Hi David, I am very aware of SR, and I was not asking about that, conversely if you have evidence of what you claim, I would consider that strong evidence against SR.
I was asking about magnetic fields existing between 2 mutually stationary electric charges that are in motion together though a laboratory frame, which is very much not SR, but absolute motion through an aether, or possibly a beyond paradoxical many worlds Schroedinger's magnetic field effect as you may see it. But evidence for the latter is very unlikely to not apply equally well as evidence for absolute motion through an entrained aether. So while I can wait if you have other things right now, I am very interested in such evidence, even if you just tell me what to Google. Thank you, John On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:21 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > John, I am pursuing other goals at the moment and have little time left > to go into this further. You should read about SR at your leisure and will > find the answers by yourself. > > I also realize that apparently we were not able to communicate earlier > since I must have misunderstood your points badly. You had me convinced > that you were on the other side of my arguments only to find out later that > you agreed. I can not overcome such an obstacle. > > From time to time I will make other posts about various calculations > concerning SR that you are welcome to question. Now is not the time to > continue that process. Have you tried Moletrap yet? > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Berry <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Feb 23, 2014 5:31 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility > > David? > > I really am anxiously waiting for evidence. > Not trying to rush you, but just don't forget ok? > > Assuming you are still talking to me. > > Yeah, patience isn't my strong suit. > > John > > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:51 PM, John Berry <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> John, it is great that we are now in agreement concerning my example of >>> the two parallel moving charges. It comes as a complete surprise to me >>> that you now accept the fact that the field observed by the stationary lab >>> due to one of the moving charges can influence the motion of the second >>> moving charge as seen by that same lab. >>> >> >> The whole time I stressed that I was talking about how SR would demand >> it is seen, and was not necessarily my personal belief as I reject SR. >> >> This is at total odds with SR. >> >> And I would not use the term 'seen' either, rather the charge moving >> through the aether of the Earth/Lab frame would create a magnetic field >> that would be seen by all observers in all frames essentially the same >> however they are moving. Otherwise you have huge Paradoxes appear. >> >>> >>> You made quite a point initially that this could not happen. >> >> >> If SR is correct, which clearly I do not believe, read my posts I did >> mention that. >> >> >>> If I recall correctly, you very clearly stated that there was no >>> magnetic field present as seen by each ball in the frame of reference that >>> moves with the balls so there could not be one seen in any other moving >>> frame. >>> >> >> According to SR, which I still hold as true IF SR were true, which it >> isn't. >> Also I am not saying definitively either way, other than to say I prefer >> a model with absolute motion relative to a locally entrained aether. >> >> You said there is experimental evidence to back up this view, please >> share it and you may take me from favouring the view to being certain of it. >> >> Seriously I would appreciate ALL evidence that a moving charge seems to >> effect things in a magnetic manner even when that thing being effected is >> moving with the charge, and hence is subject to no relative motion. >> >> Help me be certain! >> >>> >>> If you believed the way I did all along then why did you attack my >>> position in the first post? >> >> >> 1: I was stating from an SR perspective, and from an SR perspective >> that is still true. And to me proving SR wrong on electrodynamics is a big >> thing. >> >> 2: I had not formulated an opinion as to what should happen in a non-SR >> view at the time, it could be the same or different, I have since looked at >> the subject and find some evidence for thinking that it is not related to >> relative motion between the charge and anything that responds to the charge. >> >> 3: I still can in no way agree (ever) with the view that each frame >> sees what they expect from their relative motion to the charge (if any) to >> be seen to occur in other frames, that is paradox city. If you are moving >> with the electric charge you would not see a magnetic field and insist that >> no other frames act that way, but if you do have relative motion, then you >> expect to see other frames respond to the magnetic field you see and not >> the field you would expect to see if you occupied that other frame. >> >> Also you must admit that if we transferred this argument to magnets and >> coils inducing voltage, a coil with no motion to a magnetic field will get >> no induction, ever. That there is such an asymmetry between electric and >> magnetic induction surprises and delights me, symmetry is overrated. >> >> >> There is nothing wrong with changing ones understanding, but there is >>> something strange about pretending to believe the other way all along when >>> the evidence is clearly otherwise. >>> >> >> Please show me this clear evidence, I am still only aware of vague >> evidence I have sighted in the Homopolar thread. >> >> >>> >>> The only explanation that I can come up with as to how we could have >>> been in agreement all along as you now imply is that there has been some >>> kind of misunderstanding. If this is true please explain what you found >>> wrong with my example in the first place. >> >> >> If a charged object moves through aether (from wire, or a lab frame) >> and generates a magnetic field that can be seen by all observers in any >> state of motion essentially identically, I have no problems with that at >> all. >> Now I am not utterly convinced of it, but I like it and can see some >> evidence for it. And I want more. >> >> However if an electron/charged tennis ball sits still in a void, and >> fails to deflect a compass (c1) that is not moving relative to, but does >> defect a second compass that it is moving relative too it, and an observer >> is moving with that compass (c2) now expects the stationary compass (c1) to >> be also deflected to agree with the magnetic field the moving frame sees? >> And yet an observer stationary relative to stationary compass (c1) demands >> that neither compass is deflected... >> >> That is the problem, I hope you understand this. That is what I was and >> am still arguing with IF you believe that. >> But if you want to believe such a paradox, then go ahead, I just want you >> to furnish experimental evidence for your view since it should suit my >> purposes anyway. >> >> Both models predict the same thing for an observer that occupies the >> lab frame. >> >> >> Go back to the first post you made and point out how it matches your >>> present position. It is important for me to uncover the wording problem >>> that lead to the long painful discussions so that I will not have to go >>> through that again. >>> >>> Unless we figure out how to communicate with the same language it is >>> fruitless to continue any discussions. I await your explanation. >> >> >> Hopefully this email will have cleared up some of it. >> >> I also suspect that I must have misunderstood your intention in one >> email, either that or you changed your own opinion as you typed it. >> >> I am starting to think we might just get somewhere. >> >> John >> > >
