Re: Charged spinning disks

On May 23, 9:45 am, RP <no_mail_no_s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 22, 9:29 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.  

They don't unless you have an absolute motion
detector in your tool shed.  (principle of relativity)

Nonsense. If the metric is altered by nearby charges, then only the
relative motion of those charges and our test charge matter. FWIW, why
do you think a point charge moves along a straight line in a field-
free region of space?  

Where did you find a "field free" region of space?

What is the Interstellar Medium?

Wouldn't this motion require someting to
reference it to? How do we know it's moving along a straight line?

What do you know that moves along a straight line?

Not projectiles. Not light.

Here in this case we are referencing that motion to more or less fixed
"neutral" masses in space. It is wrt to that system of masses that the
point charge moves along a straight line.

If mass is homogeneously distributed on 3 axes, then
there is some reason to expect a neutral mass to move
along a straight line.

""The weakness of the principle of inertia lies in
this, that it involves an argument in a circle: a mass
moves without acceleration if it is sufficiently far
from other bodies; we know that it is sufficiently far
from other bodies only by the fact that it moves
without acceleration." --A. Einstein

Here again we thus have
relative motion rather than absolute motion. And how do you suppose
even in that case we get straight line motion?  There is most
certainly some mechanism involving those fixed masses that fixes the
metric thorugh which the point charge moves. Since the only thing
around to provide such a mechanism is the surrounding fixed neutral
masses, then it is these that are providing that metric.  In turn all
of these are, fundamentally, composed of charges. They are collections
of fermions, and not things themselves as far as these arguments are

Not sure you can use a metric theory for charges.
That is why I included the black hole electron URL and
GR gets mathematically squirrelly in that domain.

Tensors and pseudo-tensors

 When the negative charges in the surrounding objects produce a curved
path to the left for a moving point charge through that space, the
positive charges in them produces a curved path to the right. The
superposition of these effects on the metric yields a straight path
for the point charge.  

That doesn't sound like a right hand rule.

Space is thus exactly the superposed fields of
all of the charges in the universe, where the fields of the particles
of charge are interpreted as being contributions to the metric.  In
this sense absolute motion and relative motion are actually one and
the same, and the expression "absolute motion" in its common sense
loses all meaning, it was only a figment of imagination, one of the
meaningless statements that I referred to.  I believe Mach had already
concluded the same, albeit again, I am reinterpreting the arguments in
favor of charge rather than mass.

I say we can't define the mass of a charge sufficiently
to draw those conclusions. 10^-42 is a big number.

If you'll review the above concept, then you'll see that it actually
works quite well. When one or more of the surrounding masses is non-
neutral, then the point charge no longer assumes straight-line motion,
but rather curved motion.  If you view the point charges as being
extensions of 4D hyperbolic/elliptical space and superpose these over
one another, then electromagnetic phenomena result naturally. The
present forms of geometry may not yet be equipped to deal with
positive and negative spaces however. But then that isn't my fault.

You contradict yourself below:

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

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

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?

By Coulomb force.

Which is a special case of Weber's force. No contradition. But here
again, Weber's force can easily be adapted to a metrical form, whereas
the classical E and B fields cannot.

How an antenna launches its input power into
radiation: the pattern of the Poynting vector at
and near an antenna  --JD Jackson

Energy is globally conserved. I've already gone over this argument,
and so did Feynman.

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.

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

What is the Interstellar Medium?

Indeed, what is the interstellar medium?  I believe I thourougly
addressed that above.

Propagation in a dielectric medium

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 derivation correct, even in the
special relativistic context.

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



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.

Too many people looking for too many mass anomalies
and too many definitions of mass to make an assumption like that.

FWIW, when you eliminate force and replace it with curvature of space-
time, then mass is necessarily also eliminated, but the the fundmental
particles  have to be retained, otherwise there is nothing to describe
the motion of. These can in turn be regarded not as "having" charge,
but as "being" a charge. Thus again we are led to the inevitable
conclusion, the metric is a funcion of charge or energy (since energy
is in turn a function of charges) rather than mass.

Gravity is an electromagnetic phenomenon., and electromagnetism is a
result of space-time curvatures.  

<< In physics, there is a *speculative notion* that if there
were a black hole with the same mass and charge as an
electron, it would share many of the properties of the electron
including the magnetic moment and Compton wavelength.

As a description, the black hole electron theory is
incomplete. The first problem is that black holes tend to
merge when they meet. Therefore, a collection of black-
hole electrons would be expected to become one big black
hole. Also, an electron-positron collision would be expected
to produce a larger neutral black hole instead of two photons a
s is observed. >>

<< This is irrelevant.  The electron isn't a black hole. >>

You don't know that 'till you have described it with a
a metric theory.

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.

I think Einstein held some hope for a ~black hole electron~
to unify EM an gravity.  Since neither Higgs bosons
nor ~black hole electrons~ are in our menagerie it
is somewhat difficult to test their equivalence or

Again irrelevant.

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.

I think Weber's Electrodynamics may make that assumption.


I think Weber's electrodynamics introduces the possibility that mass
is an electromagnetic effect, and hints at some future possibility of
unifying gravity and electromagnetism.  What I posted above is what I
believe is the correct path to that unification. Weber did not have
such ...

Again you are direct contradiction of your previous statements in this
thread. Are you and benj both in the chicken and egg business
to figure out which is fundamental ? :-)

There is some support for the unification, but not
by Weber's electrodynamics.

Emergent gravity