| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RP
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:42 pm Post subject: Re: A magnetic field does not exist. |
 |
|
blackhead wrote:
I find Purcell>s explanation confusing, to be honest. If a current is
flowing in a loop of wire, then the moving electrons, according to
Purcell, are Lorentz contracted along the circumference of the wire
and so its diameter remains the same, yet the charge density increases
giving rise to there being a net negative charge on the wire.
Therefore the total charge has somehow increased, even though he
states that charge is a Lorentz invariant.
Secondly, he doesn>t explain why he uses length contraction but leaves
out time dilation in his derivation.
=====
Purcell does use time dilation as well as length contraction and
electron field flattening.
Shroeder uses a different set of initial conditions.
However, special relativty predicts a decrease in forces between
charges at rest wrt each other as percieved from a frame in which they
are moving. This in itself destroys the relativistic arguments of
both authors. If the total force on the conductors is solved for, then
the force per unit length that these authors predict will present
contradictions. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Benj
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 4:24 am Post subject: Re: A magnetic field does not exist. |
|
|
On Oct 27, 10:18 am, "Terry L Hewett Sr" <terrylhewet...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[quote]"Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
Faraday was a Quack! Maxwell is bunk!
I don>t agree with those statements.
[/quote]
Actually I don>t either. I was just trying to be provocative! ;-)
[quote]So my question is that if "magnetic induction" (which is obviously not
at all "magnetic") is caused by a flow of photons, why hasn>t anybody
measured that photon flow?
:-)
Simply because to measure it one has to know what path the photon flows.
Which from your question it is obvious you don>t know either. From a
electromagnetic standpoint where the photon is entangled with and dependent
on the electron flow your observations are correct.
[/quote]
Um, Yes.
[quote]However in the case of permanent magnets the photon flow is entangeled with
the mass. which is the case with all mass to some degree. Induction in part
is inciting a riot of generally inactive photons using the active photons
flux component. Plunging the magnet through a loop or rather coil excites
the normally and for the better part inactive photons of the loop thus
generating a voltage. this works verse visa. introduce a voltage to the loop
and you excite the existing inactive photons and what we generally term as a
magnetic field is produced.
[/quote]
What you mean is the that the physical effects we have modeled as a
magnetic field are produced, right?
[quote]But to say that there is no such thing as a magnetic field is what prompted
some of the responces here. When to most and this includes the scientific
community the term magnetic field is the only way of describing the
observations of the effect of the photon flow.
[/quote]
Semantics, yes. Obviously there is a set of mathematics that have been
termed a "magnetic field" and yes it is a standard way of describing
effects. However, as you note to regard the Magnetic Field as the name
of a real "thing" rather than the name of a mathematical system
describing effects would [apparently] not be correct.
[quote]The path the photon follows is what we generally depict as infinity with the
flux component bieng generated where the photons pass closely in both
directions. flipping and rotating the photon as it passes through the flux
component. However the infinity symbol is only one representation of
infinity with one flux component. There is the potential for infinity to
have multiple flux components and maintain it>s integrity as a infinite
looping form.
[/quote]
Is replacing the field mathematics with a double looping infinity some
kind of advance in understanding? Personally, I don>t understand what
you>ve just said here. Anyone? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zzbunker@netscape.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 4:54 am Post subject: Re: A magnetic field does not exist. |
|
|
On Oct 15, 2:16 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
[quote]Consider magnetic induction:
If you have some changing current element di, about that element in
spherical layers falling off as I/r is generated an electric field
that can accelerate a test charge. The force accelerating the charge
is always parallel (or anti-parallel) to the direction of the current
element. People often assume that this action is caused by the
magnetic field from that current but that is wrong. Causality shows
that induction isn>t caused by the magnetic field from the current.
Furthermore, the induced force field is spherical whereas Biot and
Savart show that a magnetic field from such an element is zero down
the wire. Only the magnetic vector potential A is spherical but
causality says that it cannot be the cause either. So now there is a
mystery.
So we therefore go take a QED approach. In this "theory" there are
only two things that exist: Electrons and Photons. Electrons for the
source current is just fine as well as electrons moving from the
induced force field. But how does this force transfer from the rate
of change of source current to a test charge at a distance. Well, the
answer is that the source current electrons give off photons when
accelerated or decelerated. Those photons travel at the speed of light
to the "test" electron where they are absorbed and induce a momentum
transfer to it. In other words Magnetic fields don>t exist. Vector
potential fields "A" don>t exist. All there is would be a flow of
photons from the source current to the test charge. Induction is
nothing but a flow of photons!
[/quote]
Well, it>s doesn>t really matter, all that much, since it>s only
scientists who even claimed that force fields of *any kind*
exist. Engineers have mostly always claimed that MAGNETS exists.
And ELECTRO-MAGNETS exist. And IRON SHAVINGS exists.
And their neo-counterparts: ROBOTS, LASERS, and HOLOGRAMS exist.
[quote]Faraday was a Quack! Maxwell is bunk!
So my question is that if "magnetic induction" (which is obviously not
at all "magnetic") is caused by a flow of photons, why hasn>t anybody
measured that photon flow?
:-)[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
blackhead
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: A magnetic field does not exist. |
|
|
On 31 Oct, 12:42, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]blackhead wrote:
I find Purcell>s explanation confusing, to be honest. If a current is
flowing in a loop of wire, then the moving electrons, according to
Purcell, are Lorentz contracted along the circumference of the wire
and so its diameter remains the same, yet the charge density increases
giving rise to there being a net negative charge on the wire.
Therefore the total charge has somehow increased, even though he
states that charge is a Lorentz invariant.
Secondly, he doesn>t explain why he uses length contraction but leaves
out time dilation in his derivation.
====
Purcell does use time dilation as well as length contraction and
electron field flattening.
Shroeder uses a different set of initial conditions.
[/quote]
[quote]However, special relativty predicts a decrease in forces between
charges at rest wrt each other as percieved from a frame in which they
are moving. This in itself destroys the relativistic arguments of
both authors. If the total force on the conductors is solved for, then
the force per unit length that these authors predict will present
contradictions.
[/quote]
I>m not sure about this. As the relative velocity of the two elecrons
wrt the observer increases, the time dilation effect increases so that
the rate at which the two electrons are measured, by the observer, to
fly apart by electrostatic repulsion in their frame decreases. This
can also be interpreted as the magnetic force of attraction
increasngly compensating for the electrostatic force of replusion as
measured by the observer.
I haven>t done the calculations myself, but this is what I would
expect. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
RP
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:05 pm Post subject: Re: A magnetic field does not exist. |
|
|
On Nov 2, 5:01 am, blackhead <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote:
[quote]On 31 Oct, 12:42, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
blackhead wrote:
I find Purcell>s explanation confusing, to be honest. If a current is
flowing in a loop of wire, then the moving electrons, according to
Purcell, are Lorentz contracted along the circumference of the wire
and so its diameter remains the same, yet the charge density increases
giving rise to there being a net negative charge on the wire.
Therefore the total charge has somehow increased, even though he
states that charge is a Lorentz invariant.
Secondly, he doesn>t explain why he uses length contraction but leaves
out time dilation in his derivation.
====
Purcell does use time dilation as well as length contraction and
electron field flattening.
Shroeder uses a different set of initial conditions.
However, special relativty predicts a decrease in forces between
charges at rest wrt each other as percieved from a frame in which they
are moving. This in itself destroys the relativistic arguments of
both authors. If the total force on the conductors is solved for, then
the force per unit length that these authors predict will present
contradictions.
I>m not sure about this. As the relative velocity of the two elecrons
wrt the observer increases, the time dilation effect increases so that
the rate at which the two electrons are measured, by the observer, to
fly apart by electrostatic repulsion in their frame decreases. This
can also be interpreted as the magnetic force of attraction
increasngly compensating for the electrostatic force of replusion as
measured by the observer.
I haven>t done the calculations myself, but this is what I would
expect.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
That is indeed the classical interpretation. Another interpretation of
the reduction in force between electrons comoving at relativistic
speeds, is that by virtue of their common motion at near c in the
accellerator, in the same direction, the transverse speed between
them, i.e., from their own frames, approaches zero. The force then
approaches zero because the force between bare electrons is
proportional to v^2, where v is the transverse speed of one wrt the
other. (See the thread "Contradictions?" for details.
There is a difference between accellerating a group of electrons
around a ring, and accellerating the observer in the other direction
wrt the ring while the electron charge remains stationary in the
magnetic bottle. Franz Heymann stated once that this reduction in
force between electrons comoving in an accellerater had been
verified. I replied that this was also predicted by the Weberian
model.
If you release a gas under pressure, so that it flows through a pipe
whose far end is open to the vacuum of space, then the internal KE of
the molecules is converted into motional KE of the gas as a whole. The
temperature of the gas drops, as does the static pressure. The
velocity pressure remains constant. The transverse interatomic forces
are reduced on average by the slowing of the molecules wrt each other.
If we were using a sound clock, which reflected a sound wave
transversely back and forth within the pipe, then the ticking rate of
our clock will be slower after the gas is set into motion down the
pipe than it was while the gas was still contained and not flowing.
The same result might be expected of an electron gas, which is more
nearly ideal than any molecular gas. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Terry L Hewett Sr
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject: Re: A magnetic field does not exist. |
|
|
"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:c1952f7e-7f12-4dca-92e5-fba02b777c56@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Oct 27, 10:18 am, "Terry L Hewett Sr" <terrylhewet...@yahoo.com
wrote:
"Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
Faraday was a Quack! Maxwell is bunk!
I don>t agree with those statements.
Actually I don>t either. I was just trying to be provocative! ;-)
So my question is that if "magnetic induction" (which is obviously not
at all "magnetic") is caused by a flow of photons, why hasn>t anybody
measured that photon flow?
:-)
Simply because to measure it one has to know what path the photon flows.
Which from your question it is obvious you don>t know either. From a
electromagnetic standpoint where the photon is entangled with and
dependent
on the electron flow your observations are correct.
Um, Yes.
However in the case of permanent magnets the photon flow is entangeled
with
the mass. which is the case with all mass to some degree. Induction in
part
is inciting a riot of generally inactive photons using the active photons
flux component. Plunging the magnet through a loop or rather coil excites
the normally and for the better part inactive photons of the loop thus
generating a voltage. this works verse visa. introduce a voltage to the
loop
and you excite the existing inactive photons and what we generally term
as a
magnetic field is produced.
What you mean is the that the physical effects we have modeled as a
magnetic field are produced, right?
But to say that there is no such thing as a magnetic field is what
prompted
some of the responces here. When to most and this includes the scientific
community the term magnetic field is the only way of describing the
observations of the effect of the photon flow.
Semantics, yes. Obviously there is a set of mathematics that have been
termed a "magnetic field" and yes it is a standard way of describing
effects. However, as you note to regard the Magnetic Field as the name
of a real "thing" rather than the name of a mathematical system
describing effects would [apparently] not be correct.
The path the photon follows is what we generally depict as infinity with
the
flux component bieng generated where the photons pass closely in both
directions. flipping and rotating the photon as it passes through the
flux
component. However the infinity symbol is only one representation of
infinity with one flux component. There is the potential for infinity to
have multiple flux components and maintain it>s integrity as a infinite
looping form.
Is replacing the field mathematics with a double looping infinity some
kind of advance in understanding? Personally, I don>t understand what
you>ve just said here. Anyone?
[/quote]
yes it is an advanced understanding. Now weither or not it is an advance in
understanding depends on how it is recieved or if it is recieved at all.
I>ll start with this
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/photonspath.jpg The photon
although it is entangled with mass it is not effected in the least by the
mass. it can pass through mass without resistance. The flux component is the
medium linking the mass and photons. There is no singularity in magnetics.
You can split a bar magnet in half and it will only result in having 2
magnets. verse visa when allowing two or more magnets to attract opposite
poles and meet. you essentially have one magnet with multiple flux
components.
underneath the magnetic reactive film is a 1/8th x 1/16 disk magnet n42.
standing on the narrow edge. the flux component is between the flat sides of
the disk making one flat surface N and the other S. it is a single magnet.
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!18thfieldsm.jpg
in the following image it shows the single magnet uncovered. however under
the film is two magnets stacked or allowed to attract opposite poles. note
the distance between poles has increased. The extra flux component isn>t
quite clear in the image. essentially 2 magnets have become one with an
extra flux component.
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!18thfield5stackedsm.jpg
continuing with this logic 12 magnets under the film.
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!18thfield12stacked.jpg
that is pretty common stuff. however it fully implicates the photons inner
workings. as the photon flips to align opposite poles of the photon through
the flux component. if there is not another flux component it will loop and
re enter the flux component. If there is an adjoining flux component it
simply flips to accomodate the existing conditions as it traverses through
the multiple flux components in a manner that i can only describe as
wormhole like. then upon exiting the multiple flux components the
polorization of the photon and the final flux component are the same
polorization rejecting the same pole till the photon does a final flip as it
is looping. the photon is then attracted to the flux component and drawn
into the wormhole like flux components until it exits the other end, and
loops returning to the flux wormhole. this all happens at or near light
speed in a cyclic manner infinitly.
As i said before there are no singularities. there is not just one photon
entangled with mass there is a plithora of photons doing this dance. In
common understanding of polorized masses this is impossible as the mass
physically interacts with other mass. this is not the case with photons as
they are un effected by other photons as they traverse. the polorization of
the photon may allow them to link to eachother as they traverse much like a
train with multiple cars. in this manner
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!coreinfinitysm.jpg
This image is how the infinite path of the photon is modified in the event
of stacking. I know this image is not correctly depicted. it would be more
fluid like twisting instead of up and down zig zag looking. it is hard for
me to put into images what i invision via copy and paste.
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/photonspathstacked.jpg
Invention is the marriage between mechanics and the sciences with
innovations in both fields.
Terry L Hewett Sr |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
