Back to Home

General Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Misc. Topics | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Could Magnetism Just Be A Delayed Electric Force

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Selsick on December 18, 2003 23:47:12 UTC

Could this explain Magnetism in a way that is much simpler that the current existing theories?


Planck derived magnetism from the conservation
of energy and momentum while Purcell derived it from Coulomb's formula and special relativity.

cf.
http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/MRRtalk.html
http://www.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/rel_el_mag.html


Delaney states that the experiment to prove that
mass increases with velocity was only proven for
an electron. cf.
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/clarencedulaney/Charge+vs+Speed

A quick search through internet showed that
effectively all the proofs of an increase of
mass with velocity relate to charged particles.
All the proofs over here

ttp://www.mrelativity.net/TimeEnergyIG/TimeEnergyIG2.htm

are with electrons excepting for one which is with
protons.From this site at least it seems that we
have no absolute physical proof that mass
increases with velocity.

The raw proof is only that e/m decreases !!!!

I would assume from this that there is no real
astronomical proof as well from fast moving
stars.It also seems that here on earth we
cannot have a mass moving fast enough to actually
test this result.The only clear experimental
proof is from the fact that e/m decreases as the
velocity increases. Obviously as charge should be
conserved it was more logical that the mass
increases to that charge dissapears into thin air.

If we want to split hairs and only settle for
100% proofs this is all we have.

Delaney claims that it is not the mass that
increases but the charge that decreased. The
charge that decreased did not dissapear
into thin air but became the magnetic force.


If we take just 3 assumptions we can derive
Ampere's law of magnetism in a very simple way.


==============================================

These 3 assumptions are.
************************

1.Coulomb's law. F=q1*q2/r^2

2.The speed of this force is the speed of light c.

3.Whatever carries the force whether it be a
virtual photon ,a Higg's boson or the curvature
of space-time itself is stupid.

Please note. I am not saying the theory is stupid !!!

It is the Higg's bosson that is stupid. He has
not been to Harvard ,Princeton or the Sorbonne
University and so he does not know how to calculate the way the force should be at t+1.All
he can do is transfer the force after he already
knows where its source is.

He cannot do the calculations neccessary to know
where the force should be. Thus even for charge
moving at a constant speed the force is always
delayed.The actual force at any point on a target
comes from a position a little before the actual
source position.


It is at the point that one would see it as it
travells at the speed of light and not any faster.

================================================

I propose that the charge does not dissapear as
Delaney proposed.What is happening is that
as the charge is moving and that the speed of
the field is c the target feels the field
at a certain distance behind the actual source.

The field of a very fast moving charge would
then be very much weaker in front.This is due
to the fact that the recieved signal would
be measuring coming far behind the actual source.

With a similar reasoning the field would be
much stronger behind the charge and slightly
weaker at its sides.

The charge is entirely there ,but due to the
delay it is transformed. This transformation is
called magnetism.


We can now apply this to two charges moving side
by side perpedicular to the line that joins
them.The force of A reaches B from v*t behind.
The force itself has to travell r' =c*t.
We have a right angle triangle with the
hypotenuse as r'.

r'/r=ct/((ct*ct)-(vt*vt))^.5) ; using Pythagoras

or the real distance we should use is
r'=r/(1-v*v/c/c)^.5 ;r is the actual distance

The force between the two charges is
f=Ke*q1*q2/r'^2
or f=Ke*q1*q2/r^2*(1-v/c*v/c)

Thus
f=Ke*q1*q2/r^2-Km*q1*q2/r^2*v^2

The first factor is obviously just Coulombs
equation the second is the magnetic component
which corresponds to Amperes law of two like
currents flowing in a wire.

To actually get Ampere's formula we would just
need to do a double integration.


We could not use this type of reasoning for
the earth moving around the sun. The sun is
fixed with respect to the earth.There should be a
slight problem though ,for the movement of the
earth-sun through space with respect to the
fixed stars. The earth's force on the sun should
also be slightly different to what is generally
calculated.

As what I am explaining here is a
meta-explication it does not claim to choose
between any one theory but to explain magnetism
in the simplist way that is logically possible.

All the mathematical calculations for a wire
become extremely complicated. They need to be
done whithout any approximations as magnetism
is a slight effect of the unbalanced electrical
forces.The forces involved are extremely small
and so any approximation could smother it out
completely.

What now needs to be done is to find out exactly
with respect to what these velocities should be
measured.

Distinti
http://www.distinti.com/newelec/default.htm
Seems to imply that the two velocities should be
measured with respect to a fixed outer frame.

Could a new theory much simpler than those we now have be constructed using these axioms?

Is it compatible with Einsteins theory of
relativity ?

Being an exact logical explication could it
show new magnetical effects not seen with
Maxwell's equations?



Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins