PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-06-17, 02:37:45
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Finally, the pin-heads are admitting the truth...  (Read 16619 times)

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1859
"Physicists thought they understood what was going on, but suddenly "the dominant theory appears to be dead," says Troy Shinbrot, an applied physicist at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, in New Jersey who was not involved in the new work."

http://news.sciencemag.org/chemistry/2014/05/static-electricity-defies-simple-explanation

I'm still waiting for them to admit that there is no such thing as negative and positive any more than there is North & South. It is all relative.

We'll see  8)


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 52
They would find their work so much simpler is they used Crews' law instead of Coulomb's law.
Crew's law is
F=qqRc/rr
where q is charge,
c is speed of light,
r is distance, and
R is a constant electrical resistance of space that equals 30 ohms.

In other words convert Coulomb's constant, k, to Rc.
   
Group: Guest
R is a constant electrical resistance of space that equals 30 ohms.

Is this derived somehow from Planck's constant?
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 52
Is this derived somehow from Planck's constant?
I'm pretty sure if I sat down and worked on it I could derive R from Planck's constant.
But there is no need.  Dimensional analysis is always correct and extremely useful.
Let's look at it just  using common sense and algebraically through units.
Eliminate the coulombs from the square charges and the area from the square distances.
What you have left is simply k, or Coulomb's constant. 
But if you look you will  see that it has units of velocity ohms.
Now we can make that velocity anything we want right up to c, the speed of light.
If we do that we have c times some resistance=k=constant
But if c is a constant and k is a constant then R has to be a constant.
A constant of 30 ohms.
This all comes from simple manipulation of the units.

Now let me demonstrate the power of this type of dimensional analysis.


It occurs to me that this problem doesn't seem to be all that intractable. 
Let me take a stab at it using this form of dimensional analysis.
F=qvXB=irxB
Fr=i(rr)XB=iAxB where A is area.
Looks like a classic  case of increase area increase magnetic flux problem.

Ok.  I Let me preempt the protests.
The Lorentz force is electromagnetic. 
They are talking about the  Coulomb force which is electrostatic.
No problem.  We can always convert one to the other
E=qvxB
F=qqvxB
B=R/rr (why? Because it has to in order to make the units come out correctly)
F=qqc(R/A) or
F=qqc (B)
This says we can reduce the coulomb force to one of  an equivalent magnetostatic force
However this also says that as the area increases the B field decreases.
Seems to say the opposite of what's occurring.
But if we think about it the more B  the less electrostatic and the more magnetostatiic.
The less B field the more the electrostatic field.
So the more area the greater the tendency toward the expression of Coulomb's law.

Now I may be completely wrong but the algebra is correct. The conclusion I gather from
these equations may be wrong, but generally the conclusions prove to be correct also.
But make no mistake.  These equations do and must exist. 
As to how they are interpreted is an entirely different matter.
   
Group: Guest
Very interesting.  Thank you for spelling it out.

I find 30 ohms to be a rather interesting value when you consider most transmission line impendences to be 50, 75 or 300 ohms.  I'm not completely clear on the relationship here, but it would seem that if the resistance of space is 30 ohms, it might make perfect sense for the impendence of a transmission line to be the same.  Maybe someone could shed some light on why it is not.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1401
The impedance of free space as it relates to electro-
magnetic wave propagation is considerably higher.

Then each antenna used for wave transmission has
it's own Radiation Resistance which can range over
a considerable spread for the various designs.

Somehow we manage to cause things to work fairly
efficiently by hook or by crook...


---------------------------
"Truth: the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death." - John Gilmore (1935- ) Author
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 52
Very interesting.  Thank you for spelling it out.

I find 30 ohms to be a rather interesting value when you consider most transmission line impendences to be 50, 75 or 300 ohms.  I'm not completely clear on the relationship here, but it would seem that if the resistance of space is 30 ohms, it might make perfect sense for the impendence of a transmission line to be the same.  Maybe someone could shed some light on why it is not.

Let me be clear.  I call R the resistance of space for lack of a better (knowledgeable) term.  I can't say exactly what it is that offers this  resistance.  Only that it is.  It is and must be a constant resistance of nature. I say it is a resistance of space (area) because of  B=R/area. 
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1140
GFT,

In your dimensional analysis you have lost any non-dimensional constants like pi.  So starting from the Coulomb force you have lost 4*pi, then not surprisingly your 30 Ohms space impedance should have this 4*pi included which makes it 120*pi, which is the well known Z-nought of free space.  There are other instances where you can transform formula, perhaps the least known is the one usually given for the Sommerfeld fine structure constant which gives different answers when evaluated in Si units compared to the cgs units preferred by some.  Clearly that formula which is still taught today is dimensionally wrong.  

Smudge  
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 52
Excellent analysis. Excellent.
Thank you for that insight.

However let's be clear.
Starting with Coulomb's law I didn't lose 4*pi.
I never started with it.  Or if I did (via Coulomb's constant), it was incorporated into c.
And that's ok. I've shown where we might construe c as being a tangential  or radial velocity.
 
The 30 ohms R is a scalar quantity.  An electrostatic quantity.
What you have derived is an electromagnetic quantity.
The presence of R once again forces us to try and come to
terms with the conceptual meaning of the "flow" of a static quantity,
e.g., the change of qr with time.  Thus Ex-B=qr/t
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 52
Oh.  Another thing.
We get caught up  into thinking of mass and gravity dominating space.
Note however the most copious amount of matter in space
is plasma.  The interaction between charged particles in flat spaces
is governed by Coulomb's law. Not Ohm's law.
Thus it would seem to me R would have more relevance than
the more familiar and common impedance of space when studying
the interaction of plasma.

So my characterization of R as being a constant resistance of space seems appropriate.

   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 52
Please forgive the running commentary, but thoughts keep
popping up on this subject that I feel are relevant. 
It's refreshing to have people you can discuss ideas with.

Smudge has provided an excellent insight into the derivation
of the Zero Point impedance by simply factoring R by 4pi.

But then we are asked why a factor of 4pi?
Because R pertains to flat space.  To square area.  To rr.
To relate R to 3D space or a sphere we go from square area
to surface area of a sphere thus the introduction of 4pi.
This eliminates any idea of creating ad hoc factors.
4pi is a consequence of the physics and  the geometry.

So by this reasoning R is indeed the most fundamental quantity.
Not 120pi.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1140
Well I have to somewhat disagree with you GFT.  It is well known that the intrinsic impedance Zo of space is equal to the ratio of the square roots of free space permeability and permittivity.  And light velocity c is given by the inverse product of those two square roots.  From those two equations you can derive two more that give you permittivity = 1/(Zo*c} and permeability = Zo/c.  Thus in all equations involving permittivity or permeability we could use those substitutions, and if we had been taught that from the start we would realize that Zo and c are the fundamental properties of space.  Zo is then not an electromagnetic impedance since it also appears in magnetostatic and electrostatic formula.  And you can take this further to find Zo appearing in many other places.  I mentioned the fine structure constant for which many text books give alpha = e^2/(hbar*c).  If you evaluate that in cgs units you get the right answer, if you do it in SI units you don't.  The correct formula is alpha = e^2*Zo/(2*h).  I believe that Zo and c are features of the particles that are everywhere whizzing through our space and interacting with matter.  So in my opinion Zo, which is 4pi times your R, is the fundamental property.

Smudge     
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 52
"And you can take this further to find Zo appearing in many other places.  I mentioned the fine structure constant for which many text books give alpha = e^2/(hbar*c).  If you evaluate that in cgs units you get the right answer, if you do it in SI units you don't.  The correct formula is alpha = e^2*Zo/(2*h).  I believe that Zo and c are features of the particles that are everywhere whizzing through our space and interacting with matter.  So in my opinion Zo, which is 4pi times your R, is the fundamental property."

We can respectfully disagree on  which is more fundamental.  I think we both agree that as long as either gets us to the correct physics then we are happy.

I was especially struck and pleasantly surprised to see your comments on the fine structure constant.  Again, I am a strong adherent to the algebraic dictates of dimensional analysis. From this I derived what I call Mattie's law: alpha*hbar=e^2 (R)=mcr where alpha is the fine structure constant, hbar is reduced Plank's constant,e is the charge on an electron, R is my resistance of space in ohms, m is the mass of the electron, c is the speed of light, and r is a fundamental distance of nature.  Note that my alpha*hbar=e^2(R) is essentially your alpha=e^2*Zo/(2*h).   It is this law that allows us to seamlessly navigate between equations of mass and charge. It is this equation that allows us to unify Coulomb's law and Newton's gravitational force law into one general equation.

Believe it or not we are pretty much on the same page.
« Last Edit: 2014-07-19, 20:25:38 by GFT »
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1140
If I may expand further you can derive the inertial mass of an electron from (a) its collision cross section against the space particles, (b) an internal time delay between absorbing a space particle and emitting one (the electron being a stable particle has to emit at the same rate it absorbs but can have a time delay), (c) the volume density of the space particles and (d) the momentum of each space particle.  Then inertia appears as an external force imposed on the electron by simple momentum exchange.  Note that mass and also inertia is not just an internal property of the electron, there is a contribution from space, from the aether.  By giving the space particles a vector like spin, we can use the alignment of that spin with its velocity as an electric field vector.  Thus a parallel alignment of space particles emitted from a positron represents a positive electric field and an antiparallel alignment of particles emitted from an electron is a negative field.  But that longitudinal alignment is seen only by another test charge that is at rest within the frame of the electron or positron.  If there is relative motion between the test charge and the emitting source the test charge could see an angle between the spin vector and and the space particle's arriving trajectory, and that angle is responsible for the magnetic field seen by the test charge.  The manner in which the electron or positron responds to the arriving space particle and then emits one depends on that angle, then its behaviour from momentum exchange differs when the angle is present.  We see that difference as a magnetic effect, but in reality electric and magnetic effects have this common cause because of the aether.  And it is the same aether responsible for inertia and gravitation.  Our background aether of particles arriving from distant parts of the Universe has on average a small transversivity, on average the spin vectors are slightly misaligned from the parallel or antiparallel state.  But with a random "magnetic" orientation hence not supplying a magnetic effect, but the space around matter is "warped"from the background state because emitted particles have lost this transverse feature.  Then the same momentum exchange features that create the electric and magnetic forces also create the gravitational force.

Smudge  
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3077
tExB=qr
Francis Nipher applied a static electric field to a magnet and determined that the permeability of space around the magnet was increased (i.e. the magnetic field became much stronger).

Are the permeability and permittivity of space constant?
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1859
I opened the thread to show that there is real doubt in the science community concerning what static charge is and how it is transferred.

Why the discussions including c? Light speed has nothing to do with static charge any more than it has to do with gravity. In both cases the repulsion and attraction exists from the point the charge/mass pairs come into existence. Since this point in time is somewhere near the beginning the only variation of attraction/repulsion is due to changes in the properties of space and time.
 
The connection of repulsion/attraction has not been broken since the beginning. Therefore, there is no speed or velocity of light, charge repulsion/attraction or gravity attraction to consider.

Before you argue points using polarity please explain first what charge is, not the properties or affects. What is it made of or the result of?

Since polarity of charge can only exist during attraction/repulsion( being relative  ;D ), please avoid a circular argument defining what charge is by using 'polarity'.

As my provided link implies, movement of charge is not movement of electrons. Electrons have a charge but they are not charge.


 


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   
Group: Guest
Wave,

I've been reading Ken Wheeler's freebie e-book and something interesting occurred to me, that makes some sense magnetically and may have a parallel electrostatically too.

Imagine a mass of tiny (particles, call them what you will).  Each of them have a single tiny hair like field going through them, extending out, but diverging in intensity the farther away from the points.  Each field is screw shaped like a piece of all-thread and is spinning very fast.  Because of these fields, the points they emanate from all tend to align so the fields don't bump into each other.  And because these threads are all rotating in the same direction, they space themselves out equally, because if one thread bumps into another, the counter twist pushes them apart.

With me so far?

So now take this little mass of fields and place another little mass of similar fields next to it.  If at the area where the fields of the two masses meet, if these fields are spinning in the same direction, the threads (think of screw threads) grab on to each other and pull together.  Now if these spinning fields meet and are spinning in opposite direction, the threads bind an repel, push apart.

Try a little example with two drills.  Put a right-hand threaded in one and a right-hand threaded rod in the other, spin the drills so the rods are both turning the same direction and bump the threaded rods into each other.  Notice the reaction.  Now change one of them to a left-hand thread or reverse one of the drills.  Notice the repulsion as the threads clash.

Seems kind of screwy, but if it has merit, maybe these forces we calculate in our equations are just symptoms of spin.  The direction, pitch and speed of which determines attractive, neutral and repulsive forces.

Just a thought.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1140
Francis Nipher applied a static electric field to a magnet and determined that the permeability of space around the magnet was increased (i.e. the magnetic field became much stronger).

Are the permeability and permittivity of space constant?
What Nipher observed may have been the magneto-electric effect.  When you bring electrons to the surface of a metal ferromagnet they are spin-polarised and you  end up with a surface magnetization that isn't usually there.  If the magnet is connected to ground that surface charge is an excess of charge hence an excess of overall magnetization.  The magnet would seem to be stronger.

Smudge 
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1140
I opened the thread to show that there is real doubt in the science community concerning what static charge is and how it is transferred.

Why the discussions including c? Light speed has nothing to do with static charge any more than it has to do with gravity. In both cases the repulsion and attraction exists from the point the charge/mass pairs come into existence. Since this point in time is somewhere near the beginning the only variation of attraction/repulsion is due to changes in the properties of space and time.
 
The connection of repulsion/attraction has not been broken since the beginning. Therefore, there is no speed or velocity of light, charge repulsion/attraction or gravity attraction to consider.

Before you argue points using polarity please explain first what charge is, not the properties or affects. What is it made of or the result of?

Since polarity of charge can only exist during attraction/repulsion( being relative  ;D ), please avoid a circular argument defining what charge is by using 'polarity'.

As my provided link implies, movement of charge is not movement of electrons. Electrons have a charge but they are not charge.


 
I have a very clear idea of what charge is.  It is not something that can exist on its own, a matter particle must exhibit mass property for it to also exhibit charge.  And what we see as an electric field emanating from a charge is a force field that determines force on another charge, so we can't explain charge without explaining how it creates that force field.  If the force field changes value (by the sudden appearance of more charge or more correctly more charge particles) that change propagates at the speed of light, so whether you like it or not the definition of charge involves that speed.  We have to understand what an electric field really is before we can explain how charge creates that field.  My charged particle (electron or positron) is a collection of smaller particles each of which have spin.  These smaller particles are fundamental building blocks of both space and matter.  Over the surface of the electron the smaller particles all have their spin vector aligned radially but pointing inward to the centre of the electron.  The positron is similar but there the spin vectors all point radially outward.  When these tiny spinning particles are released from the electron or positron they have zero rest mass hence travel at the speed of light.  What causes that release is the electron absorbing an incoming space particle.  The emitted space particle travels radially away from the electron and is the carrier for the electric field.  The density of those emitted particles naturally follow the inverse square law, and the direction of their spin vectors indicates whether they have been emitted from an electron or a positron.  Of course those emitted space particles are within the chaotic background of space particles and form only a small percentage of it, but if that background is electrically neutral (i.e. at our observation point the background particles arrive from all directions with equal probability and having spin vectors parallel and anti parallel in equal numbers) then they represent a change from that neutrality.  The force seen by an electron or positron can be explained by the momentum exchange that takes place when it absorbs a space particle and when it emits one, but of course averaged over a large number of such exchanges.  It is the difference between absorption and emission momentum that we see and the final result explains all forces,not just electrical.

Smudge 
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 266
I can almost follow the interesting points being made. Don't bite my head off  but one comment stuck out.
 "So in my opinion Zo, which is 4pi times your R, is the fundamental property."

Now resistance is part of impedance in AC 101 studies.
This Zo would be the squareroot of the resistance squared plus the reactance squared.
 
Note the first line disclaimer. Lol.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1140
I can almost follow the interesting points being made. Don't bite my head off  but one comment stuck out.
 "So in my opinion Zo, which is 4pi times your R, is the fundamental property."

Now resistance is part of impedance in AC 101 studies.
This Zo would be the squareroot of the resistance squared plus the reactance squared.
 
Note the first line disclaimer. Lol.
To be absolutely correct what you state is just the magnitude of Z, so it is not the full story.  You can express Z as R + jX or you can express it as a magnitude plus a phase angle.  In actual fact the impedance of space, which is usually given the symbol Z-nought, is resistive so it could be given the symbol R-nought,  But for some reason Z is the preferred symbol probably because it is a ratio of two vectors that although being in phase time-wise have a 90 degree phase space-wise.  That space quadrature doesn't appear in AC 101 studies.  Z-nought is generally explained as the ratio of E and H fields of plain electromagnetic waves but it has a much deeper significance as already mentioned.  Note that Z-nought doesn't apply to all electromagnetic waves, in near fields the E to H ratio differs greatly from that and also it is reactive with a recognized phase shift.

Smudge     
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 52
I can almost follow the interesting points being made. Don't bite my head off  but one comment stuck out.
 "So in my opinion Zo, which is 4pi times your R, is the fundamental property."

Now resistance is part of impedance in AC 101 studies.
This Zo would be the squareroot of the resistance squared plus the reactance squared.
 
Note the first line disclaimer. Lol.

First let me say that this site has proven to be a breath of fresh air.  Exhilarating.  
Great thought provoking questions.  Great responses and insight.

Keep in mind that when studying electromagnetism this is a study wherein the
the teachers  and instructors of it can't even agree on the units!
Dollard makes this observation.
There is bound to be some disagreement not only due to the unit mess but due
to how one has been taught to approach certain aspects of the discipline.
This is one reason why I stick to the dimensional analysis and the algebra.  
It is virtually infallible.  Given the reigning ambiguities over units one might think
this is doomed to failure.  But bear in mind there are only 4 basic fundamental
units; mass, charge, length, and time.
(GFT demonstrates that even mass,charge, and length are equivalent, but that's grist for another mill.)
The point is, given these 4 units any and every physical entity can be expressed as some combination
of these 4, including temperature and heat.

Now having said that, this discussion on Z-nought demonstrates the different approaches one may
take in trying to get a handle on its function and expression. Now it is clear to me that my
R is indeed the fundamental resistance of space.  There must be 3 such resistances such as xyz or
ijk.  We have resistance, reactance, and reluctance. Thus the Rx, Ry, and Rz
of one of my earlier posts. This isn't a guess.  It has to be the case given the definition of reactance.
Z0 is the resultant of these 3 aspects of my R.  (And for those of you who take issue with
the phrase "it has to be" ,sorry, but algebra makes some conclusions ineluctable.)

Now here is where it gets exciting.  Given these discussions, I can prove mathematically why and how Z-nought
assumes a spherical impedance. This also will provide a more concrete conceptualization of space curving.
Not only that but  seeing my R as being an aspect of precession I can and will  analyze it as such and will algebraically derive a whole host of expressions.
It will/should firmly establish my theory of the primordial magnetic field.
(It is posited by the GFT that it is the magnetic field, from which all issues forth, not the electric field. Again grist for another mill)
I will also show that reluctance is not a fiction.
It is real and it exists in its own right, just as an electromagnetic centrifugal force, exists and is real in its own right.

Some of these expressions will undoubtedly coincide with preexisting well established electromagnetic expressions.
Most likely I'll just reaffirm several of the equations of Steinmetz and Dollard.
But some may be new  and novel expressions akin to my R. It has become obvious that R is actually the resistance of of this "inner space". 
And yes I should be able to actually mathematically and even graphically demonstrate just what this inner space is.
But just as my induction equations demonstrate, algebra and units alone can take us very deeply into establishing
many of the rules and behavior of electromagnetism absent any/very little prevailing theory.
Perhaps some or one of these equations may take us closer to the realm of greater efficiency.



   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 52
"Before you argue points using polarity please explain first what charge is, not the properties or affects."

The GFT simply states that charge is equal to the rotation of the magnetic field.
That is to say i=q=w/B where i is a single quaternion, q is charge, w is omega which is a rotational frequency, and B is the magnetic field

The GFT  simply states that mass is the precession of the magnetic field.
That is to say jk=e=W/B where jk is a single quaternion, e is the electron, W is big omega which is a precessional frequency, and B is the magnetic field.

Note i=jk thus mass and charge are equivalent just 90 degrees out of phase.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1146
Francis Nipher applied a static electric field to a magnet and determined that the permeability of space around the magnet was increased (i.e. the magnetic field became much stronger).

Are the permeability and permittivity of space constant?

Has anybody tried this simple experiment?    Just get a hall sensor and a high voltage power supply and apply the voltage to a magnet, observing the magnetic field strength reading.
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1859
Has anybody tried this simple experiment?    Just get a hall sensor and a high voltage power supply and apply the voltage to a magnet, observing the magnetic field strength reading.

Be prepared to separate the magnet and the sensor with an electrostatic shield lest you become confused with false positives. Aluminum foil works well.

Yes, others have done the experiment. The reported results varied. I concluded that an electrostatic charge applied to the magnet does increase the magnetic field density.


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-06-17, 02:37:45