I may be being stupid here, but if you have two charged particles moving
towards each other then can they not be thought of as generating
magnetic fields, and that these magnetic fields would form the basis of
an additional attraction alongside the column force. electric and
magnetic fields differ only in their frame of reference.
I could well imagine that there are multiple ways of showing this,
including Burchells, and it may well be that this might be a better way
of modelling it in some circumstances, but is his extra velocity term
for the colomb attraction not just something that we are familiar with
but under a different guise?
Nigel
On 15/02/2014 07:37, H Veeder wrote:
He is certainly not the first person to formulate a velocity dependent
version of Coulomb's law, but I think his formulation is the first to
make use of a distinction between the velocity of approach and the
velocity of recession. (If I have understood him correctly, it would
mean if one was only interested in the force on an electron orbiting a
proton in a perfectly circular orbit, the force would be described by
the standard Coulomb's law since there would be no velocity of
approach or recession.)
He tries to explain gravity using his theory but he concedes that
there still may be a significant portion of gravity which is not
explained by his theory.
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/Gravity.htm
Harry
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:40 PM, John Berry <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
It would make sense, a Doppler like effect is very reasonable with
electric fields.
Now if this is so, it is very possible that gravity could be
explained this way.
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:09 PM, H Veeder <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
James Bowery and other vortex members,
Today I learned about the the work of Bernard Burchell.
He argues for a velocity dependent version of coulomb's law*
In his model the coloumb force between two like charges
increases when the charges are moving together and decreases
when they are moving apart.
The reverse is true for opposite charges.
The revised law:
F = {K(q1)(q2)/r^2} {1 + [(q1)(q2)(v1- v2)]/c}^3
He goes into more detail here:
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/RelativisticMass.htm
This is just a small fraction of his work. He has many bold
and wonderful ideas in his free on-line book.
http://www.alternativephysics.org/
-----------------
* I made a similar proposal on vortex sometime ago although it
was nothing more than an intuition and I only considered like
charges:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg45063.html
Harry
