In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 20:09:01 -0400 (EDT): Hi Dave, [snip]
I agree with what you are saying, I'm just having a hard time making use of it to explain (the lack of) momentum sharing. >If you take an extreme example it makes the process clear. Suppose there >exists a large current loop located a mile away from an electron source. The >point where the electron exits the gun has a magnetic field that is measurable >arising from this source and at right angles to the path it will take. The >instant the electron leaves the source it become deflected by the magnetic >field that exists at that precise point in time. It does not have to wait >until its motion is detected at the loop to begin the curvature. > >In this case, the electron is subject to a right angle force immediately due >to the field being present and not after a few microseconds of delay. Notice >that there would be no deflection had there not been an existing magnetic >field. > >An electric field from a large charge at a mile would behave in a similar >manner. In that case, the electron would immediately begin accelerating >toward the positive charge source and actually gaining energy as well as >momentum. The field itself must be the source of the force being experienced >by the electron since the actual charge causing the field is not aware of the >existence of the electron for the same delay due to light having a finite >speed. > >I tend to think of these types of processes as being influenced by changes in >local time due to distance between objects. In this case the electron is >responding to the source fields associated with an earlier time of their >existence from the source frame point of view. From the electron's point of >view, it is responding to its real time environment. > >Dave > > >-----Original Message----- >From: mixent <[email protected]> >To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 6:30 pm >Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? > > >In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:37:39 -0400 (EDT): >Hi, > >The problem I have with this is that it would allow any energy liberating >mechanism (even chemical reactions) to result in a particle simply "taking off" >with the momentum later to be passed to some other particle somewhere else >(potentially anywhere), after light has had a chance to reach it. > >We don't see this happen. > >>Robin, >> >> >>I do not see a problem with what Eric is suggesting. Regardless of how many >charges and moving charges reside in the universe, only the net vector fields >due to all of them is present at the location of the D reactions. The >superposition of all of the individual fields results in one final value that >interacts. The various vectors of the total could arise far away from the D >site, but their levels would drop off very fast with distance so only the >nearest ones would generally dominate. >> >> >>For example, the total magnetic field vector at a point determines how a >>moving >charged particle's path is curved at that point. The potentially far off >source >of that field does not have to get information about the movement of that >particle before the force is felt. This type of thought fits into the concept >that local time is what counts for a reference frame. Distance makes the >local >times different between the "friend" nucleus and the interacting D's. >> >> >>If you follow up on the momentum and energy pulses detected by the "friends" >nearby, then they would not see any reaction forces until the time required >for >light speed fields to reach them. After that period has elapsed, they would >be >subject to potentially large dynamic forces. >> >> >>Dave >[snip] >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk > >http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
