

On May 21, 4:17 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

How about this alternate interpretation: The particles may experience
less space between them when in relative motion. The particles no
longer need thought processes. On the other hand, this would require
that wrt them there actually is less space between them, and thus
their motions must alter the space itself. Just hold that thought for
a moment and you might get a better idea where I was going with the
previous arguments.



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.

Space-time is just time and space. These existed long before
"Minkowski's" version of space-time was formulated. What I was
referring to as spece-time above wasn't Minkowski's space-time, but
nature's verison of space-time. Ultimately, the only way to deprive
charged particles of thought processes is to have them move where
space guides them. And in order to deprive space of though processes,
charged particles must tell space-time how to bend. The two become
actually one and the same. What we call the field of the electron is
just its influence on the structure of space-time, or in other words
on the metric. The idea of forces propagating through space as
something other than space, i.e., as something moving through space,
requires the recoiling electron to know how it's supposed to respond.
It has no intelligence however, so this might be a difficult task for
it to accomplish. Moreover, by what means does the carrier wave or
photons interact with the electron? We are supposed to understand that
"it just does", without explanation at all, let alone a plausible
one. If however the electron is just moving blindly along the
shortest path through space and time (hints of Feynman), then no
further explanation is required, and the electron is content to remain
perfectly oblivious to its motion, and even to its existence.

Einstein formulated this notion in terms of mass and its connection to
the metric, but once again I will disagree and say that it is charge
that determines the metric. Mass is not an invariant, and thus it is
not real, and what is not real is imagined. No imaginary thing can
influence the motion of a particle.


http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.htmlhttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node113.htmlhttp://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 mediumhttp://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.

I don't use Purcell, nor do I find his derivaton correct, even in the
special relativistic context.

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

~~Wheeler?

Whoa!

That is a gravitational expression.

Not in this argument it isn't! Well not directly. GR has to be a
limiting case of a more general theory cast in terms of charges rather
than mass.
Gravity is an electromagnetic phenomenon., and electromagnetism is a
result of space-time curvatures. So GR isn't necessarily wrong per
se, it simply isn't fundamental. FWIW Einstein said pretty much the
same himself. I could look up a quote or two, but you've probably read
them a time or two already.

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.

Indeed. Precisely.


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 gravityhttp://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25....

 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.

And they remain there only because the particles of which they are
composed are constantly in motion wrt the particles within the fridge
door. The momentum flux at the junction will equal the supposed
"Force" acting to hold the magnets in place. There must be mass in
accelerated motion in order to have force. There is a difference
between "tension" due to opposing forces, and "no force", even though
the opposing forces add up to zero net force on the mass as a whole.
The fact that there is tension on an object means that the forces are
still there, and thus not nulled out everywher within the object, but
only wrt the acceleration of the object as a whole. The forces are
still very present at the surfaces where the forces act. To put this
more simply, when opposing fields in space result in no acceleratoin
of an electron, then there is equivalently "no force" acting at that
point in space. But for a macroscopic mass the fields don't cancel
everywhere in the volume of that mass, even though they may cancel
when considering the net acceleration of the mass as a whole. So
something has to be accelerating within the masses, or else there
would be no forces there to oppose one another, and thus no tension on
the object, and the magnet would fall off of the fridge door. Thus
the charges of which the magnet and the fridge door are interacting
dynamically, via Weber's force, to hold the magnet to the fridge door.




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

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







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 methodhttp://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...

Poetry is what we're battling against. The mainstream is fond of
meaningless expressions and redundancy.
:)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Charged spinning disks
    ... the radial separation between the charges. ... less space between them when in relative motion. ... (principle of relativity) ... requires the recoiling electron to know how it's supposed to respond. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Explanation? of Inductance and Inertia
    ... All motion is relative, so what is it ... You will have no explanation without it. ... even if an electron appeared ... special relativity). ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Charged spinning disks
    ...  The relativity quacks get ... less space between them when in relative motion. ... relative motion of those charges and our test charge matter. ... requires the recoiling electron to know how it's supposed to respond. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Charged spinning disks
    ...  The relativity quacks get ... relative motion of those charges and our test charge matter. ... What we call the field of the electron is ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Why
    ... IOW's if you push or pull charges ... The interaction of the charge with the electromagnetic field ... > in the case of the Dirac electron. ... >>of Relativity insists you may attach a ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading