On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote:
> John-- > > I would say that they do. > I assume you mean propagate instantaneously? At least there is still the booby prize of disprovng SR. If they didn't, it seems the magnetic fields coming from the Sun to the > earth would consistently have an arc concaved in the opposite direction > from the Sun's rotation. I do not think this is observed. However, it may > not have been looked for. > > > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* John Berry <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Friday, March 14, 2014 12:11 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia > > On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook <[email protected]>wrote: > >> John-- >> >> Three points for clarification: >> How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or >> rotate around the axis? >> > > In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you saw it > as an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that > orientation. > You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is perpendicular > to the acceleration axis. > > In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field of > each coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in front > and one behind. > If we were to try this on a spaceship, we would wrap one coil around the > front of the spaceship, and one around the rear. > > > Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity and >> acceleration of the solenoid? If so why? >> > > Because electrons tend to stay in the wire. > Additionally all electromagnets could be replaced by permanent magnets. > > >> Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light? >> > > It might move instantaneously, in fact I believe that could be the > disproof of this idea. > > But in doing so it destroys Special Relativity, though not my goal this > time, it is still a worthwhile discovery. > > >> It would seem it moves relative to the electrons motion and with >> inductive feedback force on the electrons. So a question is how fast does >> the inductive force happen? >> > > That is a good question. > After writing this I did find a claim that near-fields propagate > instantaneously. > > But there is no way around it, if they do Special Relativity is a fiction. > > > BTW here is another version that might make it clearer: > > > Increase of inertia: > Make a square solenoid air core coil, we will label the sides left, right > and up and down. > > At rest all sides of the solenoid repel the opposite sides equally leading > to no net force. > If we see the square coil as a square on our monitor and we suddenly > accelerate it to the right, the left side of the coil will see it has now > moved closer to the right side as it still sees the initial position (both > visually and magnetically), it is literally moving into a denser portion of > the right sides magnetic field because of a light speed delay, and feels a > stronger repulsion. > > And the right side sees it has moved further away from the left side as it > still sees the old position initially again so the right side feels a > reduced repulsion as it is in a weaker portion of the magnetic field from > the left. > > This means that a net magnetic force to the left is created, which opposes > the initial acceleration. > It is as if the rest mass has increased by electromagnetic means. > > Note: It might help to make these coils 1 light second or larger in size > for visualization purposes. > Decrease of inertia/Negative inertia: > > If instead of one coil we have 2 in attraction, with one at the front of > out spaceship and one at the back, if we suddenly accelerate the rear coil > will see it's attraction to the front coil has increased, and the front > coil will see it's attraction to the rear coil decreased, again because > both coils initially see the old position for the other coil. > And if the rear coil is attracted forward more strongly than the front > coil is attracted back, this means that there is a net force assisting > acceleration. > > Of course both of these effects would continue as long as acceleration is > applied. > > Why doesn't this break Newtons law that for every action there is an equal > and opposite reaction? > And if that is broken so is the conservation of energy! > > If you accelerate an electron you get cyclotron/synchrotron radiation, if > you accelerate a magnet it is reasonable to assume some type of EM > radiation is created. > > This could then reasonably be assumed to be a variation of a light > propulsion (a photon rocket, or a solar sail). > And hence not to breach any laws any more than than these are (which they > aren't). > > However because the magnetic fields could be supplied by permanent > magnets, the energy could be tapped from atomic states, what would happen I > don't know, maybe they would tap energy from the vacuum/ZPE to maintain it, > or maybe the mater would somehow disintegrate or just demagnetize. > > If made light enough, true net negative inertial resistance could be > envisioned, but this doesn't bare thinking about. > > The principle is based on the same light speed delay as this work by the > DOE for NASA, but their version uses switching which does not paint as > certain a picture: > http://science.howstuffworks.com/ele...ropulsion1.htm > > This proves the idea is sound, even IF switched versions are superior in > practice. > > BTW any arguments based on issues with simultaneity will fail, so please > think twice before making that objection. > > Practical versions of this effect as a star drive could involve magnets > that undergo changes in magnetic orientation as they are being rapidly > accelerated/decelerated to switch between inertia being increased or > decreased, and as such creating a net momentum after accelerating and > stopping the mass, any low frequency radiation would need to be let out if > this is assumed to not breach Newtons 3rd law and the Conservation of > energy. > >
