Dave, I think the simple answer is to recognize that a magnetic field only exists due to motion, and if SR is correct (it isn't and can't be) then we should consider that every electric field can be seen as a magnetic field in a different reference frame.
No magnetic field exists in all frames of reference, at least not caused by the same thing, a wire creates a magnetic field from the moving electrons, if you move with the electrons a different magnetic field pops up from the protons. The motion of the observer doesn't establish a magnetic field, it already existed in that reference frame. John On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:03 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > It would be difficult to answer your questions without taking a lot of > time so I think that you should keep one main thought in mind. All of the > effects that I am describing are those seen by an observer and not actually > evident to the pair of electrons. They view the world from their > perspective while everyone else sees something different. > > This is similar to special relativity where the guys on the spaceship > moving at nearly light speed are not aware of anything unusual happening to > them. We observe that they are living in a slowed down manner. My take > on it is that time dilation is our observation only and not real to them. > The forces acting upon the electron pair is somewhat similar. There is no > magnetic force present to someone that happens to be moving along with > them. But, this is not true in the case where they are moving rapidly past > an observer as I have been describing. The observer will see a magnetic > and electric field that is generated by each of them. Are you willing to > state that a moving electron does not generate this type of changing fields > as seen by a stationary observer? Perhaps that is what you believe which > would explain your responses to my points. > > If instead you realize that a moving electron generates a magnetic field > seen by a stationary observer as I am pointing out, then it follows that a > second moving electron must respond to that field. This is difficult to > understand but it would be a good exercise for you to consider. > > So, before we proceed with this thought experiment please explain why an > electron in motion, according to an observer, does not generate complex > electric and magnetic fields that vary in both time and position according > to his instruments. Then explain why a second electron in motion within > the observer's lab does not respond to the fields measured by that > observer. If you can adequately explain how this might be possible then I > will reconsider my position. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Berry <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Tue, Feb 18, 2014 7:46 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:14 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Harry, >> >> I see your objection and I certainly would agree that two electrons >> moving in parallel to each other would not see any relative motion. The >> question that we need to address is how does a randomly moving observer >> make a determination that a magnetic field would influence the forces >> appearing between the electrons > > > How can an observer possibly change such though? > Only if it effects the fabric of space so that there is now motion created > by the observer dragging aether/higgs field/something through the > experiment. > > >> For the stationary electrons there is no magnetic field but instead >> coulomb repulsion. >> > > But the electrons are stationary according to SR if they aren't moving > relative to each other, since all reference frames are equal. > So having an observer that sees things differently can only change what > happens if SR is largely wrong about things being, well, relative. > > >> If we now assume that we occupy a new frame that is moving relative to >> the two electrons then what should we measure? First, the movement of the >> first electron should result in the generation of a magnetic field along >> with the electric field that is normally expected. This magnetic field >> will have a component that appears in the location of the second electron >> from our point of view. I assume that we are in agreement about this >> issue. > > > > >> Also, we observe that the second electron is moving through the magnetic >> field component that is a result of the motion of the first electron. I >> can think of no reason that we would not be able to calculate the force >> experienced by the second electron due to the field. > > > The field does not exist to the other electron because there is no > relative motion. > Only if space or some field that creates an electromagnetic reference > frame blows through the experiment can this occur. > > A moving observer may be near or far so even if they drag space with > them, this area of entrained reference frame would not effect the electrons. > > Consider that there is radiation moving at near light speed and light > speed from every direction regularly, each one would be an observer of the > electrons generating a magnetic field to their perspective (IF SR is > correct) and yet such forces do not and can not causally arise. > Each one would bring a different axis, strength and direction of magnetic > flux from the electrons as they see it. This still can't have any effect > on the electrons. > > This is how I approached the problem. One of the expectations for this >> line of reasoning is that there should be an infinite number of values for >> the force encountered by the second electron depending upon the relative >> movement of the observer. >> >> When I plugged in the force generated by this process when the observer >> is moving at the speed of light, I obtained a magnetic force that is >> exactly equal to the coulomb force but opposite in direction. This seemed >> to be quite a coincidence. A bit of reflection suggested that this >> calculation might well be an indication that electrons moving at >> approximately the speed of light relative to an observer are indeed frozen >> in position due to infinite time dilation and not repelled apart. > > Using opposite charges also yields the same result. >> >> I suppose that I tend to think of particles moving within an accelerator >> at nearly the speed of light as being similar to the case I am >> describing. They should experience time dilation due to the movement and >> should tend to remain grouped together instead of springing apart as you >> might expect from like charges. >> > > Particle accelerators need a lot of energy to keep electrons moving at > near light speed, this seems a bit odd that in a vacuum they would need a > great deal of energy to keep moving at a constant speed, I have heard of > this being used as an argument for them moving through a background aether > frame. > > Maybe this does happen, but if it doesn't equal an observer moving past > charges since there are always near light speed observers that would be > stopping all electric forces if this were so. > > Consider that your argument (and such a force) only makes sense if there > is a difference between 2 electrons sitting still relative to the earth > with near superluminal observers passing by... > And 2 electrons moving with one another (but stationary relative to each > other) through an accelerator. > > According to SR these 2 examples are equal as the earths reference frame > is not special. > > Now time Dilation in a more complex issue if you want to argue that they > experience too little time to move apart, but really except for > gravitational time dilation, I consider a no preferred reference frame time > dilation based on relative motion to be absurd and impossible once Doppler > effects are calculated for or eliminated by communicating time rate at > right angles to the direction of relative motion. > > John > > >> >> Perhaps this line of reasoning is interesting to further pursue. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: H Veeder <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tue, Feb 18, 2014 5:51 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law >> >> Dave, >> >> John is saying is that the Biot Savart law for a point charge only makes >> sense if the velocity refers to the relative motion between the point >> charge and another charge. Since there is no relative motion between the >> charges in your example there should be no magnetic force. >> >> However, I have been looking at a few presentations of the law and they >> all make it appear as if the velocity can be taken relative to an >> independent reference frame. If these presentations are logically correct >> than it should be possible for an observer to increase or decrease the >> magnetic force between point charges by simply choosing to move relative >> the charges at speeds much less than c. Since this does not happen, these >> presentations of the Biot Savart are misleading. >> >> Therefore, it also seems to me that the Biot Savart law cannot provide >> a logically consistent explanation of the phenomena of relativistic >> electron bean confinement described by Jones. >> >> Harry >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:58 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> You are describing the case of zero electron motion when you use the >>> observation frame that is synchronized to the electron motion. That is >>> just one of an infinite series of view points. In that frame only the >>> coulomb effect is seen. >>> >>> Time dilation is determined by what an observer believes is happening to >>> objects that he measures and in this case it is the moving pair of >>> electrons. In that observers world both are moving at a velocity through >>> his instrumentation so he measures the field of one of them first at the >>> location of the second one. The effect of that field then can be >>> calculated as it modifies the movement of the other electron. >>> >>> This is similar to us looking at two electrons that are in motion within >>> an accelerator. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: John Berry <[email protected]> >>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Mon, Feb 17, 2014 3:13 am >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law >>> >>> David, if the electrons do not see that in their world view, then the >>> second one is hardly exposed to something that does not exist for it. >>> >>> Every electrically charged object has in other reference frames >>> various magnetic fields, the axis and direction of the magnetic field is >>> decided by the relative motion of the observer. >>> >>> Since radiation of various forms exists moving in every possible >>> direction towards every charged object, that we can propose that every >>> charged object has multiple magnetic fields with every possible magnitude, >>> direction and axis in different reference frames that are being regularly >>> observed in those frames. >>> >>> Of course none of this is true if SR is incorrect, and if the motion >>> in question is relative to an aether providing an unknown frame of >>> reference... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:52 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> We observe two moving electrons in my calculation. The first one >>>> generates a magnetic field that the second one is exposed to. The >>>> electrons do not see this effect in their world view. This is equivalent >>>> to what we might see if we look at two parallel beams of charged >>>> particles. Speed them up to nearly the speed of light and my calculation >>>> is that they do not attract or repel each other. >>>> >>>> Dave >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: H Veeder <[email protected]> >>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 11:41 pm >>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law >>>> >>>> What is the source of the magnetism? >>>> >>>> Harry >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 6:24 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sorry, I realize that my wording was flawed. I mean that the two >>>>> particles are moving in parallel at the same velocity. >>>>> >>>>> Dave >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: H Veeder <[email protected]> >>>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>>> Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 3:20 pm >>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:44 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Once I made a calculation of the attraction between two charged >>>>>> particles that are moving together at a constant velocity relative to my >>>>>> frame of reference. I was pleasantly surprised to find that as the >>>>>> velocity of the two charges approached the speed of light, a perfect >>>>>> balance between the electric force and the magnetic force was achieved. >>>>>> This implied that there would be precisely zero electromagnetic force >>>>>> between the two and hence no acceleration either together or apart at the >>>>>> speed of light. This matches the special theory of relativity since at >>>>>> light speed the time dilation reaches infinity for the objects being >>>>>> viewed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since their time was slowed down to zero, they should not be seen as >>>>>> accelerating towards or away from each other. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dave >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dave, what do you mean by "moving together"? Moving on parallel >>>>> paths at constant velocity or moving off in different directions at >>>>> constant velocity? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Harry >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
