Re: [Vo]: PLEASE.... RE and not RE .
At 01:21 am 18/06/2006 -0400, John Herman wrote: Dear Vo, Will any contributor please let the lay population of Votex know what the general terms mean if one reads: GAGE GAGUE re gage re gague re gageu or any variants of the above I fully realize these terms may have been mis spelled Probably most of them I would imagine since in the course of one short e-mail you managed to misspell Vortex TWICE! lay population of Votex I hope others in and of votrtex There is really no excuse for this type of sloppiness in a scientific discussion. It is insulting to other members. I know English may not be your first language and that might excuse the incorrect use of there instead of their, say, but it does not excuse the misspelling of vortex which even an bastardised American-English spelling checker will find. ;-) Cheers, Frank Grimer
Re: [Vo]: Free energy in magnets? (was Re: Read it again)
- Original Message - From: Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] My point is simply that if you use an electromagnet to lift the clip, the Lorentz explanation holds and you clearly have a relativistic effect. Wait a minute, what do you mean by a relativistic effect? Is any particle moving at a sizeable fraction of the speed of light? Magnetism is one of the few effects which seems clearly to be a relativistic effect You are quite right indeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field Although this page doesn't seem to make a distinction between macroscopic current loops as in electromagnets and the microscopic ones (electron orbits) at play in permanent magnets, I quite understand Terry's point about the mystery of the electron not loosing energy while orbiting it's nucleus leaving room to hope of tapping free energy from the process! but which occurs when velocities are far, far less than C. Amazingly so! In the case of a current loop, in a copper wire of cross-section 0.5 mm², carrying a current of 5 A, the drift velocity of the electrons is of the order of a millimetre per second. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current#The_drift_speed_of_electric_charges ) Almost unbelievable that such a low velocity leads to such a large relativistic effect, but I guess we can trust Einstein's maths :) The predicted magnetic field of a current can be obtained simply by Lorentz transforming the electric field from the rest frame of the charges making up the current to the frame of the observer moving relative to them. Remarkably, the result is a first-order effect -- first order in the relative velocities -- unlike just about everything else predicted by relativity. Indeed, thanks Terry and Stephen for making me less ignorant, I did remember that all electromagnetism stemmed from the coulombic force but I had completely missed the relativistic aspect of magnetic forces, which makes them frame-dependent indeed as Stephen said. Michel
Re: [Vo]: Free energy in magnets? (was Re: Read it again)
Michel Jullian wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current#The_drift_speed_of_electric_charges Almost unbelievable that such a low velocity leads to such a large relativistic effect, but I guess we can trust Einstein's maths. If you read between the lines Michel, I think you will find that the electron itself is the relativistic current loop with it's intrinsic charge "circling" at c. I = q* c/hbar = 19.8 amperes. If you go a step further you will start believing that the 1/R^2 gravity force is a time-dilated charge property (magneto-gravity) of these current loops that are the very essence of matter. :-) Fred
Re: [Vo]: Free energy in magnets? (was Re: Read it again)
Make that electron Loop Current I = q* c/lambda Lambda = 2(pi)R = the Compton Wavelength (h/mc) Sorry about that. :-( Fred - Original Message - From: TP Sparber To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: 6/18/2006 5:56:25 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Free energy in magnets? (was Re: Read it again) Michel Jullian wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current#The_drift_speed_of_electric_charges Almost unbelievable that such a low velocity leads to such a large relativistic effect, but I guess we can trust Einstein's maths. If you read between the lines Michel, I think you will find that the electron itself is the relativistic current loop with it's intrinsic charge "circling" at c. I = q* c/hbar = 19.8 amperes. If you go a step further you will start believing that the 1/R^2 gravity force is a time-dilated charge property (magneto-gravity) of these current loops that are the very essence of matter. :-) Fred
[Vo]: Re:[VO]:PLEASE...RE and not RE. Hunchbabe verbal shorthand
john herman wrote... I hope others in and of votrtex will ask this and similar terms to be understood some how OR: How will we know what vortexians are trying to talk about?? Howdy John, You may become aware as others that the English language is evolving into a "hunchbabe" style communication medium. These evolving forms no longer concern proper spelling and diction. Thoseold forms of Englishare left to the Brits. Perhaps the most change is occurring in the communities where a new combination of ebonics, rap, and latino is melding into a "jungle " mumbo-jumb. This strange new language may consist of certain English words used as terms of endearment and entertainment such as Mo' F*u and other close personal idioms spoken within one's particular family and culture.When spoken outside one's family, the words may produce the anticipated results of gunfire but within the family they are designed to fill a sentence that would otherwise be incomplete since the connection between the brain and the tongue of the people that practice this " hunch" language would otherwise be seen as ignorant unless everyone listening has a "joint" between their lips while listening or talking. The amazing product resulting from the discovery of this new form of English is gobs of money that result from publishing dictionaries ( on CD's) in the form of a curious cross between gestures andsound. Another result has been the rise of a new form of capitalism called "FEMA vouchers" and Welfare suppliments" that can lift one from poverty instantly.The scientific breakthrough emerging from the money spent on research by these groups is astonishing. New forms ofchemistry like "crack" and "meth"substances can catapult a person into entire new world of reality that seemingly exceeds the speed of soundwhile they are able to understand the music when off into space.Certain of these new technologies still remain a mystery to the average "fringe" scientist. Vorts refuse to keep up with the new language of " hunchbaby" and therefore must use a "shorthand" type technical language described as " tell it like it is". Difficult to fathom using a Webster's dictionary but you " get the drift". Richard
Re: [Vo]: Re:[VO]:PLEASE...RE and not RE. Hunchbabe verbal shorthand
RC Macaulay wrote: You may become aware as others that the English language is evolving into a hunchbabe style communication medium. These evolving forms no longer concern proper spelling and diction. Those old forms of English are left to the Brits. On the contrary, American Engish is older than most British dialects, and black American dialects are among the oldest. This is typical of language cut off from the mainstream in a sparsely populated area, as American English was for 300 years. Japanese and Chinese dialects S.E. Asia, S. America and even Los Angeles show the same pattern. In the late 18th century, many British visitors described language used by George Washington and others as quaint and absurdly formal. That is the impression some Americans now get from British English, but Americans are wrong -- we never dropped our rs. Custom period dramas with Americans speaking pseudo British accents have it backwards. The U.S. did reform spelling somewhat more than the British have done, starting in the early 19th century. Perhaps the most change is occurring in the communities where a new combination of ebonics, rap, and latino is melding into a jungle mumbo-jumb. Such combinations rarely survive, which is a darn shame. Regional variations of American English have been largely squashed by television and radio. Black American Gullah dialects on the East Coast are probably the oldest form of spoken English on earth. Practically Elizebethan. If you think they are degraded or easy try studying them. They should be declared a national treasure, but alas they are close to extinction. (Seriously, it would not be fair to force people to speak ancient and rare dialects, but it breaks my heart to see them disappear.) Needless to say, Spanish was spoken in North America 150 years before English become common. It is a little odd to say they are invading us. Who started the Mexican-American War? The amazing product resulting from the discovery of this new form of English . . . You mean old. - Jed
[Vo]: cheap medicine - wOrthy effect
ERDFBdpTlnusmKKuqT14slPlIq1X6v6I8Q1u18VHCrfzuYddJP36u9z4frKhWUIKdcLILDvbkLx1 7nXUUWKjjDa6G0oUqhW2CEK9kqD7ar5kRZGWlgJAhQOF3wy7bY1cCj2zNep6EwZc046rev8PDORoJWf 04s9goyLCcBZAxd104ogzMrh80WaLqpLDooPHGUWs0zbYaO3JJySTregkyd8jYAzHmn9pr OVTCHxIbQOfEXdijAmLYCgR2mAfCRqg6d9rXYYjHuFUBba0YCbkG3bM0OstxXItxmrwa0Gs s2YE2Bhjrclotfr2AqZZTKQO21MmzESH0EttBpYv4ce5Sp2UedITFscfu0C5vjYwHka93A1m Xlmt4Zacwb7vCLdoVsdn9C2myDxDqz8YuN1P7gWOzEt4hg7ljGNKwhypw1YJtOFeGfzVWVRP2Iyjx Y5uTIIc6ELYHQVK8q20u8NvmcihTpzx1jhfMKRF5dePNMTz9JCbErD6IBlNOIpg1MlGwAAEQhnj3vB DNXBvUT4bCWNvm5eAApRyNVQJnQzWxasW0mQXeOhGPqDIZz2HcTmakj1lIwlHQvton0SW2GOK bRrjoRIb2uVi6Qryj74T8PCucz9d6lUEpTLCYzxnI3dWlnihdxuyVhexNoHm4Pj8qiqIWi9zfx X338phGcvjWa3OiD4tq1LY1uY0B2P8KPs4dh7TSIkEtxeIMvjbB0NgcrAr0ff3DJKvCRzer8ifk
[Vo]: Priceless !
Apologies in advance to European readers who will not appreciate the contextual nuances in this post (first in a series): which is a take-off on the MasterCharge series of television advertisements in the USA. It is perhaps appropriate to use this particular cultural gimmick for 'drama' - as opposed to parody, in the eponymous context of charged-water, and furthering the outlandish possibility of that particular brew (electrically charged water) being produced and used as a substitute fuel for automotive transportation and home power. Anyway - the once-clever but now insufferable voice-over in this familiar Ad-theme, begins: and with a background camera shot panning a gentle rain on a mirrored country lane; then to a typical suburban home; and then to a close-up of its gurgling rain-gutter: 1) Bucket of rainwater - ten cents Then camera pans to a corner of the family garage, wherein a stainless steel contraption resides (seeming to glow): 2) Overnight water treatment - twenty cents Then the camera retreats to a sunny day and the soccer Mom cruising in the SUV filled with rowdy kids; a cell-phone glued to one-ear: 3) Not stopping at the filing station - forty bucks saved and then the camera flashes to a beautiful Pacific sunset, with the denouement: 4) Pure air and clean water [pause for effect] Priceless Ha! in your dreams ...that would be the first reaction, from the establishment lurkers on vortex... MasterCharged water: is it pure science fiction: Jules Verne at his best? Hmm, maybe... perhaps the establishment is correct (they usually are) but how often is Jules-jilted? Here is how they (the Don Lancaster tunnel-blinded clones of the world) could be wrong -and yet - with all our cherished laws of physics still intact. It is not magic, just a prior failure to look in the right places. ... And for that explosive touch of television overkill, we will add the voice-over: we know drama effect, which comes from you-know-who (TNT), as the use of such a fuel will involve making water into what is most accurately called an exploding capacitor, not a real fuel but who cares?... ...and returning to our TV set, and the camera-shot of the glowing orange sunset... then- enter stage-left: Randy Mills, and stage-right: the reinterpreters of Randy Mills, and our host, James Burke, Jr. trying to explain to the PBS audience how all of this came-to-be connected. The solar-derived hydrino-hydride, if it exists ... and Randy says it does, who are we mortals to argue ... is likely to be many wonderful things not anticipated by Mills himself, say his reinterpreters. Including the fact that a small percentage of rain-water, and a larger percentage of the oceans, and the so-called fair weather field, and core-heating of earth, and even the pervasive dark matter of the Cosmos [in that every star in the sky has been spewing them out for billions of years]: all of these are related directly to hydinohydride. This species consists of a maximum enthalpy hydrino (n=1/16) and two electrons in a very tight, very stable arrangement. It is about 4000 times more compact than hydrogen on earth but cannot aggregate closely in space with other Hy- because it has net charge and a strong near-field. It can filter its way into matter, since it will displace an electron. For all practical purposes it **is** a heavy stable electron. As with hydrogen itself - there really is NO monatomic hydrogen in nature (on a sensory timescale) and there is no unhydrided hydrino, except for the limpid ones made in labs. Forget the lab-made variety, who needs 'em? This species has a strong affinity for the positive end of an H-O-H molecule and will fall to earth as Hy-hydronium, in rainwater, or alternatively as carbonic acid with a Hy substitution - which is the likely way it enters our world in PPM or less quantities. Soon it will displace an electron somewhere and become truly invisible. If a mass-spec were to be set up correctly, they could be detected, but if you think about it - most of these tools cannot be stet up correctly because this species was never considered to be possible before. Catch-22. On earth this species, hydrinohydride, is little-more than a substitute electron and is totally hidden in other atoms, and will slowly accumulate over geologic time in the oceans, but eventually migrate to the heavier elements, especially iron. Most of solar-derived hydrinohydride will have ended up in the earth's core, possibly providing the retained level of heating, upon its decay (pressure instigated decay). After decay, the reinflated hydrogen finds a carbon and becomes methane (of the non-bio-variety). However for an extended time, they are present in the ocean and especially in rain water in ppm quantities. For the sake of argument, lets consider the possibility that rainwater has a small but usable proportion. Normal rainwater has a pH of 5.6
[Vo]: Re: Priceless !
It had been my intention to see who would be the first to comment on: 1) Bucket of rainwater - ten cents ... as being related to the high cost of everything these days, if bought with nearly wothless warbucks ... but to clarify the point: ... here is the situation which could result in a substantial true-cost for collecting active rainwater. This also relates to a solution for retaining that (putative) solar-derived hydrinohydride, which is supposedly available in rainwater, before it can disappear into everything, including shingles, cistens, bottles or whatever. After all, if we look at hydrinohydride as lttle more than a very heavy electron, then it is obvious that it will diffuse into everything, given time and no disincentive. In fact that is the very reason that this species can have gone undetected by modern science. The solution is a small negative charge, which must be active ab initio, from the start to the end product (when the charged-water is used in an ICE). That's right. A negatively-charged roof (metal roof required), charged-guttering, and charged-cistern, ect. will all probably be necessary in order to keep these elusive hydrino-guys from going anywhere, due to natural diffusion. Almost any small negative charge will likely be effective - and the 10 cents per bucketfull might suffice... although a kilowatt applied during a rain storm might be on the low side for a large roof
[Vo]: Re Priceless !
-Original Message- From: Jones Beene Almost any small negative charge will likely be effective - and the 10 cents per bucketfull might suffice... although a kilowatt applied during a rain storm might be on the low side for a large roof If your hypothesis is correct, should not burning my grandmother's old rain barrel generate more heat than burning another equivalent mass of wood? Terry
[Vo]: Re: Priceless !
Terry, If your hypothesis is correct, should not burning my grandmother's old rain barrel generate more heat than burning another equivalent mass of wood? Keen observation. However, if hydrinohydrides diffused out of rainwater and accumulates in wood preferentially (as opposed to them diffusing even further into ground over time), burning them in a normal fire would likely NOT release any extra energy. The solar variety would simply be too stable and would sruvive any fire intact. Once again, I am playing devil's advocate here, because there is no convincing evidence for any of this - only persistent anecdote and changing-hypotheses. The two electrons of this species are said by Mills to be very tightly bound at this level of shrinkage, in the keV range. Otherwise they would have already been reinflated in the solar corona (most are probably reinflated anyway, immediately after formation, and only the maximum entalpy variety gets this far). Their best use for overunity on earth, is if they can be captured immediately and enriched, and even then it would seem to hinge on being able to use them 'destructively' as capacitance without the need to reinflate or shrink further- i.e. to use them to retain less tightly bound charge temporarily -and then to anihilate that charge explosively in a situation, like in an ICE where the explosion can push a piston. Waterfuel likely does not really involve 'water' at all as an active modality- except for its property of very high dielectric constant and easy ionization. Water is most likely only a fuel in the sense of being involved in a mechanical failure such as exploding capacitance... but - only with hydrinos involved, as well as transitory peroxides, hydroxyl hydrates, hydronium and all of the other charged species which can be held in a temporal structure by the presence of a stable charge carrier (hydrinohydride) juxtaposed to a strong dielelctric material (water). There are other convincing views on this - including the possibility that - being small and dense, the Hy- would catalyze LENR, or would shrink even further. In terms of actual probability, my feeling is that the induced secondary *capacitance* in water, based on the reality of solar-derived hydrinos, is the only way to explain adequately what has been seen and reported in the large amount of recent anecdote relating to waterfuel. I find it interesting that Graneau, in a totally unrelated experiment, only gets good results using rainwater. Perhaps he is seeing a glimmer of the same effect in a brute force discharge, when he would be better off with a pretreated rainwater regime. That one is on my 'to-do' list also. Jones
[Vo]: Re: Priceless !
Oops.. G no doubt the inveterate TV viewers amongst us have noticed that the writer of the former piece has, in his groogy haste to belabor a point and hurry out a clever posting - totally and egrregiously misidentified the correct name of the charge-card and ad-campaign - it is MasterCard and not MasterCharge Probably a violation of someone's copyrights to boot... Hey, don't confuse me with the facts on Sunday morning [isn't 'consensual hallucination' what Sundays are designed-for anyway] ... esp. when I have already admitted some time ago to have done the infamous John-Prine-number on my TV set ...
Re: [Vo]: Re: Priceless !
-Original Message- From: Jones Beene - it is MasterCard and not MasterCharge It's okay, coming from a lysdexic. Terry (just returning from the blessing of the corner column of the Shri Mandir being built practically in my back yard) http://www.mandir.org Fascinating!
[Vo]: Re: Priceless !
- Original Message - From: Grimer In fact that is the very reason that this species can have gone undetected by modern science. That's a very good point. Conventional science ain't very good with transient phenomena. That's why amateurs still make a big contribution in comet discovery, amongst other things. Yes. We must often look elsewhere for anything this transitory... even if it finally stabilizes in megaton quantities ...g Is there megaton evidence for a transitory hydrogen-based species which could, for instance, arrive undetected from the sun as a heavy electron, but yet end up in the interior of earth as natural gas ??? Yes ... This seach may be productive in more ways than one. This gas could still be 'natural' even if it did not come from the decay of vegetable matter. As we know, Earth's supply of methane, or natural gas- comes mostly as a byproduct of the digestion of organic compounds by microorganisms or decay by decomposition. A few studies of deep methane found in rock with no biological history, have indicated it **must have** been created by nonbiological means, as there is an absence of normal markers, and of previous biology. And there is an ORNL researcher who contends that more methane than previously thought may have been created by one nonbiological means, and has discovered that mechanism. That line of reasoning can be improved on with this hydrino-hypothesis, which also involves iron and other heavy minerals. In an article in the August 13 1999 Science, Juske Horita and Michael Berndt of the University of Minnesota report on research that could explain [partially] why methane is found on the ocean floor, where organic compounds are virtually absent. At these locations we don't see organic matter but still find methane. It's been suspected that it is being created abiotically, but the conditions for it haven't been known. We've discovered that the presence of nickel-iron alloys catalyzes a normally very slow reaction between carbon dioxide and hydrogen to create the methane, which is virtually indistinguishable from methane created through organic means, Horita says. These aren't trivial amounts; there could be more of a contribution of methane by abiotic means in the earth's upper crust and on ocean floors than we thought. Horita and Berndt report that abiotic methane forms rapidly in the presence of nickel-iron alloys and say that other compounds could also be catalysts. Fast forward seven years ... are we ready now to add to that another mechanism which is more complex, in that the original hydrogen itself does not even have to be split from water, which is difficult at cold ocean depths, but came to earth in invisible form - i.e. as what would appear to be a heavy electron from its net charge - but from its mass of 1837 times the electrons mass - we suspect that is Mills' elusive hydrinohydride - only solar-derived. Jones
Re: [Vo]: Free energy in magnets? (was Re: Read it again)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence The predicted magnetic field of a current can be obtained simply by Lorentz transforming the electric field from the rest frame of the charges making up the current to the frame of the observer moving relative to them. Remarkably, the result is a first-order effect -- first order in the relative velocities -- unlike just about everything else predicted by relativity. There are no charges (q) involved in permanent magnets. I hereby extract myself from this discussion. Charges may be involved. However, the _reality_ of a permanent magnetic body is not recognised by a relativistic charged based model of magnetism. The relativistic model implies that the permanence of a permanent magnetic body is a matter of opinion since one could execute some motion relative to the body and decide it is non-magnetic. Harry
[Vo]: Beene's Floating Power Source
Right idea, wrong power source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0616-04.htm Floating nukes??
Re: [Vo]: cheap medicine - spam
Hmmm. If spammers send email to vortex-L, while forging the from address to be a vortex subscriber, then their spam gets through. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 425-222-5066unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]: Free energy in magnets? (was Re: Read it again)
Harry Veeder wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence The predicted magnetic field of a current can be obtained simply by Lorentz transforming the electric field from the rest frame of the charges making up the current to the frame of the observer moving relative to them. Remarkably, the result is a first-order effect -- first order in the relative velocities -- unlike just about everything else predicted by relativity. There are no charges (q) involved in permanent magnets. I hereby extract myself from this discussion. Charges may be involved. However, the _reality_ of a permanent magnetic body is not recognised by a relativistic charged based model of magnetism. The relativistic model implies that the permanence of a permanent magnetic body is a matter of opinion since one could execute some motion relative to the body and decide it is non-magnetic. Actually, this isn't true. Given a pure magnetic field (with zero electric field) there is no inertial frame in which there isn't any B field. A typical permanent magnet has no associated electric field, and so its field can't be transformed away. (Classically, as long as the surface of the magnet is a conductor and the net charge contained in it is balanced, there won't be an E field exterior to the magnet.) You can't transform away a pure B field. Most other frames have a nonzero E field as well, but they all also have a nonzero B field. A simple argument shows this: Consider a pure B field (no E field) in inertial frame S. Consider two identical particles, particle P1, at rest in S, and particle P2, moving in S. P1 feels no force, and is not accelerating. P2 feels a force, and _is_ accelerating. The (Boolean-valued) existence of an acceleration is absolute (at least as long as we stick with inertial frames) -- a particle which is accelerating, is accelerating in all frames; a particle which is inertial is inertial in all frames. So, in all inertial frames, P1 will feel no net force, while P2 will feel a net force. Since the only difference between the particles is their velocity, yet they feel difference forces, they are clearly subject to a velocity-dependent force. The E field isn't velocity dependent, so it can't account for the difference. Ergo, there's a B field in every frame. There's a fairly simple mathematical test that'll tell you right away whether a B field (or E field) can be transformed away or not but off hand I don't recall what it is off the top of my head. One can, of course, also just write out the transform and look at it to check this particular case: Here's the transform for the B field (from MTW p.78 -- you can also get it just by transforming the Faraday tensor): B'(parallel) = B(parallel) B'(perpendicular) = gamma*(B(perpendicular) - VxE(perpendicular)) B(parallel) obviously can't be transformed away since it doesn't change under the Lorentz transform, so to get rid of the B field you need to be moving perpendicular to it. But if there's no E field, the perpendicular B field component transforms as: B'(perp) = B(perp) / sqrt(1 - v^2) and if B(perp) is nonzero, that will be nonzero too. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Beene's Floating Power Source
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0616-04.htm QUOTE: Sergey Kiriyenko, the head of Rosenergoatom, said: There will be no floating Chernobyl, referring to the 1986 nuclear disaster. Sergey Obozov, a senior official at the agency, said they would be reliable as a Kalashnikov assault rifle, which are a benchmark of safety. An assault rifle is the benchmark of Russian safety? Oddly enough, this seems in character. Russia is a remarkable civilization, but as my friend Margaret says, they should stick to poetry, literature and science. (She is not Russian but she might as well be after a lifetime of studying Russian language and literature.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Free energy in magnets? (was Re: Read it again)
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Charges may be involved. However, the _reality_ of a permanent magnetic body is not recognised by a relativistic charged based model of magnetism. The relativistic model implies that the permanence of a permanent magnetic body is a matter of opinion since one could execute some motion relative to the body and decide it is non-magnetic. Actually, this isn't true. Given a pure magnetic field (with zero electric field) there is no inertial frame in which there isn't any B field. A typical permanent magnet has no associated electric field, and so its field can't be transformed away. (Classically, as long as the surface of the magnet is a conductor and the net charge contained in it is balanced, there won't be an E field exterior to the magnet.) The point is, it is true according to the theory (dogma?) that _all_ magnetism is simply an effect of charges in motion. You can't transform away a pure B field. Most other frames have a nonzero E field as well, but they all also have a nonzero B field. A simple argument shows this: Consider a pure B field (no E field) in inertial frame S. Consider two identical particles, particle P1, at rest in S, and particle P2, moving in S. P1 feels no force, and is not accelerating. P2 feels a force, and _is_ accelerating. The (Boolean-valued) existence of an acceleration is absolute (at least as long as we stick with inertial frames) -- a particle which is accelerating, is accelerating in all frames; a particle which is inertial is inertial in all frames. So, in all inertial frames, P1 will feel no net force, while P2 will feel a net force. Since the only difference between the particles is their velocity, yet they feel difference forces, they are clearly subject to a velocity-dependent force. The E field isn't velocity dependent, so it can't account for the difference. Ergo, there's a B field in every frame. There's a fairly simple mathematical test that'll tell you right away whether a B field (or E field) can be transformed away or not but off hand I don't recall what it is off the top of my head. One can, of course, also just write out the transform and look at it to check this particular case: Here's the transform for the B field (from MTW p.78 -- you can also get it just by transforming the Faraday tensor): B'(parallel) = B(parallel) B'(perpendicular) = gamma*(B(perpendicular) - VxE(perpendicular)) B(parallel) obviously can't be transformed away since it doesn't change under the Lorentz transform, so to get rid of the B field you need to be moving perpendicular to it. But if there's no E field, the perpendicular B field component transforms as: B'(perp) = B(perp) / sqrt(1 - v^2) and if B(perp) is nonzero, that will be nonzero too. Maxwell's equations do not actually state that all magnetism is simply effect of charges in motion. Such a theory is complementary to Maxwell's equations, much like the kinetic theory of heat is complementary to the laws of thermodynamics. Harry
[Vo]: Jones' Post-Nocturnal Rumblings
Have been documented in the UK? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/aurora/ excerpting: The aircraft has also been spotted across the US, in Norway and the Netherlands, often to the accompaniment of a deafening sonic boom and its characteristic donuts on a string con trail - caused by its revolutionary scramjet propulsion plant...
[Vo]: [YO] [DEVO] [OT] Yellow Snow Script?
http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/?articleID=4765 That yellowish stain has attracted the attention of NASA and the Canadian Space Agency because it has a link to extraterrestrial life, Beauchamp, the executive director of the Arctic Institute of North America, told Canada.com. (Frank woulda been proud.)
[Vo]: [YO]: [MOFO]: [OT]: Kal-El est Iesus?
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/14/film.supermanchristfigur e.ap/ http://tinyurl.com/fbdl5 Some have also seen the hero as a gay icon, forced to live a double life with his super-self in the closet. A recent edition of the gay magazine The Advocate even asked on its cover, How gay is Superman? But the comparison to Jesus is one that's been made almost since the character's origin in 1938, said Skelton, author of The Gospel According to the World's Greatest Superhero. Many simply see the story of a hero sent to Earth by his father to serve mankind as having clear enough New Testament overtones. Others have taken the comparison even further, reading the El in Superman's original name Kal-El and that of his father Jor-El as the Hebrew word for God, among other theological interpretations. (sorry, tough father's day) El-El
Re: [Vo]: Free energy in magnets? (was Re: Read it again)
Following up my last reply... Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Consider a pure B field (no E field) in inertial frame S. Consider two identical particles, particle P1, at rest in S, and particle P2, moving in S. P1 feels no force, and is not accelerating. A devout relativist (which I am not) would say there is no magnetic field for observer in P1's frame because that frame is at rest w.r.t. to a given charge distribution. P2 feels a force, and _is_ accelerating. The (Boolean-valued) existence of an acceleration is absolute (at least as long as we stick with inertial frames) -- a particle which is accelerating, is accelerating in all frames; a particle which is inertial is inertial in all frames. Likewise, a devout relativist would say the relative motion of P2 w.r.t. to a given charge distribution generates a magnetic field. So, in all inertial frames, P1 will feel no net force, while P2 will feel a net force. Since the only difference between the particles is their velocity, yet they feel difference forces, they are clearly subject to a velocity-dependent force. The E field isn't velocity dependent, so it can't account for the difference. Ergo, there's a B field in every frame. For a devout relativist there is no a-priori magnetic field in every frame. Harry
