Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
harry
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:04 am Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
 |
|
"Darwin123" <drosen0000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41044e58-1449-4fda-916d-0a1375625ed0@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 19, 11:57 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba31eaa2-2897-4af4-9e9a-6456e9839d55@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
[...]
My question wasn't about explaining Maxwell's equations. My
question had the qualifier, "In terms of the aether theory." My
challenge was specifically aimed at supporters of the classical aether
theory, not just a call for any theory.
Which one?? The one that already was rejected by Newton is really "out".
The
one of Lorentz was modified by Einstein but the result (how it really
works
for GRT and QM) is not so clear.
I specifically asked if how
the aether could explain the magnetic field.
Einstein claimed that the aether theory wasn't a complete model of
electromagnetic forces because it was "redundant."
Where? Incomplete and redundant don't appear to convey the same idea....
A lot of people on this forum are claiming that the old time aether
classical aether isn't dead. There are some loudmouths who claim that
Einstein somehow "conned" people into rejecting the classical aether.
My point is that the classical aether was dead even before Einstein
buried it.
When do you think he buried it? As far I know it was Lorentz who really
buried the classical dragged ether concept.
I am sorry that I left out the word "classical." I have been
brought to understand there are quantum mechanical and relativistic
models out there that include a "substance" that distantly resembles
to the classical aether. These would not be the classical aether, yet
some can argue that such a model may be useful.
Sure. It was useful for people such as Lorentz, Langevin, Ives and Dirac.
I
also find such models quite helpful.
And what do you think of the new MIT model of which I gave you the link?
|
Such emerging properties theories look very promising.
| Quote: |
I refer to the idea
that the aether is a substance acting according to Principia that
carries light. In the sense that Newton meant "substance," the aether
would not very different from the air that carries sound. This type of
model will probably never again be used to model light.
Where in the Principia did Newton suggest such a model? Note that
he already rejected dragged ether models.
|
: Newton did not suggest an aether model for light.
Indeed, he even rejected the dragged ether model.
: Never ever. I did
: not mean that. I meant that the aether that supposedly carries light
: may not be describable in terms of Principia.
I read somewhere that he did discuss some kind of ether (similar to his
absolute space) in other works.
: Newton analyzed sound in "Principia." [...]
: The behavior of light, especially concerning polarization, is not
: analogous to the behavior of sound as described in Principia.
Indeed.
: Although no one pointed out this particular problem, I have come
: to the conclusion that the main problem between Maxwell's equation and
: Newton concerns Newton's Third Law. Newtons Third Law presupposes that
: for every action on a body, there is an immediate reaction on another
: body. For Maxwell's equations, this isn't true. If there is an action
: on an electrically charged body, there is a delayed reaction on
: another electrically charged body. The only way around this is what
: Lorentz and Einstein did. The field has to in some sense become a
: "body" itself. Defining air as a "body" that carries sound worked in a
: simple way for Newton. Defining the aether as a "body" that carries
: light doesn't work simply for Maxwell.
Right.
: Someone recently sent me a series of articles in which Maxwell
: tries to work the behavior of light and static fields into the
: framework of an aether. I haven't completed the series of articles,
: but I am pleasantly surprised at the effort. However, I am far enough
: along to say that the model does not look simple at all. It involves a
: rather counterintuitive "insulator" to protect fluid eddies from
: dissipation due to friction.
: As far as Einstein calling the aether redundant, look at this:
: http://ethertheory.chat.ru/epart2.htm
: In 1905 A. Einstein writes that introduction of "light-bearing ether"
: will appear thus redundant (Zur Elektrodynamik der bevegter Körper.
: Ann. Phys., 1905, 17, pp.891-921)
That's what I referred to above: no "redundant" but instead "superfluous
inasmuch". No ether model was required (except for the 2nd postulate of
course) for deriving the LT's and their consequences.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
: As I look back on Lorentz's book,
Which one? His Physics book or his later Lectures on physics book?
: I realize that he used the word
: reciprocity quite a bit. I may have confused the word "redundant" by
: "reciprocity." I apologize. However, look at
: "The Theory of Electrons" by H. A. Lorentz. He talks about his
: failures and praises Einstein for discovering "a remarkable
: reciprocity."
That reciprocity was in fact discovered by Poincare who had basically asked
for it in the first place, but evidently Lorentz had not yet seen his 1905
paper. The big joke is that Poincare praized Lorenz for that discovery. Good
for a film. :-)
: I may be misinterpreting it. However, I think in the
: context of the book that "reciprocity" and "redundancy" are two words
: for the same thing.
Not really. The mathematical reciprocity makes of course reference to an
ether redundant and useless for calculations. However, a conceptual void
exists in absence of the idea of a physical ether/space/vacuum/spacetime -
one is left with only a mathematical model that describes phenomena without
any conceptual idea of what physically happens.
Harald |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
john
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:54 pm Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
On Jun 20, 3:09 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
wrote:> : for the same thing.
| Quote: |
a conceptual void
exists in absence of the idea of a physical ether/space/vacuum/spacetime -
one is left with only a mathematical model that describes phenomena without
any conceptual idea of what physically happens.
Harald
|
The aether is not a substance.
When energy combines with aether, it can make
light and matter (substance).
Matter doesn't move 'through' the aether,
pushing it aside as it goes.
*Energy* moves through the aether, activating
it to produce the properties of light or
matter *at that point* and *at that time*.
The aether at that point does not 'move aside' as the
matter comes through. It *becomes* the matter.
There is no 'pushing aside' of aether. Aether is non-material
in the sense of being *pre-material* ( and pre-light). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ilja Schmelzer
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 1:36 pm Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
On 20 Jun., 16:54, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
| Quote: |
The aether is not a substance.
When energy combines with aether, it can make
light and matter (substance).
Matter doesn't move 'through' the aether,
pushing it aside as it goes.
*Energy* moves through the aether, activating
it to produce the properties of light or
matter *at that point* and *at that time*.
The aether at that point does not 'move aside' as the
matter comes through. It *becomes* the matter.
There is no 'pushing aside' of aether. Aether is non-material
in the sense of being *pre-material* ( and pre-light).
|
Nice description. Fits well with my ether model
ilja-schmelzer.de/clm
Ilja |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
David Thomson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 4:38 pm Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
On Jun 15, 12:03 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following.
1) The formula,
F=qV x B,
where F is the force vector on an electrical charge, q is the amount
of electrical charge, V is the velocity of the electrical charge, x is
the cross product and B is the magnetic field.
Note F, V and B are 3D vectors, q is a scalar, and x is a binary
vector operation.
|
In terms of the Aether Physics Model, the equation is written:
forc = chrg * velc * mfxd
The force is equal to the electromagnetic charge of the electron times
its velocity times the magnetic flux density of the medium the
electron is moving through. The electromagnetic charge relates to the
electrostatic charge by the relation:
e^2 = e.emax^2 * 8pi * a
Where e is the elementary charge, e.emax is the electromagnetic charge
of the electron, and a is alpha, the electron fine structure
constant.
e.emax^2 is another way to express chrg.
chrg = e.emax^2
So if you have an electromagnetic charge of one coulomb squared moving
a velocity of .8c through a medium of one tesla, then it would be
equal to:
1 coul^2 = 7.145 x 10^36 chrg
.8 c = .8 velc
1 tesla/e.emax = 3.324 x 10^-9 mfxd (single dimension charge units
must be converted to distributed dimension charge units)
1.9 x 10^28 forc = 7.145 x 10^36 chrg * .8 velc * 3.324 x 10^-9 mfxd
1.9 x 10^28 forc = 6.411 x 10^26 newton
The values I chose were large whole MKS units so you could get a quick
intuitive grasp of the equation.
| Quote: |
I'll break question 1 down into less mathematical components.
2) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic field,
why is the force vector perpendicular to the velocity vector?
|
Because the Aether has geometry, the electromagnetic charge has
inherent geometry, so you would map your fields based upon discrete
geometry. The geometry can be mapped with calculus and is completely
induced from an analysis of known constants. The electromagnetic
charge geometry shows the current force vector is perpendicular to the
velocity vector, but also in opposition to the magnetic flux density.
| Quote: |
3) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic field,
why is the magnitude of the force proportional to the velocity?
|
Electrons are toroidal shaped structures, which move along their
magnetic axis. The faster the electrons move, the more resistance is
encountered, and so the electrons spread out sideways, thus increasing
the current. The spreading sideways puts a corresponding pressure on
the magnetic flux density in the local environment. In other words,
the increase in velocity increases the apparent resistance, which
increases the current. The increase in current causes an increase in
the density of the magnetic field.
| Quote: |
4) Why is the magnitude of the force vector proportional to the
electrical charge at all?
|
Because the electron has geometry, and this geometry depends upon two
distinctly different manifestations of charges. Modern electrical
theory only recognizes the elementary charge (electrostatic charge)
and treats the electromagnetic charge as a relativistic effect.
Further, modern electrical theory has the dimensions of charge wrong
in most, but not all, units. This causes trouble with certain
relationships of units. The Aether Physics Model fully quantifies the
two different types of charges and corrects the error of single
dimension, charge-based units.
| Quote: |
I would appreciate any explanation based on the mechanical
properties of aether.
|
The Aether Physics Model further explains the mechanical properties of
the Aether here:
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Vern
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:20 pm Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
On Jun 21, 9:36 am, Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
On 20 Jun., 16:54, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
The aether is not a substance.
When energy combines with aether, it can make
light and matter (substance).
Matter doesn't move 'through' the aether,
pushing it aside as it goes.
*Energy* moves through the aether, activating
it to produce the properties of light or
matter *at that point* and *at that time*.
The aether at that point does not 'move aside' as the
matter comes through. It *becomes* the matter.
There is no 'pushing aside' of aether. Aether is non-material
in the sense of being *pre-material* ( and pre-light).
Nice description. Fits well with my ether modelilja-schmelzer.de/clm
Ilja
|
I hope you both are saying that the (an) aether is particulate with
the particles being ultramundane and the interaction of the particles
Newtonian frictionless collisions. Otherwise, you would be
postulating some new type of substance without specifying what it is
made of.
Vern |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Darwin123
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:05 pm Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
On Jun 21, 12:38 pm, David Thomson <aetherwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 15, 12:03 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following.
1) The formula,
F=qV x B,
where F is the force vector on an electrical charge, q is the amount
of electrical charge, V is the velocity of the electrical charge, x is
the cross product and B is the magnetic field.
Note F, V and B are 3D vectors, q is a scalar, and x is a binary
vector operation.
In terms of the Aether Physics Model, the equation is written:
forc = chrg * velc * mfxd
The force is equal to the electromagnetic charge of the electron times
its velocity times the magnetic flux density of the medium the
electron is moving through. The electromagnetic charge relates to the
electrostatic charge by the relation:
e^2 = e.emax^2 * 8pi * a
Where e is the elementary charge, e.emax is the electromagnetic charge
of the electron, and a is alpha, the electron fine structure
constant.
e.emax^2 is another way to express chrg.
chrg = e.emax^2
So if you have an electromagnetic charge of one coulomb squared moving
a velocity of .8c through a medium of one tesla, then it would be
equal to:
1 coul^2 = 7.145 x 10^36 chrg
.8 c = .8 velc
1 tesla/e.emax = 3.324 x 10^-9 mfxd (single dimension charge units
must be converted to distributed dimension charge units)
1.9 x 10^28 forc = 7.145 x 10^36 chrg * .8 velc * 3.324 x 10^-9 mfxd
1.9 x 10^28 forc = 6.411 x 10^26 newton
The values I chose were large whole MKS units so you could get a quick
intuitive grasp of the equation.
I'll break question 1 down into less mathematical components.
2) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic field,
why is the force vector perpendicular to the velocity vector?
Because the Aether has geometry, the electromagnetic charge has
inherent geometry, so you would map your fields based upon discrete
geometry. The geometry can be mapped with calculus and is completely
induced from an analysis of known constants. The electromagnetic
charge geometry shows the current force vector is perpendicular to the
velocity vector, but also in opposition to the magnetic flux density.
I do not know what you mean by the magnetic flux density. I |
believe you mean the magnetic field. The force in the current is not
in opposition to the magnetic field. The force on the current is
perpendicular to the magnetic field.
Please explain to me why the force on the charge is perpendicular
to both the magnetic field and the velocity of the electric charge.
However, you brought up to other questions.
1) What does the magnetic field mean in terms of the aether?
2) What does it mean to be in "opposition to the magnetic flux
density?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
David Thomson
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:56 am Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
On Jun 23, 6:05 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
I do not know what you mean by the magnetic flux density.
|
Magnetic flux density is magnetic flux per area.
| Quote: |
I believe you mean the magnetic field.
|
No, the magnetic field is a completely different unit.
If you apply magnetic flux density to a volume, then you are looking
at a magnetic field.
| Quote: |
The force in the current is not
in opposition to the magnetic field.
|
I agree. The force in the current is in opposition to the magnetic
flux density. The denser the magnetic flux becomes, the greater the
force of the current must be to pass through it.
| Quote: |
Please explain to me why the force on the charge is perpendicular
to both the magnetic field and the velocity of the electric charge.
|
That is not my position. My position is that the force on the charged
electron is in opposition to the magnetic flux density and
perpendicular to the current velocity vector. This is because
magnetic flux has tubular geometry. The magnetic flux tubes tend to
run parallel to the current. The electron is essentially a toroid
moving along its polar axis. The large radius of the toroid is moving
parallel to the magnetic flux tubes. The faster this toroid moves,
the more force it applies perpendicular to its velocity and thus
increases the magnetic flux density. Think of a bunch of parallel
straws in a bundle. Then put a ring around a portion of the bundle
and move it along the path of the straws. The ring will attempt to
displace the straws as it passes them by pushing perpendicular to its
velocity. Now imagine that the ring expands its large diameter and
contracts its small diameter as it speeds up. The faster the electron
moves, the more perpendicular force it produces.
| Quote: |
However, you brought up to other questions.
1) What does the magnetic field mean in terms of the aether?
|
The Aether is quantified as a fabric of quantum rotating magnetic
fields. The magnetic field IS the Aether. The magnetic field is thus
evidence of the Aether's existence.
| Quote: |
2) What does it mean to be in "opposition to the magnetic flux density?"
|
I hope I have explained it clear enough in the preceding paragraphs.
It is helpful to understand the structures and behaviors of both the
electron and the magnetic flux density and watch how the two interact
with each other. Matter is interacting with environment. It is
similar to a fish moving through water. As the fish speeds up, the
water density near the surface of the fish would increase if the water
were elastic and the fish were inelastic enough. In the case of the
fish, the water actually flows faster around the fish's surface. In
the case of the electron, the flux tubes have to squeeze tighter to
allow the electron to pass by.
Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Benj
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:45 am Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
On Jun 15, 1:03 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
I would appreciate any explanation based on the mechanical
properties of aether. I don't want an explanation directly based on
Maxwell's equations, except if you can connect the mechanical
properties of the aether to Maxwell's equations. I am not particularly
interested in space-time, cosmology, Big Bang, steady state or
inflationary cosmology. I am interested only in this obvious and
intuitive aether model of electromagnetic phenomena.
|
Since you ask and all the "faith-based" physicists have all had their
little laughs, I'll give you the Aether Theory.
Definition: A magnetic field is a flow of aether (due to Euler).
Charge is related to the spinning of particles. No, not the QM "spin"
parameter but real mechanical rotation! When a charged particle is
accelerated it is in effect "pulled by it's tail" which is the 4th
Dimensional wormhole which is the basis of electrostatic Coulomb
forces. Therefore, when one has a "current" all the moving charges are
in effect flipped into alignment so that they all are spinning about
the direction of the axis of the wire. This is why there is a
"magnetic field" about a current carrying wire. The spinning charges
mechanically couple to the aether and get it spinning about the wire.
That motion is by definition a magnetic field.
Now imagine if you will a spinning charged particle traveling through
space which is to say through the aether. If now there comes a
magnetic field from the side of that trajectory, we see it is a flow
of aether past the particle. This is the exact situation of a curve
ball or "sinker" in baseball. The rotating particle builds up aether
on one side and lessens the amount on the other creating a MECHANICAL
force at right angles to BOTH the field (aether flow) and the velocity
of the spinning "charged" particle. If you examine this model in
detail (it's due to prof Hooper) you'll see that it can answer all
your questions about qVxB.
Aether theory involves some simple mechanical concepts, but
nevertheless is a very complex issue, especially given that it holds
the potential to explain ALL observed phenomena in our 3D subspace.
OK? Good luck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Darwin123
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:31 pm Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
On Jun 23, 11:56 pm, David Thomson <aetherwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 23, 6:05 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I do not know what you mean by the magnetic flux density.
Magnetic flux density is magnetic flux per area.
I believe you mean the magnetic field.
No, the magnetic field is a completely different unit.
If you apply magnetic flux density to a volume, then you are looking
at a magnetic field.
The force in the current is not
in opposition to the magnetic field.
I agree. The force in the current is in opposition to the magnetic
flux density. The denser the magnetic flux becomes, the greater the
force of the current must be to pass through it.
Please explain to me why the force on the charge is perpendicular
to both the magnetic field and the velocity of the electric charge.
That is not my position.
However, that is my question. All the experiments indicate that |
there is something called a magnetic field and the force is
perpendicular to it. If you can give me a relationship between the
"magnetic flux density" and the "magnetic field," I could relate your
answer to my question. Right now, I asked one question and you
answered a completely different question.
| Quote: |
My position is that the force on the charged
electron is in opposition to the magnetic flux density and
perpendicular to the current velocity vector.
1) What is the relationship between magnetic flux density and |
magnetic field?
2) Is the magnetic flux density perpendicular to the magnetic field,
and if so in what specific direction perpendicular?
Note there is more than one direction perpendicular to a given
vector or a given pseudovector. So specifying perpendicular by itself
still contains a bit of ambiguity.
| Quote: |
This is because
magnetic flux has tubular geometry.
This is going to make your connection to magnetic field more |
complicated. However, I am listening. This has to be good.
| Quote: |
The magnetic flux tubes tend to
run parallel to the current.
Good. Got it.
The electron is essentially a toroid
moving along its polar axis.
Also good. Got it.
The large radius of the toroid is moving
parallel to the magnetic flux tubes. The faster this toroid moves,
the more force it applies perpendicular to its velocity and thus
increases the magnetic flux density. Think of a bunch of parallel
straws in a bundle. Then put a ring around a portion of the bundle
and move it along the path of the straws. The ring will attempt to
displace the straws as it passes them by pushing perpendicular to its
velocity.
If the magnetic flux density is uniform, the direction of the |
force will change around the toroid. The sum of the forces on the
current will cancel out so there is no force. There is no net force on
the current. Yet, in fact we see a net force on the current.
One way around this is to define the magnetic field in terms of
the inhomogeneity of the magnetic flux tubes. No doubt you will show
this when you present the relationship between magnetic flux density
and magnetic field.
| Quote: |
Now imagine that the ring expands its large diameter and
contracts its small diameter as it speeds up. The faster the electron moves, the more perpendicular force it produces.
On all sides, if the magnetic flux density is constant. The total |
force on the electron is zero.
| Quote: |
However, you brought up to other questions.
1) What does the magnetic field mean in terms of the aether?
The Aether is quantified as a fabric of quantum rotating magnetic
fields. The magnetic field IS the Aether. The magnetic field is thus evidence of the Aether's existence.
The magnetic field is not uniform through space. Light propagates |
through regions where the magnetic field is zero. Therefore, the
magnetic field is not the aether.
| Quote: |
2) What does it mean to be in "opposition to the magnetic flux density?"
I hope I have explained it clear enough in the preceding paragraphs.
No.
It is helpful to understand the structures and behaviors of both the
electron and the magnetic flux density and watch how the two interact
with each other. Matter is interacting with environment. It is
similar to a fish moving through water. As the fish speeds up, the
water density near the surface of the fish would increase if the water
were elastic and the fish were inelastic enough. In the case of the
fish, the water actually flows faster around the fish's surface. In
the case of the electron, the flux tubes have to squeeze tighter to
allow the electron to pass by.
Maybe this will help. The fish has fins. In most fish, the |
pectoral fins are used for steering, the tail fins for propulsion, and
the other fins are used for stabilization. When the fish wants to
turn, it needs a force perpendicular to his velocity. So it adjusts
the angle of of its pectoral fins to push against the water, so as to
create a force perpendicular to its velocity. Its brain has a strategy
for adjusting the angle to give its path the curvature it needs.
If there were no pectoral fins on the fish, the fish couldn't
steer. Yes, the pressure on the fish would increase as it swims
faster. However, the force would be equal on all sides. So the fish
would continue in a straight line.
The picture of your ring doesn't have the equivalent of pectoral
fins. I can not see how the total force on the ring can be
perpendicular to its velocity or to the magnetic field. Your electron
needs pectoral fins, and a strategy on how to use them. Making the
electron a toroid alone won't help. The electron in your model needs
more structure.
Maybe you should read more about fish, as well as physics.
Fishyics! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
David Thomson
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:59 pm Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
On Jun 24, 10:31 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Please explain to me why the force on the charge is perpendicular
to both the magnetic field and the velocity of the electric charge.
That is not my position.
However, that is my question.
|
If you want an explanation for something you believe and I don't, then
I think you need to be the one to provide it.
| Quote: |
All the experiments indicate that
there is something called a magnetic field and the force is
perpendicular to it.
|
All the physicists have a problem in understanding the difference
between a magnetic field, magnetic flux density, and magnetic field
strength. Magnetic flux density and magnetic field strength are
routinely spoken of as though they were the magnetic field, when they
are only particular views of the magnetic field. It is like saying a
car is velocity because it moves. A car is a car, velocity is
velocity. A car is not velocity. A magnetic field is not magnetic
flux density.
| Quote: |
If you can give me a relationship between the
"magnetic flux density" and the "magnetic field," I could relate your
answer to my question.
|
The unit of magnetic field in single dimensional charge MKS units is
equal to kg m^3 / sec coul. The unit of magnetic flux density in
single dimensional charge MKS units is kg / sec coul. In distribute
dimensional charge MKS units the magnetic field is equal to kg m^3 /
sec coul^2, and the magnetic flux density in the same system is kg /
sec coul^2.
Magnetic flux density makes no reference to the volume of the whole
magnetic field. Magnetic flux density is merely a measure of how
tightly the magnetic flux tubes are packed.
| Quote: |
My position is that the force on the charged
electron is in opposition to the magnetic flux density and
perpendicular to the current velocity vector.
1) What is the relationship between magnetic flux density and
magnetic field?
|
It is as I just stated, and stated earlier. The magnetic flux density
is just one of many properties of the magnetic field.
| Quote: |
2) Is the magnetic flux density perpendicular to the magnetic field,
and if so in what specific direction perpendicular?
|
The magnetic flux density would be a scalar quantity of the magnetic
field. The only vector is the increase/decrease of magnetic flux
density. When comparing the magnetic field to the magnetic flux
density, we have to look at the magnetic field as an object and the
magnetic flux density as a property of this object. The magnetic
field is, of course, a non-material object, but an object nonetheless.
| Quote: |
Note there is more than one direction perpendicular to a given
vector or a given pseudovector. So specifying perpendicular by itself
still contains a bit of ambiguity.
|
Magnetic fields have many properties, and it is the properties which
possess the vector quantity, not the magnetic field at large. That is
why physics focuses on the properties of the magnetic field, rather
than the unit of magnetic field, itself.
| Quote: |
If the magnetic flux density is uniform, the direction of the
force will change around the toroid. The sum of the forces on the
current will cancel out so there is no force. There is no net force on
the current. Yet, in fact we see a net force on the current.
One way around this is to define the magnetic field in terms of
the inhomogeneity of the magnetic flux tubes. No doubt you will show
this when you present the relationship between magnetic flux density
and magnetic field.> Now imagine that the ring expands its large diameter and
contracts its small diameter as it speeds up. The faster the electron moves, the more perpendicular force it produces.
On all sides, if the magnetic flux density is constant. The total
force on the electron is zero.
|
You are looking at the situation from the perspective that there is
only one type of charge in the electron. There are, in fact, two
quantifiable types of charges in the electron. These two types of
charges are geometrically related to each other, yet are two
completely different manifestations of charges. Also, the Aether is
the source of electrostatic charge, while the subatomic particle's
existence creates the electromagnetic charge. The Aether has an
electrostatic dipole, whereas the subatomic particle has a magnetic
dipole. The Aether is existing in a five-dimensional frame of
reference, whereas the subatomic particle is existing in a four-
dimensional frame of reference. The Aether interaction of four-
dimensional matter with a five-dimensional Aether also causes various
deformities, which are constantly changing. The wobble measured as
the particle g-factor, is one important effect caused by this
interaction of different coordinate systems. Talking about the
homogeneity of magnetic flux density requires a simultaneous
understanding of all of these factors. It is not as simple as the
straw analogy I gave. The straw analogy was given at your request,
because you wanted a way to discretely visualize the vectors.
| Quote: |
The Aether is quantified as a fabric of quantum rotating magnetic
fields. The magnetic field IS the Aether. The magnetic field is thus evidence of the Aether's existence.
The magnetic field is not uniform through space. Light propagates
through regions where the magnetic field is zero. Therefore, the
magnetic field is not the aether.
|
The magnetic field IS uniform throughout space in the sense that there
is always a magnetic field present. It may not be the magnetic field
associated with a magnet, the Earth, the Sun, the galaxy, or a
galactic globular cluster, but it exists nonetheless. This is well
understood by the presence of the permeability and permittivity
constants throughout all space. It is important to realize the
difference between a quantum rotating magnetic field and a macro
magnetic structure. It is like the difference between a subatomic
particle and a human body. The human body is composed of subatomic
particles, but subatomic particles are not composed of human bodies.
Similarly, the quantum rotating magnetic field (the infinitesimally
small whirlpools of Bernoulli, Fresnel, Descartes, and others) is not
the same thing as a magnetic field surrounding a magnet.
At any given location in the Universe, there are multiple overlapping
magnetic fields from various sources. These larger structures of
magnetic fields constantly tug at the quantum Aether units. It is
like a bunch of boats on a lake vying to affect the water molecules to
produce waves that correspond to each boat's wake. Sure, there are
moments when the boats are gone and the lake is mirror smooth, but the
water molecules are still there. The same goes for the Aether units.
There may be places in the Universe where there are no macro magnetic
fields, but the quantum rotating magnetic fields are still there and
ready to produce macro magnetic fields.
| Quote: |
The picture of your ring doesn't have the equivalent of pectoral
fins.
|
That's because the electrons aren't fish. I didn't mean for you to
think they were. The only similarity between the fish swimming
through water was to highlight how matter moves through Aether. Rene
Descartes presented this concept, and it is fully quantifiable in the
Aether Physics Model. And by the way, snakes can swim without fins by
alternating the whole body sideways. Electrons follow the path of
magnetic flux tubes in free space. Instead of putting fins on the
electrons, the pathway of the current is changed and the electron
merely follows it. This, again, is evidence that the Aether is real.
If magnetic fields are merely mathematical abstractions and there is
no such thing as Aether, then electrons would always follow a
ballistic straight course through empty space.
| Quote: |
I can not see how the total force on the ring can be
perpendicular to its velocity or to the magnetic field. Your electron
needs pectoral fins, and a strategy on how to use them.
|
No, the Aether interacts with the electron, and the electron interacts
with the Aether. Both can cause changes in the other. As I mentioned
earlier, it is important to understand the geometry of the Aether and
subatomic particles in order to understand how they interact. This
white paper provides a basic introduction to the quantified theory:
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
| Quote: |
Making the
electron a toroid alone won't help. The electron in your model needs
more structure.
|
There is no need for me to make the electron into anything. It is
what it is. The electron's structure is entirely induced from the
constants of the physics it is involved with. It would also help if
you took the time to read my model before judging it. Then you could
actually point to a specific instance within the model that needs to
be addressed.
Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Florian
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:33 pm Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
Darwin123 <drosen0000@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
The magnetic field is not uniform through space. Light propagates
through regions where the magnetic field is zero. Therefore, the
magnetic field is not the aether.
|
It is not the aether, but it is certainly a physical entity emerging
from the aether/Quantum vacuum/Spacetime or whatever you want to call
it.
Actually, that perpendicular thing reminds me of Bernouilli's principle.
--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Darwin123
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:16 pm Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
On Jun 24, 1:59 pm, David Thomson <aetherwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 24, 10:31 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Where can I read more details in your "theory?" I read your posts |
very carefully which is how I come with these questions. If you think
that I don't read your posts, then you are wrong.
The most important property of the magnetic field for our
discussion is the direction. If the magnetic field is the gradient of
the magnetic flux density, then I have no problem since a gradient has
a direction. Given that definition which you provided, the magnetic
field has direction. However, you also said that the magnetic flux
density forms tubes. The gradient of a "tube" distribution of density
is a series of vectors, perpendicular to the tube but pointing in all
radial directions from the center of the tube. Thus, the magnetic
field you described has no fixed direction.
The magnetic field that I asked about is the well known magnetic
field from science and engineering. This magnetic field does have a
definite direction. It sounds like you named something else as "the
magnetic field." However, that is secondary. Can you explain in terms
of the magnetic field most of us play with why,
F=q V x B ?
| Quote: |
There is no need for me to make the electron into anything. It is
what it is. The electron's structure is entirely induced from the
constants of the physics it is involved with. It would also help if you took the time to read my model before judging it.
Where can I read about your model? Do you have a blog or something? I |
read your posts. They already have self contradictions. Is your blog
better formulated than your posts? Perhaps your blog doesn't
contradict itself. I would like to read it.
| Quote: |
Then you could
actually point to a specific instance within the model that needs to be addressed.
|
Alright. However, my original question was why in terms of the aether:
F=qV x B
where "q" is the electric charge, "V" is the velocity, "B" is the
magnetic field, and "x" is the cross product. That was the only thing
I asked for when I began this thread. I was not interested in any
other feature of the model than this equation, as well as all it
physically implied. You have not addressed that question, or even told
me where you think this equation fails.
My specific instance within the model is this. Why does,
F=q V x B ?
Do you derive this equation in terms of the aether? If not, I have
no interest in reading your theory.
Very few scientists are interested in how you, and you alone,
define magnetic field. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Darwin123
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:42 pm Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
On Jun 24, 12:45 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 15, 1:03 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now imagine if you will a spinning charged particle traveling through
space which is to say through the aether.
Just for your information, I did not specify electron. I said |
charged particle. Macroscopic charged particles usually don't have a
spin. Their angular momentum is zero, and so the electrons in them
must be randomly oriented. If you charge a wad of paper positive, it
will not show the gyroscopic resistance one would expect from a
"spinning" body. Yet, the force law still applies. Yet, even for this
wad of paper,
F=q V x B
Similarly, a wire with an electric current going through it shows
no evidence of having nonzero angular momentum. There is no gyroscopic
resistance associated with the wire. Yet,
F= i L x B
Where L is the length vector in the direction of the wire, i is the
current, and B is the magnetic field. This is the wire equivalent of
the force law mentioned above. Yet, there is no gyroscopic moment
automatically associated with the wire.
| Quote: |
If now there comes a
magnetic field from the side of that trajectory, we see it is a flow
of aether past the particle. This is the exact situation of a curve
ball or "sinker" in baseball.
In the "curveball" analogy, there is either no wind or the wind |
is negligible. By wind I mean motion of air relative to the ground. In
the refrence frame of the center of the baseball, the air rushes pass
at the "ground velocity" of the baseball. However, one side of the
baseball is moving against the flow of air, creating more pressure on
that side. The other side of the baseball is moving with the flow of
air, decreasing the pressure on that side. The ball curves
perpendicular to both its ground velocity and the axis of spin of the
baseball.
However, it does not curve perpednicular to any wind that is
present. If a wind blows, it will blow the spinning ball in the
direction of that wind. Not perpendicular to it. In your analogy, the
ground velocity of wind is analogous to the magnetic field. Therefore,
in your "analogy" the electron should be blown in the direction of the
magnetic field, not perpendicular to it.
| Quote: |
The rotating particle builds up aether
on one side and lessens the amount on the other creating a MECHANICAL force at right angles to BOTH the field (aether flow) and the velocity> of the spinning "charged" particle. If you examine this model in
detail (it's due to prof Hooper) you'll see that it can answer all
your questions about qVxB.
I don't know about this Professor Hooper. However, I will look him up. Maybe he can explain it better.
Aether theory involves some simple mechanical concepts, but
nevertheless is a very complex issue, especially given that it holds the potential to explain ALL observed phenomena in our 3D subspace.
OK? Good luck.
|
You inadvertently pointed out that this aether model does not
explain the electric field in terms of the aether. There is a fourth
dimensional wormhole that pulls the electrons by their tail. This does
not sound like an entirely mechanical model. Somewhere, quantum
gravity got pulled into this model. Are you telling me that the
magnetic field is entirely classical, but the electric field requires
a quantum explanation?
Your analogies are not making it clearer, basically because your
analogs don't behave the way you say they do. The curve ball does not
move perpendicular to the wind. It moves perpendicular to its velocity
and to its spin axis. However, it moves WITH any wind against the
ground.
The electron is not a fish and it is not a curve ball. The
magnetic field also is not the aether. Is there any object that you
can provide as a macroscopic analog of the magnetic field and the
electron? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
john
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:35 am Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
On Jun 24, 5:42 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 24, 12:45 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
On Jun 15, 1:03 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now imagine if you will a spinning charged particle traveling through
space which is to say through the aether.
Just for your information, I did not specify electron. I said
charged particle. Macroscopic charged particles usually don't have a
spin. Their angular momentum is zero, and so the electrons in them
must be randomly oriented. If you charge a wad of paper positive, it
will not show the gyroscopic resistance one would expect from a
"spinning" body. Yet, the force law still applies. Yet, even for this
wad of paper,
F=q V x B
Similarly, a wire with an electric current going through it shows
no evidence of having nonzero angular momentum. There is no gyroscopic
resistance associated with the wire. Yet,
F= i L x B
Where L is the length vector in the direction of the wire, i is the
current, and B is the magnetic field. This is the wire equivalent of
the force law mentioned above. Yet, there is no gyroscopic moment
automatically associated with the wire.> If now there comes a
magnetic field from the side of that trajectory, we see it is a flow
of aether past the particle. This is the exact situation of a curve
ball or "sinker" in baseball.
In the "curveball" analogy, there is either no wind or the wind
is negligible. By wind I mean motion of air relative to the ground. In
the refrence frame of the center of the baseball, the air rushes pass
at the "ground velocity" of the baseball. However, one side of the
baseball is moving against the flow of air, creating more pressure on
that side. The other side of the baseball is moving with the flow of
air, decreasing the pressure on that side. The ball curves
perpendicular to both its ground velocity and the axis of spin of the
baseball.
However, it does not curve perpednicular to any wind that is
present. If a wind blows, it will blow the spinning ball in the
direction of that wind. Not perpendicular to it. In your analogy, the
ground velocity of wind is analogous to the magnetic field. Therefore,
in your "analogy" the electron should be blown in the direction of the
magnetic field, not perpendicular to it.
The rotating particle builds up aether
on one side and lessens the amount on the other creating a MECHANICAL force at right angles to BOTH the field (aether flow) and the velocity> of the spinning "charged" particle. If you examine this model in
detail (it's due to prof Hooper) you'll see that it can answer all
your questions about qVxB.
I don't know about this Professor Hooper. However, I will look him up. Maybe he can explain it better.
Aether theory involves some simple mechanical concepts, but
nevertheless is a very complex issue, especially given that it holds the potential to explain ALL observed phenomena in our 3D subspace.
OK? Good luck.
You inadvertently pointed out that this aether model does not
explain the electric field in terms of the aether. There is a fourth
dimensional wormhole that pulls the electrons by their tail. This does
not sound like an entirely mechanical model. Somewhere, quantum
gravity got pulled into this model. Are you telling me that the
magnetic field is entirely classical, but the electric field requires
a quantum explanation?
Your analogies are not making it clearer, basically because your
analogs don't behave the way you say they do. The curve ball does not
move perpendicular to the wind. It moves perpendicular to its velocity
and to its spin axis. However, it moves WITH any wind against the
ground.
The electron is not a fish and it is not a curve ball. The
magnetic field also is not the aether. Is there any object that you
can provide as a macroscopic analog of the magnetic field and the
electron?
|
The magnetic arc consisting of
many intertwined filaments rising
at right-angles to the galactic disc
at its center? (magnetic field = arc and
disc = curving electron arms) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
David Thomson
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:18 am Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
On Jun 24, 6:16 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
The most important property of the magnetic field for our
discussion is the direction. If the magnetic field is the gradient of
the magnetic flux density, then I have no problem since a gradient has
a direction.
|
I agree that the magnetic flux density gradient is the magnetic field
for a given magnetic structure.
| Quote: |
However, you also said that the magnetic flux
density forms tubes.
|
No, I didn't say that. I said that magnetic flux is tubular.
Magnetic flux density is not tubular, it is merely a quantity for the
density of the tubes.
| Quote: |
The magnetic field that I asked about is the well known magnetic
field from science and engineering. This magnetic field does have a
definite direction. It sounds like you named something else as "the
magnetic field." However, that is secondary. Can you explain in terms
of the magnetic field most of us play with why,
F=q V x B ?
|
I already did that.
| Quote: |
There is no need for me to make the electron into anything. It is
what it is. The electron's structure is entirely induced from the
constants of the physics it is involved with. It would also help if you took the time to read my model before judging it.
Where can I read about your model? Do you have a blog or something? I
read your posts. They already have self contradictions. Is your blog
better formulated than your posts? Perhaps your blog doesn't
contradict itself. I would like to read it.
|
I use my blog only for occasional comments when a scientific
observation validates a point I had raised. I gave the link for my
white paper in the last post.
| Quote: |
Then you could
actually point to a specific instance within the model that needs to be addressed.
Alright. However, my original question was why in terms of the aether:
F=qV x B
where "q" is the electric charge, "V" is the velocity, "B" is the
magnetic field, and "x" is the cross product. That was the only thing
I asked for when I began this thread. I was not interested in any
other feature of the model than this equation, as well as all it
physically implied. You have not addressed that question, or even told
me where you think this equation fails.
|
I have told you a discrete interpretation of the equation, which was
your original question. I have not told you where this equation fails
because it doesn't fail. The equation is valid. I did tell you how I
use the same general equation within the Aether Physics Model, which
has distributed charge dimensions and two types of charges.
| Quote: |
My specific instance within the model is this. Why does,
F=q V x B ?
|
I answered that question directly in an earlier post.
| Quote: |
Do you derive this equation in terms of the aether? If not, I have
no interest in reading your theory.
|
If you truly had read all my posts in this thread carefully, as you
claimed, you would have seen that I did explain this equation in terms
of Aether. But I only gave a general answer to your question. If you
want an in-depth answer, you would need to study the theory in-depth
since the answer would be given from within the framework of the
theory.
| Quote: |
Very few scientists are interested in how you, and you alone,
define magnetic field.
|
It is true that very few scientists are interested in the correct
understanding of magnetic fields, but I am not alone in correctly
understanding them. I learned about the correct understanding of
magnetic fields from an online university physics course. The
professor explained the reasoning using dimensional analysis. I don't
have the link to the site, as it was several years ago that I read it,
but you can do the dimensional analysis for yourself.
Magnetic flux density, which most scientists incorrectly call the
magnetic field, is a unit equal to magnetic flux per area. Magnetic
flux is the flux tube I was talking about. Some people incorrectly
call them "flux lines." They are flux tubes, as can be determined by
holding a magnet near a CRT screen. Also, the unit of magnetic flux
is dimensionally equal to kg m^2 / sec coul. The m^2 means the unit
is applied over an area. A line is a single dimension of length, an
area is distributed dimensions (m^2) of length. A tube has area, a
line is just a line.
A field fills a volume. Therefore, the unit of magnetic field must
have m^3 as its length dimensions. Thus the magnetic field unit is
dimensionally kg m^3 / sec coul (in single dimension charge units).
Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
