OverUnity Research

As already said recently (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4369.msg101547#msg101547), seeing electromagnetism through relativity allows to understand things much better. For those who still doubt these effects, a team has just demonstrated directly the contraction of the electric field of the electron when it moves at a speed close to c, confirming once again the relevance of relativity:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-022-01767-w (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-022-01767-w).

"We observe the Coulomb field contraction in the propagation direction of the beam under the Lorentz transformation" says Prof. Makoto Nakajima, the project leader.

One could believe that these effects exist only at very high speeds. This is not true. Even at the very slow speed of electrons in a conductor, of the order of mm/s, the effects are enormous because they are cumulated over the hundreds of millions of billions of free electrons that a few grams of conductor contain. The magnetic field is one of them: a pure effect of relativity on the coulombic field.

I do have one clarifying question.
In order to preserve Planck's Constant E=HV, does an observed redshift/blueshift represent a real gain/loss of energy when viewed from a given reference frame?

For example, galactic redshift observed on earth represents a slight loss of energy with regards to incoming waves coming from far away.
Alternatively, if a planet were sitting very close to a black hole, they would observe the rest of the universe as blue-shifted due to their own relativistic situation.

Is this a correct interpretation?

@Hak

It is not constants, such as h, that Nature seeks to preserve, these constants being the result of observation but are not principles.
It is the conservation of energy that imposes the change of frequency.

When a body falls to earth, it loses potential energy and gains kinetic energy.
But when a photon falls to earth, it cannot gain kinetic energy since it cannot exceed c. The energy it gains increases its frequency ν (the blue shift you are talking about), and as E=h.ν, the energy is exactly conserved.

Note that the conservation of energy comes from the mathematical formalism, so the non-conservation, you will never get it from the equations.
The laws of physics are mathematics, and in the equations of these mathematics, the energy is conserved because it is what we have always observed.
So as long as there is no contrary observation, the known laws of physics will remain as they are, implying this conservation in the equations. If you could use the equations of physics against it, its mathematical coherence would be at fault, and this would have been seen for a long time. So the way to FE is only through anomalous observations, not through manipulation of the physics equations (which does not prevent using them to go beyond, or simply to check that an observation is not anomalous).

Nice bench
This came Fedex today ... not sure if it's for you ?

http://www.rexresearch.com/moddelzpe/Moddelzpe.html

It's ok to return it or ?( move or remove this )

Nice bench .... Is that your cat ?
Have a good day
Ps
Here's the shipping label
https://overunity.com/19273/unlocking-zero-point-energy/msg571322/#new

Quote from: Chet K on 2022.10.21, 16:12:51
Nice bench
This came Fedex today ... not sure if it's for you ?
...

No, it's not for me. Thank you for respecting the subject "Electromagnetism and relativity".


I take the opportunity to make this clarification for all visitors and contributors here:

I was forced to choose the bench solution to be able to produce serious information and experiments, and hopefully receive some as well, without being constantly disturbed by posts referring to the usual nonsense of free energy "reference" sites like rexresearch, to UFO stories, conspiracy theories, various off-topic, old FE setups that never worked, and various claims that are out of the slightest plausibility. Here we are looking to the future and the unknown, not to the past and its free energy mythology.

So everyone is welcome on this bench, provided they accept the academic science, use it and possibly go beyond it to produce free or cheap energy, not challenge it with alternative theories without indisputable facts being presented first.
I've had quite a few posts deleted in various threads whenever I challenged free energy claims for lack of evidence or incompatibility with what is known in physics, so I'll unabashedly use the same method here against fanciful contributions to defend my research method, the only one that has ever created progress : "standing on the shoulders of giants" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants).

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.21, 14:22:21
@Hak

It is not constants, such as h, that Nature seeks to preserve, these constants being the result of observation but are not principles.
It is the conservation of energy that imposes the change of frequency.

When a body falls to earth, it loses potential energy and gains kinetic energy.
But when a photon falls to earth, it cannot gain kinetic energy since it cannot exceed c. The energy it gains increases its frequency ν (the blue shift you are

talking about), and as E=h.ν, the energy is exactly conserved.

Quote
Note that the conservation of energy comes from the mathematical formalism, so the non-conservation, you will never get it from the equations.
The laws of physics are mathematics, and in the equations of these mathematics, the energy is conserved because it is what we have always observed.
So as long as there is no contrary observation, the known laws of physics will remain as they are, implying this conservation in the equations. If you could use

the equations of physics against it, its mathematical coherence would be at fault, and this would have been seen for a long time. So the way to FE is only through

anomalous observations, not through manipulation of the physics equations (which does not prevent using them to go beyond, or simply to check that an observation

is not anomalous).

Our views are much closer than you think. ;D ;D
The point I am making is that while energy is indeed conserved in the net scope, it can *appear* to be violated, with energy appearing to be being gained/lost depending on the reference frame it's viewed from.  Not because the energy is changing, but because the frame-of-reference is changing.

---

Let me pose a thought experiment and you can correct me at any point.  Note: this is no 'proof' of anything here, I just want to make sure we're on the same page conceptually.

We have 2 earth-like planets.  One like ours, in 'normal space', and the other very close to a black hole, in 'dense' space.  Lets assume for the thought-experiment that both have technology to beam energy via photons with no divergence at high efficiency over vast distance.


Planet A sends 10 joules of energy towards planet B.  On its way, it experiences relativistic lensing effects due to special relativity presented by the black hole.
Planet B receives the photons, but because their planet is in a different reference frame, they observe a different amount of energy received than what Planet A had sent.

From the POV of Planet A, the photons appear to lose energy, as they redshift by lets say a factor of 10.  From POV of Planet A, only 1 joule is received at the receiving station.

From the POV of Planet B, the photons appear to gain energy, as they blueshift by the same factor.  From POV of Planet B, 100 joules are received.

So the packet of energy does not change in any way, only the reference frame it is viewed from.   Conservation is still maintained despite the *apparent* break in symmetry.

Would you agree with this premise?

---

Stated differently, since E=HV is sacrosanct, then an observed redshift/blueshift would appear to be violating conservation when viewed from stationary reference frame, even though energy is not really being created/destroyed.

Would you find that to be an accurate statement?

There is a movie called interstellar where this concept is used creatively and makes this concept  the center of its story.
Not an in depth analysis, but a good  movie about technology and its possible directions.

Opinions will always differ no matter how well schooled . Until we all know all about everything and each other.

Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.10.21, 20:25:02
...
Would you agree with this premise?
...

I agree, unfortunately this is not a discovery, it is perfectly known: energy depends on the reference frame.

And it's not worth looking into astrophysics. There are considerably simpler situations.
If you are standing on the side of a road and a car weighing one ton passes by at v=100 km/h, the kinetic energy 1/2*m*v² that you see passing by is 0.5*1000*100,000/3600 joules. But if you are in the car, this energy relative to you is zero (because v=0).

Knowing this does not solve the problem, it only avoids errors of analysis and calculation that I have often noticed in the field of free energy, especially in mechanical devices with rotation and translation, namely adding energies calculated in different reference frames. This is what you can do by mixing different points of view of the energy because obtained from different reference frames, like planet A and planet B.

It's getting the energy in the frame of reference where you need it that's our concern, and if you do the energy analysis in the same frame of reference where you need it (or in any other but unique frame of reference), you find that the energy is well conserved.
So if you want to use the kinetic energy of the car relative to the ground, while staying in it, how will you do it?

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.22, 11:11:39
I agree, unfortunately this is not a discovery, it is perfectly known: energy depends on the reference frame.

Quote
It's getting the energy in the frame of reference where you need it that's our concern, and if you do the energy analysis in the same frame of reference where you need it (or in any other but unique frame of reference), you find that the energy is well conserved.
So if you want to use the kinetic energy of the car relative to the ground, while staying in it, how will you do it?

I'm glad we're in agreement and still on the same page :)

Granted the black hole thought-experiment is a bit extreme, but I think it serves as a good abstraction for the concept.
I'm going to break down to simpler statements, and again feel free to correct me if you disagree with any of them.


* Energy depends on the reference frame.   (100% in agreement)

Adding two more corollaries to this:

* Energy apparently gained/lost via a reference frame shift is equivalent to energy produced/destroyed conventionally.
* A distant observer would not know if the energy actually increased/decreased, or if the reference frame changed.  E=HF.

Then to bring the concept back to the real world:

* A 'reference frame' is measured by determining the relative speed of light/signal traveling through that material (Lorentz contraction).
* That measurement can be quantified both optically and electrically as impedance.
Therefore, 
* 'reference frame' ==> impedance.
* 'index of refraction' ==> impedance.
* 'velocity of light' ==> impedance.
meaning:
* A change in apparent velocity of light is equivalent to a apparent change in energy (E=HV)
(note: 'apparent' change because we've already established absolute conservation is still maintained in the previous post)

---

When a laser enters a piece of glass (impedance boundary), its frequency and velocity are both shifted down.  When the beam leaves the glass (impedance boundary), the velocity and energy energy are shifted back up.

Viewed from an outside observer, we would conclude that energy is apparently destroyed when it enters the glass, and is apparently re-synthesized when it leaves the glass.  This is because energy depends on the reference frame.



Would you agree with the statements above as also being valid+consistent?

Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.10.22, 13:14:35
...
* Energy depends on the reference frame.   (100% in agreement)

Adding two more corollaries to this:

* Energy apparently gained/lost via a reference frame shift is equivalent to energy produced/destroyed conventionally.
* A distant observer would not know if the energy actually increased/decreased, or if the reference frame changed.  E=HF.
...
Would you agree with the statements above as also being valid+consistent?

I don't. These are not corollaries.

What do you call "reference frame shift"?
The reference frame is the one attached to the observer who observes events, it is not a physical frame where a physical object would evolve. The same object is seen to evolve from all the frames of reference one can choose to observe it, it does not shift from one to the other.
Relativity allows us to know, by observing events from one frame of reference, how they will be seen from any other.

Therefore the second statement does not make sense. A reference frame only changes when one decides to look at what is happening with an observer placed elsewhere.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.22, 13:40:42
What do you call "reference frame shift"?

When I mean 'reference frame shift', I mean the act of a signal traveling from one impedance condition to another.

In the case of the first post, a signal traveling between Planet A and B.

Quote"From the POV of Planet A, the photons appear to lose energy, as they redshift by lets say a factor of 10.  From POV of Planet A, only 1 joule is received at the receiving station."
"From the POV of Planet B, the photons appear to gain energy, as they blueshift by the same factor.  From POV of Planet B, 100 joules are received."

Quote"* Energy apparently gained/lost via a reference frame shift is equivalent to energy produced/destroyed conventionally."

Stated differently, the 100 joules of energy received by Planet B is equivalent and indistinguishable from 100 joules produced locally on the same planet.

That even though no energy was actually created, the apparent energy gained via length contraction is just as real and usable to the receiving station as if it were created ex-nihilo.

Conversely, when viewed from Planet A, the same amount of energy would appear to be lost/destroyed in the same process.

Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.10.22, 14:41:19
When I mean 'reference frame shift', I mean the act of a signal traveling from one impedance condition to another.

In the case of the first post, a signal traveling between Planet A and B.

You should now realize, following my previous post, that this has nothing to do with a shift of reference frame.
The motion you are talking about is a simple motion in space that can be analyzed from a frame of reference on planet A or on planet B, or any other, the moving object having no physical link with a frame of reference.

Quote
Stated differently, the 100 joules of energy received by Planet B is equivalent and indistinguishable from 100 joules produced locally on the same planet.

That even though no energy was actually created, the apparent energy gained via length contraction is just as real and usable to the receiving station as if it were created ex-nihilo.

Conversely, when viewed from Planet A, the same amount of energy would appear to be lost/destroyed in the same process.

No energy has been created by the process. You simply forgot to include the energy related to gravitation.  Conservation of energy is in a closed system. If you consider planets A and B, the conservation of energy is in the system that includes both of them. Otherwise, of course the energy is not conserved. When we receive photons from the sun, the energy is not conserved either on the sun or on the earth, only in the system of both.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.22, 16:21:28
You should now realize, following my previous post, that this has nothing to do with a shift of reference frame.

You might use different terms, which is why I'm trying to take things slow, to make sure every component is clearly understood and agreed-upon.

Quote
No energy has been created by the process.

That's why I'm very careful to use the term 'apparently' created.
As stated in first post, we are both in agreement the same energy apparently gained in one region is equally lost somewhere else.  Conservation is still maintained.  E=HF.

IE: Planet B might conclude that energy was being created, as on-paper 10 joules was sent and 100 joules were received, when in reality they are just sitting in a different reference frame.

Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.10.22, 17:45:32
...
IE: Planet B might conclude that energy was being created, as on-paper 10 joules was sent and 100 joules were received, when in reality they are just sitting in a different reference frame.

This is why the proof of OU can only be provided by a looped process.

Quote
This is why the proof of OU can only be provided by a looped process.

Indeed.  A symmetric system will always give a symmetric result.


I will reword the axioms:

* Energy depends on the reference frame.
* 'Reference frame' is a term can be measured and modeled mathematically.
* That measurement can be quantified both optically and electrically as 'impedance'.

Therefore,
* 'reference frame' ==> impedance.
* 'index of refraction' ==> impedance.
* 'velocity of light' ==> impedance.

In other words, all of these values are deconstructions of the same Lorentz length contraction and can all be computed using the same ratio.


To incorporate the above example:
Planet A sends photons from a region of space with an absolute free-space impedance of 376 ohms.
Due to its proximity to a black hole, Planet B receives the same photons within a region of space with a free-space impedance of 3760 ohms. (10-to-1 ratio from our POV).

---

The key takeaway is that 'reference frame' can be mathematically defined as the characteristic impedance of that region of space.

Are we in agreement on the principle? :)

@Hak

I don't think you have a correct view of the notion of referential. I will try to express it differently.

In relativity, everything is defined with respect to an observer. If you see an electric field E, a magnetic field B, an object with speed V or a signal with frequency F..., it is only relative to you. Someone else, somewhere else, moving relative to you, will see something else.
E, B, V, F... represent nothing in the absolute, only in relation to you.

So the reference frame is only a x,y,z,t reference frame in the space-time at whose origin you are when you measure E, B, V or F.

Example. You see a charge q at speed V crossing a magnetic field B. From where you are, therefore from the reference frame attached to you, you will see a force exerted on the charge, the Lorentz force F = q * VxB.
But what does the charge see when it is the observer? The charge has another point of view. In relation to itself, its speed is obviously zero in its own frame of reference, so it cannot see the Lorentz force which is zero because v=0. Instead it will see an electric field E because of its displacement in relation to the source of the magnetic field, and it is this electric field that will deflect it by the electric force F = q * E.
That is to say that the Lorentz force seen from your reference frame, is the electric force seen by the charge, and to pass from one to the other we take E = VxB.

Relativity allows this kind of change of point of view: to pass from what is seen in a reference frame to what is seen in another, for all cases of observations. Thus B can be transformed into E and vice versa because it is the same physical reality, seen from different points of view.
Special relativity requires that the frame of reference be inertial, i.e. without acceleration or gravity, or these negligible.


edit: post already produced and now moved after the post to which it replies.

@F6

I agree with your synopsis on Lorentz Force, however my focus is not on the individual charge activity but more about quantifying the resulting EM effects as signals pass across boundaries.
I think the transmission line model using impedance as our factor gives us a more useful view, especially when modeling photons.   I understand relativistic length-contraction and optical refraction are not exactly congruent (for a few reasons).

The theme I am building towards conceptually/mathematically is parametric variation.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.27, 07:34:02
So the reference frame is only a x,y,z,t reference frame in the space-time at whose origin you are when you measure E, B, V or F.

F = q(E + V*B)
  F   =    force
  q   =    electric charge
  E   =    external electric field
  V   =    velocity
  B   =    magnetic field

I like that you brought up Lorentz Force, as I see an interesting note when we look at it from the POV of SR.
A relativistic effect can also be quantified as 'length contraction', and we can substitute the relative length contraction for velocity https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/length-contraction

If we then plug that into Lorentz force, we find that length contraction (velocity) occurs in the V*B portion of the equation, but NOT on the electric charge.  Suggests that relativistic length contraction as it relates to Electromagnetism may be more a magnetic property than an electric one.  IE: 1 Coulomb = 1 Coulomb regardless of what region of space-time it exists in.

A charge has no effect. Only its field produces effects, and its field is subject to length contraction. This is what causes the field of a charge seen in motion to expand transversely and contract longitudinally. It is this effect which is seen as the magnetic field in classical electromagnetism, when it is just the distorted Coulomb field.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.28, 09:28:09
A charge has no effect. Only its field produces effects, and its field is subject to length contraction. This is what causes the field of a charge seen in motion to expand transversely and contract longitudinally. It is this effect which is seen as the magnetic field in classical electromagnetism, when it is just the distorted Coulomb field.

I'm cool with that. :)

Is impedance a good way to quantify the relativistic field effects as it relates to electromagnetic circuits?  Or is there perhaps something better?
Since the field affects both C and L, using impedance seems a natural choice to solve it.

I think that the most relevant physical values to use are firstly those that are invariant to a change of reference frame, and secondly those that can be measured directly.

For example, concerning relativistic invariance, the electric charge, a space-time interval, the product ε0.µ0 (since it is equal to 1/c²) are the same whatever the reference frame.

For example, concerning measurability, one can measure a voltage or a current. But to measure an impedance, you have to measure a current or a voltage first, since an impedance is defined by their ratio.
So I think impedance is less fundamental than potentials, fields or currents.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.29, 09:46:36
For example, concerning measurability, one can measure a voltage or a current. But to measure an impedance, you have to measure a current or a voltage first, since an impedance is defined by their ratio.
So I think impedance is less fundamental than potentials, fields or currents.

I see the two as directly commensurate:

Impedance + velocity relations:
Z₀ =       sqrt(μ₀/ϵ₀)                      (impedance of free space)
C  = 1 / sqrt(μ₀ϵ₀)                 (speed of light in free space)

    μ₀ = 4𝝅 x 10^-7 Henries/meter      (vacuum permeability)
    ϵ₀ = 8.85 x 10^-12 Farads/meter     (vacuum permittivity)

Note both relations employ μ₀ϵ₀, which are both quantified in per-meter  (value over distance)


Relativistic relations:
T = T₀ / sqrt(1 – V² / C²)        (Time Dilation)
L = L₀ * sqrt(1 – V² / C²)       (Length Contraction)

       T = Time ,   T₀ = Observed Time
       L = Length ,    L₀ = Observed Length
       V = velocity (meters/second)
       C = velocity of light (meters/second)

---

Permeability is measured as Henries per meter
Permittivity is measured as Farads per meter
So IMO applying relativistic length contraction makes an intuitive solution for electromagnetism.  When we solve for measured velocity of light (redshift/blueshift), we automatically solve for characteristic impedance as well (first two formulas). :)

Gotta appreciate Lorentz for finding relations that work all the way from subatomic to intergalactic. ;D

Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.10.29, 18:32:51
I see the two as directly commensurate:

Impedance + velocity relations:
Z₀ =       sqrt(μ₀ϵ₀)                      (impedance of free space)

Wrong!  It is sqrt(μ₀/ϵ₀)

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2022.10.29, 19:06:54
Wrong!  It is sqrt(μ₀/ϵ₀)

Smudge

Whoops, good eye.  Fixed ;)

I fail to see how something mediated by photons can ever exceed their maximum velocity...

Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.10.30, 02:16:10
I fail to see how something mediated by photons can ever exceed their maximum velocity...

If velocity is distance/time and length/time dilation exists in certain parts of the universe, then photons would *appear* to exceed their maximum velocity when viewed from the right reference frame (eg: near a black hole).
As we see an object decelerate and appear to nearly stop as it approaches a singularity, from the object's POV the entire universe would appear to blue-shift and accelerate superluminally as the equal inverse of our observation.

But I completely agree, as long as the impedance of a region of space remains equal and constant, their observed 'C' will also remain static and constant.

Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.10.30, 14:36:53
If velocity is distance/time and length/time dilation exists in certain parts of the universe, then photons would *appear* to exceed their maximum velocity when viewed from the right reference frame (eg: near a black hole).
...

Wrong. First, length dilation doesn't exist, only contraction. And for time, only dilation.

General relativity also implies the contraction of length by gravity, just like the contraction of lengths by speed in special relativity. And also the dilation of time.
This is due to the invariance of the space-time intervals between reference frames, i.e. the 4D distance between 2 events is the same (as we have the distance between 2 positions in a 3D space).
An interval being the same for all inertial observers, then if time is contracted for one, that is to say that one of the 4 dimensions, that of time, is dilated, then it is the dimensions of space which will compensate by being seen contracted.
Thus if an object A moves at the speed V with respect to an object B, all the observers will be able to calculate the same relative speed V that A has with respect to B, whether their frame of reference is attached to A, to B or to any other frame of reference.

A fortiori when V=c, everyone sees c without even having to use transforms to go from one frame of reference to another, since this limited speed is the basis of the construction of relativity and all its equations, whether it is special or general. All observers see light at the same speed c, this is the starting hypothesis.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.30, 17:14:22
Wrong. First, length dilation doesn't exist, only contraction. And for time, only dilation.

From an absolute POV, I would agree.
From a relativistic POV, someone in a relativistic situation (ie: near a black hole) would observe apparent length dilation and time contraction when attempting to measure the rest of the universe.

Quote
All observers see light at the same speed c, this is the starting hypothesis.

While it is true that an observer would not be able to directly measure velocities greater than C, an observer in a relativistic situation (near a black hole) could infer it by viewing the apparent velocity of light in 'normal space'.

@Hak

Explain how you expect to compare the views of observers who are not at the same gravitational potential?

Remember: "Special relativity requires that the frame of reference be inertial, i.e. without acceleration or gravity, or these negligible.

The laws of physics are the same only in all inertial reference frames, not in all reference frames.
General relativity allows by transformations to reduce the point of view of an observer subjected to gravitation to what an inertial observer would see (thus to pass to special relativity), the only method to be able to compare the reality he sees to the one another observer would see.

For such an observer there is no dilation of lengths or contraction of time.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.31, 10:45:38
@Hak

Explain how you expect to compare the views of observers who are not at the same gravitational potential?

See attached.  Observers not on the same gravitational potential can still communicate with each-other, they would just have to compensate for redshift/blueshift between them.

Quote
Remember: "Special relativity requires that the frame of reference be inertial, i.e. without acceleration or gravity, or these negligible.

I'm curious on the basis is for this.  Is it due to an inherent conflict in Lorentz transformation, or because it conflicts with GR?  Or invariant vs covariant SR?

---

At any rate, it still loops back to the same underlying principle, that energy depends on the reference frame.   If a reference frame is constant, energy will remain constant.

Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.10.31, 13:10:10
See attached.  Observers not on the same gravitational potential can still communicate with each-other, they would just have to compensate for redshift/blueshift between them.

Your scheme seems to be correct (I say "seems" because we often get trapped on obvious things, so I prefer to wait before giving an opinion) but I don't understand what you are trying to prove.
A and B are not observing the same thing since they are not at the same gravitational potential.
But each can see the conservation of energy in the closed system including their own frame of reference and the disc seen from it. And A and B can agree with each other on what the other sees.

Quote
I'm curious on the basis is for this.  Is it due to an inherent conflict in Lorentz transformation, or because it conflicts with GR?  Or invariant vs covariant SR?

It is due to experimental evidence.
Just one example, if you are standing on the edge of a large disk at rest, you feel no force.
If the disc is spinning, you are subject to centrifugal acceleration.
So obviously, any mechanical experiment done on a stationary disc or a rotating disc will not give the same results, since they will depend on the acceleration.
However, whether you are in a vehicle in space at a constant speed v, or at 1000 times that speed, the experiments you do there will give the same results, speed doesn't matter, nobody knows who is moving, it's only relative, unlike acceleration.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.31, 13:48:18
Your scheme seems to be correct (I say "seems" because we often get trapped on obvious things, so I prefer to wait before giving an opinion) but I don't understand what you are trying to prove.
A and B are not observing the same thing since they are not at the same gravitational potential.
But each can see the conservation of energy in the closed system including their own frame of reference and the disc seen from it. And A and B can agree with each other on what the other sees.

The attempt is to first build a solid framework to model and understand how waves and electricity behave at galactic scales, IMO using standard transmission line formulas and characteristic impedance.   If we can establish 'As above, So below', then we can use galactic thought-experiments as equivalent analogies for small-scale circuits.

The end-goal is to articulate conceptually and mathematically what happens to a given signal/photon/electron if the region of space it's traveling through changes with respect to time.   I'm not aware of any serious attempts to do this since Steinmetz.

Hakasays

QuoteSee attached.  Observers not on the same gravitational potential can still communicate with each-other, they would just have to compensate for redshift/blueshift between them.

There is a simpler more plausible explanation to explain what we measure than GR and variable time. In fact many teenagers probably understand it better than most older people including some physicists.

Imagine your playing a newer high definition video game programmed to run at over 120 frames/second. Your playing the game with a good computer running at 120 frames/sec while the other person with a bad internet connection can only get 20 frames/sec. To you the game seems to run in real time however to the other person it seems much slower so you can run circles around them and win every time. It doesn't mean time has changed or is variable it means the frame rate or rate of oscillation gives the appearance of different rates of change.

So in some sense reality could be like a video game and velocity or gravity could change the rate of oscillation in matter like a slower/faster frame rate giving the appearance that time is changing when it's not. For example, the human eye can only see between 30 and 60 frames/sec so if something moved much faster than that we could not perceive it. Like our video game something could be oscillating at a much higher rate than we can sense right in front of our nose yet be invisible to us.

I get it, variable time sets the mind racing with all kinds of wacky possibilities however at the end of the day the theory just doesn't work. It opens up a train wreck of contradictions and impossibilities no rational person should be buying into in my opinion...

AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.10.31, 23:59:05
...It doesn't mean time has changed or is variable it means the frame rate or rate of oscillation gives the appearance of different rates of change.
...

How do you explain that the life time of radioactive particles depends on their speed according to the equations of relativity ?
How do you explain mercury perihelion ?
How do you explain the blue shift ?
How do you explain the magnetic field ?
...

A ridiculous explanation for each particular case when relativity alone answers to all of them?!

This thread is dedicated to relativity and its link to electromagnetism, not to its contestation, even less when it is by simplistic comparisons with anything, devoid of any mathematical formalism and unable to quantify anything.

I think AllCanadian's point was that time is not a dimension that can be measured directly; it always has to be measured in reference to space.
Distance/Time.

It's why Time dilation and Length contraction are equivalent, because at a fundamental level I don't believe we can tell (yet) if it is time or space that is changing (or a combination of both).

moved my response to new thread "problems with electromagnetism and relativity".

Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.11.01, 13:11:55
I think AllCanadian's point was that time is not a dimension that can be measured directly; it always has to be measured in reference to space.
...

This is the problem, a mistake. On the one hand an atomic clock does not refer to space, on the other hand it is because the speed of the photon is a limit and the same in all reference frames, that we logically deduce that time and space are linked.

In the same way that the distance between 2 points (x,y) and (x'=x+Δx, y'=y+Δy) in a 2D space is d = √( Δx²+Δy² ), i.e. d²= Δx² + Δy², we note that the spacetime interval between 2 events in a 4D space (squared) is s² = Δx² + Δy² + Δz² - c²Δt² . ct is chosen instead of t in the fourth coordinate by convention, which does not change the principle because c is constant, and the sign allows to distinguish the space coordinates from the time coordinates.

To simplify we take Δl² = Δx²+Δy²+Δz², where Δl is the spatial distance separating the events, hence s² = Δl² - c²Δt².
The interval between the 2 same events seen from another frame of reference will be s'²= Δl'² - c²Δt'², and as this interval is an invariant between frames of reference, we have Δl² - c²Δt² = Δl'² - c²Δt'².
Therefore if an observer in one reference frame sees a contraction of lengths, for example l'<l then he will see t'>t so that s=s'. Space and time are completely related. This is a corollary of the Lorentz transforms. This is also why we say that it is the geometry that is modified, and not that it is a physical effect.

An object seen shorter because it is at velocity v has always the same length in its own reference frame: physically, locally, nothing has changed. On the other hand, if the object is an electron current, then the field seen by the observer will depend on the observer and therefore locally will not be the same and will not have the same effects, even if seen from the charge at constant velocity, it is still isotropic.
The relativistic effects are therefore not only changes of appearance depending on the observer, they are also real effects locally to the observer.

(edit: moved space/time sidebar to the other thread)


Found an interesting online comment regarding the 'impedance of space-time':

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/239132/gravitational-waves-impedance

QuoteSpacetime is a very stiff elastic medium which is capable of propagating gravitational waves. The impedance of spacetime is
Zs=c3/G=4×10³⁵kg/s.
This impedance appears in two books on gravitational waves. The most recent is titled "Advanced Gravitational Wave Detectors" edited by Blair, Howell, et al (page 52). The gravitational wave designated GW150914 had measured intensity of about 20 mw/m2 at 200 Hz. If this was a 200 Hz sound wave, it would be very loud. However, the large impedance of spacetime meant that the displacment of spacetime (ΔL/L) was only about 1 part in 10²¹.

Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.11.02, 01:25:52
(edit: moved space/time sidebar to the other thread)


Found an interesting online comment regarding the 'impedance of space-time':

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/239132/gravitational-waves-impedance

Quote...However, the large impedance of spacetime meant that the displacment of spacetime (ΔL/L) was only about 1 part in 10²¹.

This is why it is so difficult to detect them, and why Robert Baker failed to use HFGW in communication, he was several orders of magnitude wrong on the intensity he was supposed to produce or detect.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.11.02, 09:45:58
This is why it is so difficult to detect them (gravity waves), and why Robert Baker failed to use HFGW in communication, he was several orders of magnitude wrong on the intensity he was supposed to produce or detect.

What interests me is how the 'gravity waves' might relate to electro-magnetic principles.   Either we find a simple Lorentzian mechanic that ties a gravity wave to a well-known process (like perhaps displacement currents), or otherwise we find gravitational impedance is completely distinct and more-or-less isolated from EM theory. ???

Both cases are interesting IMO, and both have some potentially useful ramifications (even if they only as thought-experiments with current technology).

---

Anyway, going back to the impedance mechanism https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4370.msg101723#msg101723
I think if we are to try to understand+explain signal propagation on extremely large (galactic) and small (sub-atomic) scales, I still think characteristic impedance presents the simplest and most straightforward way to do so.

 
I see a lot of reluctance to use relativity, although it is the best we have for the representation of the macroscopic universe.

So I will try to explain in simple terms why, starting from a basic observation, the constancy of the speed of light for all observers, we easily arrive at special relativity and the Lorentz transforms.

Let us take a point (x,y,z) in space. From the origin (0,0,0), let's send a light signal toward this point. The distance to travel is :
d = √(x²+y²+z²). To simplify let us write d²=x²+y²+z².
The light covers this distance d at speed c in a time t, we will have d=ct so c²t² = x²+y²+z² or x²+y²+z²-c²t² = 0.

Let us suppose that for another observer, an observer being either a human or a measuring device or an electrical charge feeling effects...  the point is seen in (x',y',z') relatively to (0,0,0).
As the speed of light does not depend on the observer, it will see: c²t'² = x'²+y'²+z'² or x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² = 0.

Therefore (1) x²+y²+z²-c²t² = x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'².       s = √(x²+y²+z²-c²t²) is called a space-time interval, i.e. a "distance" between 2 points in a 4D space, and its value is the same for all observers.

In a 4D space, we note (x,y,z,-ct) the coordinate of an event, which is the spatial coordinates of a point to which we add -ct, the temporal coordinate, made homogeneous with the others since in this form, multiplied by c, it is in fact like a fourth spatial coordinate, this changing only the form because c is a constant.

An event is to 4D space what a position is to 3D space, and the space-time interval s, "distance" between 2 events, the same for everyone, is to 4D space what a distance between 2 positions is to 3D space.
If you have understood this invariance of the space-time interval in a 4D universe, you know everything about special relativity, the rest being only logical consequences..



One of these consequences are the Lorentz transforms, allowing to express in one observer, what another sees. So now that everything is clear and straightforward, let's check it.

Let us consider only the x-axis, so y=z=0, with a fixed observer at the origin (0,0), and another one moving on this axis at the speed v.
Then according to (1) x²-c²t² = x'²-c²t'² where (x,t) is seen by the fixed observer and (x',t') by the moving observer. The mobile observer moving at the speed v, the fixed observer will see it at the distance x=vt, and x'=0 because x' is the position of the mobile observer seen by itself.
It thus remains: x²-c²t² = -c²t'² => (vt)²-c²t² = -c²t'² => v²/c².t² - t² = - t'² => t² = t'²/(1-v²/c²) =>
t = t'/√(1-v²/c²)
We find the Lorentz transform for the time dilation. Indeed v/c < 1, so 1/√(1-v²/c²) > 1 so t > t' : the time which passes for the fixed observer is longer than the one to which the mobile observer is subjected.

I let you do the same calculation exercise for the contraction of lengths.


These questions concern the space and time coordinates, i.e. the geometry.
Everything we express depends on them, electric and magnetic fields, potentials, fluxes, the movement of charges... and energy!
If the reference frame is not implicit and you do not specify it, you are wrong.
If you believe that a moving electric charge will see the same fields as you, you are wrong.
If you mix quantities measured from different reference frames, you are wrong.
If you neglect relativistic effects without justifying it, you are wrong...
Relativity is just common sense drawing inevitable conclusions from the facts. It applies everywhere. We are really in a 4D space.
The 19th century ideas of absolute time are no longer valid, those who still have them must absolutely update their brains! :)

Quote from: F6FLT on 2023.02.01, 12:49:02
The 19th century ideas of absolute time are no longer valid, those who still have them must absolutely update their brains! :)

Good insight overall, and I think even many in the 21st century will have problems dealing with relative time as well.
Try solving Kirchhoff's laws when one half of the circuit is near a black hole :o C.C

Anything that incorporates velocity is dealing with X/time, is subject to this contraction/dilation, which means a lot of 'constants' are only constant within a single reference frame.

Even things like 'C' become distorted (distance over time), to the point that it's often more useful to use the term 'light-seconds' rather than 'velocity'.  I know Steinmetz shifted that way in his lectures.

What does it mean if electric current is defined as "Coulombs-per-second" and the value of 'second' is changing? >:-)

Quote from: Hakasays on 2023.02.01, 15:20:21
Good insight overall, and I think even many in the 21st century will have problems dealing with relative time as well.
Try solving Kirchhoff's laws when one half of the circuit is near a black hole :o C.C

Misinterpretation.
I talked about SR, not GR. In this framework there is no problem with time.

Quote
Anything that incorporates velocity is dealing with X/time, is subject to this contraction/dilation, which means a lot of 'constants' are only constant within a single reference frame.

Which ones?
( Dimensionless constants are not concerned, and others may have dimensions whose relativistic effects cancel out. ).

Quote
What does it mean if electric current is defined as "Coulombs-per-second" and the value of 'second' is changing? >:-)

It sounds like you are starting to realize the problem. The current measured in one reference frame will not be the same as measured from another. And if you move at the speed of the charges in vacuum, the current is zero.
But the effects are the same, the facts remain, if there is a force on a charge, it will be seen from all reference frames.

Example (Wikipedia):
"An observer measures a charge at rest in frame F. The observer will detect a static electric field. As the charge is stationary in this frame, there is no electric current, so the observer does not observe any magnetic field.
The other observer in frame F′ moves at velocity v relative to F and the charge. This observer sees a different electric field because the charge moves at velocity -v in their rest frame. The motion of the charge corresponds to an electric current, and thus the observer in frame F′ also sees a magnetic field."

Those who believe that the magnetic field is something existing in space independently of the observer, i.e. almost the entire "FE community", are completely wrong.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2023.02.01, 16:17:24
Misinterpretation.
I talked about SR, not GR. In this framework there is no problem with time.

Which ones?
( Dimensionless constants are not concerned, and others may have dimensions whose relativistic effects cancel out. ).

It sounds like you are starting to realize the problem. The current measured in one reference frame will not be the same as measured from another. And if you move at the speed of the charges in vacuum, the current is zero.
But the effects are the same, the facts remain, if there is a force on a charge, it will be seen from all reference frames.

Example (Wikipedia):
"An observer measures a charge at rest in frame F. The observer will detect a static electric field. As the charge is stationary in this frame, there is no electric current, so the observer does not observe any magnetic field.
The other observer in frame F′ moves at velocity v relative to F and the charge. This observer sees a different electric field because the charge moves at velocity -v in their rest frame. The motion of the charge corresponds to an electric current, and thus the observer in frame F′ also sees a magnetic field."

Those who believe that the magnetic field is something existing in space independently of the observer, i.e. almost the entire "FE community", are completely wrong.

The problem I'm paraphrasing is that if we are to dispose of the idea of 'absolute time' as you say, then we must also dispose/modify all of the formulas that depend on it.

Those tweaks probably open up a lot of possibilites that may not be immediately evident.

Quote from: Hakasays on 2023.02.01, 17:21:17
The problem I'm paraphrasing is that if we are to dispose of the idea of 'absolute time' as you say, then we must also dispose/modify all of the formulas that depend on it.

Those tweaks probably open up a lot of possibilites that may not be immediately evident.

It is not that they should be modified, it is that their domain of validity should be restricted: they should not be believed to apply everywhere. This is what has been done with Newtonian mechanics, it is still valid but not for everything. Beyond that, we must take relativity.

(sorry, I had to restore your post having clicked "modify" instead of "quote", hence the "Last edit" mention above)

Quote from: F6FLT on 2023.02.01, 17:47:15
It is not that they should be modified, it is that their domain of validity should be restricted: they should not be believed to apply everywhere. This is what has been done with Newtonian mechanics, it is still valid but not for everything. Beyond that, we must take relativity.

I agree, but also this 'domain of validity' has a big degree of subjectivity to it.  One could argue that a single molecule could even apply (due to the relativistic effect of the nucleus to an electron at various distance)

Quote from: Hakasays on 2023.02.01, 18:40:00
I agree, but also this 'domain of validity' has a big degree of subjectivity to it. 
...

It's just the opposite. The domain of validity is limited when the measurements do not correspond anymore to the theoretical predictions (Mercury's perihelion, life span of radioactive particles varying with the speed... the measurements do not correspond anymore with the Newtonian mechanics).
Based on the difference between theory and measurements, the domain of validity is therefore objective.

Ah I see, you mean 'domain' in the scientific sense, rather than the metrical sense :)

Quote from: Hakasays on 2023.02.02, 03:27:12
h I see, you mean 'domain' in the scientific sense, rather than the metrical sense :)

Yes, for example one cannot apply Newtonian mechanics in the field of speeds close to light.
The high speeds are out of the domain (field) of validity of this mechanics.

(I made a mistake again when answering. It only happens with your posts. Would you have cast a bad spell on me? ;D)

In the thread "New generator from a spatial gradient of the vector potential and current", where we have seen that a charge at constant speed cannot be influenced by a gradient of the vector potential, the idea came to study the possibility of new effects when charges are accelerated in a vector potential.

Following a discussion elsewhere with a special relativity enthusiast, and verification of little known but astonishing academic theses, the relativity of accelerations between charges has fantastic consequences.

It is well known that an accelerating charge radiates. This is the principle of a radio antenna.
What is less known is that a static charge radiates when seen by an accelerating charge, a question of relativity. The laws of physics are indeed the same in all reference frames, even accelerated.
So if we make a charge oscillate, it could detect static fields with the same efficiency as a static charge in an antenna is sensitive to the field coming from a distant emission.

I don't know the consequences for energy, I'll see that in a second time, but for radio it seems to open remarkable perspectives, and as I know that there are several radio amateurs here, it will surely interest them.

I have indeed made the connection with W Beaty's "energy sucking antennas" ("http://www.amasci.com/tesla/tesceive.html" ). Not everything in his text seems correct, but the § "Transmit in order to receive" is clear to me. The industry is now doing research in this direction, to make small smartphone antennas work efficiently, by re-injecting energy into them through negative impedance, a technique known as "non foster matching antenna". The method has been known since the so-called "reaction" tube receivers, except that from this 1910s technique, to today's non-foster matching, via Beaty or this NASA patent that I find very enlightening ( https://patents.google.com/patent/US5296866A/en ), nobody understands or deals with the common physics issue behind it that relativity unifies.

I am working on the subject. As a proof of principle I am considering using the injection of a signal with a different frequency than the one received by an antenna. With a negative impedance, the signal is obviously re-injected at the same frequency, which poses problems of stability. However, the explanation by relativity allows to consider that the effect can also be obtained with different frequencies, which will be much easier to handle thanks to the filtering and tuned circuits. The method should lead to the emergence of signals with sum or difference frequencies of the received and emitted frequencies, and the local acceleration should considerably boost the received signal, we are talking in tens of dB and with SNR improvement.

Not being a math whiz, I have initiated myself to Wolfram's "Mathematica" to confirm it. I am currently trying to find by Lorentz transforms of accelerated reference frame (yes, it is possible) what an accelerated charge oscillating at a frequency F2 sees from another accelerated distant charge, oscillating at F1 and which produces a 4-vector potential A at the position of the first one. It is very complicated, long and tedious, just to know what one has to provide to Mathematica so that it makes the calculation. If my hypothesis is confirmed, I will set up the experiment. After confirmation (or not), it will be time to see the possibility of an interest in extracting energy, in particular through scalar or magnetic potential couplings between oscillating circuits.

Hi F6FLT
  Is it possible to share what relativity forums are those your are talking about ?
Regards
Cortazar

Quote from: Cortazar on 2023.03.14, 16:30:54
Hi F6FLT
  Is it possible to share what relativity forums are those your are talking about ?
Regards
Cortazar

Hi Cortazar,

It's a usenet forum in French, it won't be very useful since I'm synthesizing here what it comes out of it. Google has a web gateway to access it but it's better to use a real usenet newsgroup reader.
The last thread:
https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/2cwEC1NZGvk
The two previous ones:
https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/j4yILqX3-UA
https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/lQ1Ii169cjk/m/7g7HvsHLDAAJ

This forum is unmoderated so you'll have to skip the trolls ("Hachel" or "Python" users), the other contributors have a PhD level.

François

It's quite incredible. Following a link given by Beaty, I just came across the summary of this book by Oleg D. Jefimenko: https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0917406230/sciencehobbyist/

I find in his criticism of Maxwell's electromagnetism and in everything he finds new in relation to it, exactly what relativity tells us when applied to electromagnetism. This guy has understood everything, and he managed to find the consequences of relativity, without using it, that's great!

I place a part of this summary here because it is fundamental to take a step back from Maxwell:

"This book is a strikingly new exploration of the fundamentals of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and of Newton's theory of gravitation. Starting with an analysis of causality in the phenomenon of electromagnetic induction, the author discovers a series of heretofore unknown or overlooked electromagnetic interdependencies and equations. One of the most notable new results is the discovery that Maxwell's equations do not depict cause and effect relations between electromagnetic phenomena: causal dependencies in electromagnetic phenomena are found to be described by solutions of Maxwell's equations in the form of retarded electric and magnetic field integrals. A consequence of this discovery is that, contrary to the generally accepted view, time-variable electric and magnetic fields cannot cause each other and that both fields are simultaneously created by their true causative sources -- time-dependent electric charges and currents. Another similarly important discovery is that Lenz's law of electromagnetic induction is a manifestation of the previously ignored electric force produced by the time-dependent electric currents. These discoveries lead to important new methods of calculations of various electromagnetic effects in time- depended electromagnetic systems. The new methods are demonstrated by a variety of illustrative examples. Continuing his analysis of causal electromagnetic relations, the author finds that these relations are closely associated with the law of momentum conservation...".
Oleg D. Jefimenko

Relativity is an interesting creature.
Everything changes when the perspective changes.

Take the accelerating charge. If we accelerate at the same rate we do not observe radiation.
Just as the accelerating charge DOES as it sees a non moving charge.
(wether either of them are actually "stationary" with respect to some theoretical place in the universe not in motion...
   doesn't matter. Only their relative qualities.)

We cannot assume our own state

Dilation can be positive or negative.
Meaning the rate of progression of observed time can increase or decrease.

The electromagnetic threshhold occurs as we approach 2MV/cm^2
it is important to note here that local time-space has a frequency component.
the rate of discharge should approach a sympathetic frequency for effective manipulation
of the rate of time's progression within the dilation field.

It is not advised to be within such a field
experiencing dilation of time, even at a minuscule proportion
can have profound chronological consequences, with respect to the rest of the world.

Electromagnetic time dilation is most compatible with string (and thread) theories
There are factors not taken into account in these theories but a close representation can be made.

If we assume the first  Hamiltonian to be our initial reference
and the second to be the resultant time-dilated space
when we plot time, the vector can be represented as: cos(theta)
theta being the magnitude of the phase shift, or |f1-f2|

@Sm0ky2
I agree, time can contract but only with respect to a reference frame more accelerated than the one we see.
From an inertial frame of reference, it is always a dilation of time that we will observe, see why here:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4370.msg103700#msg103700

With accelerated frames of reference, the kinematics remains relative, but not the dynamics, which is local. We have an absolute acceleration (d²x/dτ²) where τ is the proper time in the accelerated frame of reference, and this although v=dτ/dx=0.

In the experiment that I plan, the new frequencies emerging from the distant emitted frequency and the one created locally at the antenna are not due to time dilation. I intend to use a differential setup where the charges of the antenna will be co-moving with the charges of a dummy load, at the local frequency, so no time difference between them. The force on the antenna charges, also sensitive to the distant field, should be proportional to the two accelerations, the local one and the one of the distant charges, resulting when they oscillate, in a sine product, now sine(2.π.F1.t)*sine(2.π.F2.t)=1/2*cosine(2.π.(F1-F2).t) - 1/2*cosine(2.π.(F1+F2).t).
This is the same effect we have in a superheterodyne receiver, except that we would have no nonlinear element, only an effect of relativity. As the signal to be detected will be proportional to the local acceleration of the charges, the current injected in the antenna would amplify the one related to the distant charges. It seems too good to be true, so I still have doubts, that's why I need a verification by maths.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2023.03.14, 18:59:52
It's quite incredible. Following a link given by Beaty, I just came across the summary of this book by Oleg D. Jefimenko: https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0917406230/sciencehobbyist/

I find in his criticism of Maxwell's electromagnetism and in everything he finds new in relation to it, exactly what relativity tells us when applied to electromagnetism. This guy has understood everything, and he managed to find the consequences of relativity, without using it, that's great!

It goes beyond that, he shows you don't need Einstein's General Relativity (GR) or Special Relativity (SR) at all.  He even shows that the so-called proof that GR is correct (the known increase in the perihelion of Mercury) is not proof at all since it can be calculated by means other than GR.  He is offering something different to GR.  In view of that perhaps we should ignore your strong views (stated here ad nauseum) that we must use classical relativity theory.

Smudge

@Smudge

Jefimenko shows nothing at all against relativity, he has no theory, only a treatment of electromagnetism by delayed potentials, which shows the limits of Maxwell's electromagnetism and is part of academic science. On the contrary Jefimenko supports in a remarkable way what relativity predicts in this field, relativity which goes far beyond the only field of electromagnetism he talks about.

Relativity explains as well the effects of gravity on the planets, as the magnetic field from the coulombic field, as the shift of clocks subjected to gravity, and many other things, and all this is only the consequence that we live in a 4D space, not 3D.

Everyone has the right to believe in the theories he wants, in the wholly concepts of the least eccentric who expresses himself on the WEB or in ether theories that the experiments do not verify, or even contradict.
But a theory in science is a logical and well formalized set capable of providing quantified predictions of effects.
The opinion of anyone unable to provide convincing quantified experiments or to explain, except by using ad hoc explanations for particular cases, what relativity globally explains from a simple and universal cause, and easily calculates, such as the life span of radioactive elements according to their speed, the perihelion of Mercury or the shift of clocks, is useless.

To understand with relativity what smarter people have understood for more than a century before, should be the duty of every researcher, as well as to encourage those who promote and popularize it, instead of reproaching them.

This thread is dedicated to relativity in electromagnetism, it is normal that we talk about it "ad nauseum", it is the subject ! When you will be able to propose, instead of knee-jerk criticisms without foundation, a better theory, formalized, and as solid and global as relativity, you will have the conditions to be listened seriously.

https://www.as.wvu.edu/phys/OJ/jefimenk.html

There is a link to the 1983 Heaviside article which is also in the book linked previously.

https://sci-hub.ru/https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/17/4/006/pdf
Another paper from Jefemenko:
Is magnetic field due to an electric current a relativistic effect?

Quote
Several authors have asserted that the magnetic field due to an electric current is a relativistic effect. This assertion is based on the fact that if one assumes that the interaction between electric charges is entirely due to the electric field, then the relativistic force transformation equations make it imperative that a second field - the magnetic field - is present when the charges are moving. However, as is shown in this paper, if one assumes that the interaction between moving electric charges is entirely due to the magnetic field, then the same relativistic force transformation equations make it imperative that a second field - this time the electric field - is also present. Therefore, since it is impossible to interpret both the electric and the magnetic field as relativistic effects, one must conclude that neither field is a relativistic effect. The true meaning of the calculations demonstrating the alleged relativistic nature of the magnetic field and of the calculations presented in this paper is, therefore, that the idea of a single force field, be it magnetic or electric, is incompatible with the relativity theory.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2023.03.23, 11:58:56
@Smudge

Jefimenko shows nothing at all against relativity, he has no theory, only a treatment of electromagnetism by delayed potentials, which shows the limits of Maxwell's electromagnetism and is part of academic science. On the contrary Jefimenko supports in a remarkable way what relativity predicts in this field, relativity which goes far beyond the only field of electromagnetism he talks about.

Your remarks suggest to me that you have not actually read this book.  He goes far beyond his treatment of electromagnetism, something that should be obvious from the title of the book.

QuoteRelativity explains as well the effects of gravity on the planets, as the magnetic field from the coulombic field, as the shift of clocks subjected to gravity, and many other things, and all this is only the consequence that we live in a 4D space, not 3D.

And Jefimenko also explains such things.

QuoteEveryone has the right to believe in the theories he wants, in the wholly concepts of the least eccentric who expresses himself on the WEB or in ether theories that the experiments do not verify, or even contradict.
But a theory in science is a logical and well formalized set capable of providing quantified predictions of effects.

And Jefimenko's theory is a logical and well formalized set capable of providing quantified predictions of effects.

QuoteThis thread is dedicated to relativity in electromagnetism, it is normal that we talk about it "ad nauseum", it is the subject !

Agreed, but my ad nauseum remark applies to your posts on any thread that you feel deserves such reproach.  You must realize now that for you to continue to disparage researchers is not well received here.  I would encourage researchers to learn from their endeavors, and steer them in a new direction rather than tell them they are wasting their time.

Smudge

@F6,
It is of interest that the 4 vector treatment that caused you to abandon your earlier approach (where the electric field expected from movement through a non-uniform magnetic vector potential field is exacty countered by the relativity argument) is also countered by Jefimenko's theory.  In his theory movement of the source of the vector potential relative to a stationary observer (or vice versa) causes the source to inherit an electric charge.  For my interest in magnetic dipoles as the source in his theory the magnetic dipole inherits an electric dipole.  This is found in Appendix 3 of his book and expressed as
p_apparent = vXm/c²
(he also mistakenly puts the permeability of free space in the denominator that I have not included here).

Smudge

While searching through my archive of scientific papers looking for one from Oleg Jefimenko that I vaguely remembered, I found one from George Galeckzi that deals with the magnetic vector potential A field, that was my interest and why I had it.  This was from Aperion Vol. 7 from the year 2000.  But included there was another paper by Dr. H R Drew dealing with Light-signal" Versus "Intrinsic" Relativity.  As this thread is about relativity I post these copies here.

Smudge

P.S. The Jefimenko paper dealt with electrostatic motors that can extract atmospheric electricity so could be of interest to others here.  Maybe should be in another thread but I'll post it here anyway.

The Jefimenko paper on electrostatic motors is 15 Mb and must be too large, it won't post here.

Edit.  Just compressed it.

Smudge

Smudge
Thanks for PDF
There is long time open source researcher on electrostatics and "other" ( relativity etc etc ..)
https://overunity.com/17100/sm0ky2s-modified-voss-machine/msg575860/#msg575860
I shared your document .

Respectfully
Chet K
PS
SmOkey2 is a member here also ..

Quote from: F6FLT on 2023.03.15, 02:04:19
El
@Sm0ky2
I agree, time can contract but only with respect to a reference frame more accelerated than the one we see.
From an inertial frame of reference, it is always a dilation of time that we will observe, see why here:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4370.msg103700#msg103700

With accelerated frames of reference, the kinematics remains relative, but not the dynamics, which is local. We have an absolute acceleration (d²x/dτ²) where τ is the proper time in the accelerated frame of reference, and this although v=dτ/dx=0.

In the experiment that I plan, the new frequencies emerging from the distant emitted frequency and the one created locally at the antenna are not due to time dilation. I intend to use a differential setup where the charges of the antenna will be co-moving with the charges of a dummy load, at the local frequency, so no time difference between them. The force on the antenna charges, also sensitive to the distant field, should be proportional to the two accelerations, the local one and the one of the distant charges, resulting when they oscillate, in a sine product, now sine(2.π.F1.t)*sine(2.π.F2.t)=1/2*cosine(2.π.(F1-F2).t) - 1/2*cosine(2.π.(F1+F2).t).
This is the same effect we have in a superheterodyne receiver, except that we would have no nonlinear element, only an effect of relativity. As the signal to be detected will be proportional to the local acceleration of the charges, the current injected in the antenna would amplify the one related to the distant charges. It seems too good to be true, so I still have doubts, that's why I need a verification by maths.

'than we see'

The nature of the situation described is not observable from our perspective
We would not see what is inside the dilation field.

T = < 1

But T can ONLY = 1 from a local perspective.
This is a fundamental assumption made by Einstein

else it would be T that is relative, not V

Proportionally the mathematics is exactly the same.
Its like the argument of which object is moving? The observer or the observee?
Or does "heat" really exist? Or is it simply different degrees of "cold"?

Once you define your perspective, you make unknowable assumptions about the others perspective.

We do not know our true velocity, relative to some theoretical motionless state.
Therefore we cannot assume that we are the slowest thing in the universe.

@Smudge

Nice PDF

I must debate the "virtualness" of the magnetic current.
See the works of Ed. Leedskalnin and subsequently that of David Lambright
There is confirmed and repeatable radiation emanating from the magnetic loop
similar in many ways to thermal radiation
But much different in others (although thermal expression can also be present)

If it were merely virtual, there wouldn't be a physical expression

To define this mathematically, we use the time invariant divergence of Ampere's Law as such:

∇×B=μ0J

Which defines the divergence of the volumetric current, along the vector of B on a single plane.
For convenience we take the N forward vector of the B field around the loop

Volumetric, because of: F = q(v x B)


An interesting thing happens when you place two oppositely would coils on either end of a horseshoe of soft iron
(of course the PMH can be made)
Use this as a generator, and observe the induced magnetic fields
With respect to Lenz's Law and the Lorentz Force

By passing a magnet between the legs, such that S pole faces the N side of coil 1,
and the N side of the magnet faces the S side of coil 2:
We induce current in both directions simultaneously

Perhaps it is the relativistic perspective of both magnetic currents opposing one another...
that gives rise to the radiation.

Normally contained within the material because of the surface vector
But when the B vector is made to change greatly over a short distance
that does not seem to hold true.

@Smudge

As per the second paper, concerning length contraction:

This is derived from the 3rd Hamiltonian, a concept which i am not sure the author fully grasped:

Perspective 1 being our own, we observe an object moving towards us at c
Perspective 2 an ojbect observes us moving towards it at c
In the case where v1 + v2 is greater than c:
For T to remain constant, the d in the velocity equation must vary

This is not observable from either perspective
But from an outside perspective, one encompassing the volume between the two observers:
When applying the perspective time dilation for each observer, we find that distance must observationally decrease between the two objects, as a factor of c

Or from an alternate perspective: the length of 1 second increases or decreases, from the perspective of the observer that is not doing the observation.

I have not read this book, but just received it:

Chapter 1, using the principle of causality he shows that electric and magnetic fields can not cause each other.

Chapter 2, Faraday induction is not at all an electromagnetic phenomenon

Chapter 3, Jefimenko shows that induced currents are caused by the electrokinetic field created by changing electric currents.

On page 31, he discusses an electrokinetic impulse.  I wonder if this is the same as the radiant electric effect...

A couple of papers referencing electrokinetic fields:

Just snagged a good pdf copy of "electricity and magnetism" here...
https://doku.pub/download/oleg-d-jefimenko-electricity-and-magnetism-an-introduction-to-the-theory-of-electric-and-magnetic-fields-408rzeg5o7lx

I remind you that the subject here is "electromagnetism and relativity", not the theories of Jefimenko or others.

Quote from: Sm0ky2 on 2023.03.28, 19:35:45
'than we see'

The nature of the situation described is not observable from our perspective
We would not see what is inside the dilation field.

T = < 1

But T can ONLY = 1 from a local perspective.
This is a fundamental assumption made by Einstein

else it would be T that is relative, not V

Proportionally the mathematics is exactly the same.
Its like the argument of which object is moving? The observer or the observee?
...

In the case of constant velocity, we cannot know from our proper frame of reference if we are moving or not in relation to anything.
But in the case of acceleration, it is easy, acceleration is absolute, a simple pendulum in a car will deflect when we turn, proving that unlike velocity, we can know our acceleration from our proper frame of reference.

The symmetry of the equations concerns kinematics. From this point of view, accelerations are relative. Not from the point of view of dynamics.

A relative velocity is by definition the same in both reference frames, so the β and γ terms are constant when the velocity is constant.
In the case of acceleration, the speed varies, but we can consider that at each instant, there is an inertial reference frame where v is the relative velocity of the two other reference frames, and we can apply the Lorentz transforms of special relativity. So how to calculate β and γ so that we can apply, at each instant, these transforms, is the question, and it is not simple. The acceleration is dv/dt, but what time should we use to talk about a relative acceleration? Time is not the same in the two reference frames.

Relativity allows us to know perfectly how such an effect will be seen in another frame of reference, including accelerated ones, and even special relativity can deal with accelerations, but it is far from being simple, see here :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativity) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativity)).

I would need a mathematician because even with Mathematica, just posing the problem is a problem!

Where in lies the observation problem

If we were viewed by an observer and they determined that we were traveling at something closer to c than we think we are moving,
their time would be moving faster than they calculate our time as moving.
From their perspective, viewing our clocks from our perspective seconds get longer.

We would make the same assumption from our perspective trying to calculate time around a black hole.

While such concepts may work at close distances and at relative velocities less than c, it is not inherently the case, as time is also not consistent throughout every portion of the universe, irrespective of velocity or acceleration.
The same dilation around a black hole must also exist across larger volumes with comparatively similar mass densities.
This would include vast areas of dark energy larger than the milky way.
Let's consider the implications of acceleration and velocity under drastically different time references.

We can analyze the same problem locally by adding a 3rd observer.
one who's perspectives of the other two would be that of positive and negative time dilation, respectively.
Now substituting our perspective with this one, we have both conditions in clear view.

Now amplify the electric field to a potential of ~2MV/cm^3

And the frequency at 160.2 Ghz
now adjust its phase, forward and backwards.
Place your watch outside of the field:

Here we see that altering the conditions of local timespace can cause dilation.
Even though you weren't physically running at relative velocities to your watch

Now consider the original condition of a far away observer viewing us moving very quickly,
Then postulate a case where our observation of them is not the inverse.
But rather a completely different observed velocity.

We can't know that they view our velocity differently than we view theirs,
and without communication of this data, we cannot calculate the time dilation between those two areas within the universe, to know what our 'true' relative velocities are.

by the way dont do this on a boat, the boat moves over time and theres not a spatial reference for time.

I only need math, not generalities.
The question asked in Reply #48 is the calculation of the 4-potential (scalar+vector) of a distant accelerated charge, seen by a local test charge, also accelerated.
The force should be proportional to the product of the accelerations, which opens great perspectives.

I highly encourage anyone to watch Distinti's semi recent work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZRDSy88SN4

He goes over all of this, where mass and gravity pop out of the equation because of a very simple fact, two spinning charged particles when disturbed create a reaction force which we call mass (inertia to be exact. He provides all the derivations and it's all simple math, no higher special dimensions and wacky mathematics needed.
His work on the standard model is even more cool but currently on Patreon only. When a simple model and equation leads to explaining the masses and magnetic moments of fundamental particles without resorting to a blackboard full of equations then you have something truly noteworthy at hand. And if you think this is doing pseudo isomorphic science where you're not adding any new knowledge or data to the pool, well here is an example: he can predict the magnetic moment of the Tau particle which is a yet unknown experimental value. This alone should trigger people to look further into this especially people at CERN.

I truly believe his work will become the foundation of future scientific progress when mainstream physics catches on and stops beating their dead horse. I truly believe the only reason why distinti is still rambling on to his small community and making small progress is because of his personality. He makes a lot of fun of physicists which makes things difficult when you want smart and respected people in the community to have a look at your work in a respectful manner.  But then again, history tells us it's always the young/new generation that made the biggest impact in science not the old established thinking. Niels Bohr was only 28 when he wrote on the quantization of the electrons energy level. Einstein himself was only 26 and 36 when he published his most impactful papers.

Yet today these papers are seen as gospel and nothing critical can be said of them without being ridiculed as a heretic or nutjob.

Quote from: broli on 2023.04.09, 17:19:31
I highly encourage anyone to watch Distinti's semi recent work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZRDSy88SN4
He goes over all of this, where mass and gravity pop out of the equation because of a very simple fact, two spinning charged particles when disturbed create a reaction force which we call mass (inertia to be exact. He provides all the derivations and it's all simple math, no higher special dimensions and wacky mathematics needed.

It's quite persuasive when fundamental aspects fall right out onto paper like that.  When no dark/mystery particles needed to make everything 'fit'. ;D

Quote from: broli on 2023.04.09, 17:19:31
I highly encourage anyone to watch Distinti's semi recent work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZRDSy88SN4
...

More generalities and no refutable theory.

What are the facts that this theory would explain that conventional theories would not? Where are the quantified predictions that we could test?

A speed limit in a 4D universe is sufficient to explain and to quantify all the facts of classical physics, including electromagnetism (except perhaps thermodynamics).
We may need to bring out an ether theory when new facts will require new explanations. For the moment this kind of theory is completely superfluous and useless since we have a more general model which works.

All I saw from Distinti was at first a judicious method to treat magnetism with current elements, which is what Ampere had already done long before him. Then I saw from him a smoky theory of gravity and it became a universal theory of nonsense.

I invite those who want to follow him and the unconditional supporters of the ether to open a new thread, this one being exclusively reserved for relativity, especially for the treatment of electromagnetism.

@Hackasays

I do not accept links that are supposed to justify a point of view, but are not accompanied by personal analysis, clearly explaining how they would be relevant to the topic of the thread. To imply anything by throwing links without technical or scientific justification is in my opinion a lack of respect for one's opponents.
Republishing them over and over again after moderation is against the ethics of the forum. Please stop this practice. Thank you.

By "Electromagnetism and relativity", one should understand "connection between electromagnetism and relativity".

Quote from: F6FLT
I do not accept links that are supposed to justify a point of view, but are not accompanied by personal analysis, clearly explaining how they would be relevant to the topic of the thread.

I suspected that you simply glossed over Distinti's work, hence my links to some of his higher-level novel predictions and a tongue-in-cheek joke that 'perhaps you just didn't dig deep enough'. :P   (the post you deleted after declaring "More generalities and no refutable theory." C.C)

It is a refutable theory, that much is clear.  And it does seem to make connections that haven't been made in academia, which I find interesting (like arriving at Shwarzschild radius from completely different formulas (6.1) and roughly predicting Michaelson/Morley/Miller drift results (6.2).
https://www.distinti.com/docs/ng.pdf


Rather than explore esoteric subjects yourself you'd prefer someone else did it for you?  That only works well if you implicitly trust the person(s) analyzing on your behalf.

Quote from: Hakasays on 2023.04.27, 14:56:48
I suspected that you simply glossed over Distinti's work, hence my links to some of his higher-level novel predictions
...

So explain these "higher-level novel predictions" of the links you provided, especially on what is experimentally testable, with a level of analysis sufficient to say that you have not glossed over Distinti's work and concluded anything about it.

Otherwise, if you remain so fuzzy, I don't see what your speech would have to do here, and I will draw the conclusions.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2023.04.27, 16:07:29
So explain these "higher-level novel predictions" of the links you provided, especially on what is experimentally testable, with a level of analysis sufficient to say that you have not glossed over Distinti's work and concluded anything about it.

In the original post you deleted a few times, I was following-up on your requests for more mathematical/refutable citations from Distinti:

Quote from: F6FLT on 2023.04.05, 15:14:28
I only need math, not generalities.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2023.04.20, 08:56:36
More generalities and no refutable theory.

I was 'calling the bluff' in a sense, that I suspect you hadn't actually read any of the papers deep enough to make a declarative statement that it was 'not a refutable theory'. :P  That was confirmed in the next post:

Quote from: F6FLT on 2023.04.26, 14:15:17
I do not accept links that are supposed to justify a point of view, but are not accompanied by personal analysis, clearly explaining how they would be relevant to the topic of the thread.

---

But to get back to the actual topic and answer your question,
one thing I found interesting just glancing through Distinti's work was his predicted values for drift velocity on Earth was relatively close to what was measured by Michaelson-Morley-Miller a century prior (attached).

And despite the many theories out there, it's rare to see a set of papers that goes all the way from basic electrical engineering relationships to deriving the Schwarzschild radius without resorting to pages of tensors and differential equations.  That made it interesting to me because it means that derivations of things like antigravity/time dilation/negative impedance solutions would be more directly engineerable/falsifiable.
http://www.distinti.com/docs/ne.pdf   - extremely low-level EE
https://www.distinti.com/docs/ng.pdf - extremely high-level cosmic

It's probably a flawed theory in many places, but IMO not worth throwing the whole thing out arbitrarily (unless I had something better to recommend).