| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics - Electromagnetic Forum » johnreed Catch 22 - January 10, 2007
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| johnlawrencereedjr |
 Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
johnreed Catch 22 - January 10, 2007
from johnreed take 1A - Parts 3 & 4 - October 18, 2006
John Lawrence Reed, Jr.
Isaac Newton defined centripetal force in terms of his second and third
law, to act at a distance, by setting his first law object on an
imaginary circular path of motion, at a constant orbital speed. As we
did with Ptolemy, we find here a perfect circle and perfect motion. The
construct was built in the following manner: Newton allowed the moving
inertial object to impact the internal side of the circle circumference
at equidistant points to inscribe a regular polygon. He dropped a
radius to the center of the polygon from each vertex (B) of the polygon
to describe any number of equal area triangles. "...but when the
body is arrived at B, suppose that a centripetal force acts at once
with a great impulse..." [1] (Principia)
Although Newton defined the least action planet orbits in terms of
inertial mass, we can perform no experiment that differentiates between
the atom and the mass of the atom, such that we can absolutely conclude
that the earth attractor acts on mass and not on the atom itself. [2]
In fact, the freefall, orbit velocity, and escape velocity,
experimental data suggest that inertial mass "does not" enter into
the earth attractor (read gravity) mathematics, outside of the effect
of surface planet inertial mass objects on other surface planet
inertial mass objects, which we qualify as. "We are certainly not to
relinquish the evidence of experiments for the sake of dreams and vain
fictions of our own devising." (Principia) However, these results
have continued to center on the incorrectly interpreted freefall data
[3] and today, provide the quantitative basis for Einstein's observer
dependent, postulated equivalence principle.
Consider:
Either our tactile sense of attraction to the earth (gravity), which we
feel as resistance, isolated quantitatively in terms of our 'inertial
mass', is the cause of the least action, time controlled, planet
orbits, as defined by Isaac Newton; or the least action planet orbits
are the reason we can isolate the emergent quantity "inertial
mass" on the balance scale; and our tactile sense of attraction to
the earth (gravity), which we feel as resistance, is caused by the
earth attractor (read gravity) action on our constituent atoms, holding
us to the earth's surface. In other words, mass causes the least
action planet orbits; or the least action planet orbits allow us to
isolate the quantity inertial mass on the balance scale. Is this a
reasonable "either/or" proposition? Are they each mutually exclusive,
or can they both be true, as defined by Isaac Newton and postulated by
Albert Einstein?
It has been shown to an experimental accuracy of twelve decimal places
that inertial mass 'does not' enter into the earth attractor
mathematics during freefall, orbit velocity, and escape velocity
experiments. I can show that the least action planet orbits are the
reason we can isolate the quantity, inertial mass, on the balance
scale. The orbits function within the constraints of a least action
(least time), controlled principle. Freefall functions within the same
constraint (equal areas in equal times). Whatever the cause of the
shared principle (see take 1D), that principle allows us to isolate
inertial mass on the balance scale.
For: if all objects did not fall at the same rate, when dropped at the
same time from the same height, we would be unable to separate the
earth attractor surface, accelerative action (g) from the mass of the
inertial object (m) on the balance scale, with respect to the "tactile
sense of attraction" we feel as resistance and quantify generally as
gravitational force (gravitational force = weight = mg). In other
words, if all objects did not fall at the same rate when dropped at the
same time from the same height, we would have no emergent quantity
called inertial mass to investigate. In such a case, the idea for an
"unencumbered" field with respect to mass, required for Newton's first
and second laws, could not exist. Consequently, I say that inertial
mass is emergent in a field that does not act on the property of matter
we feel as resistance and quantify in terms of our inertial mass, as
weight. Therefore, and as experiment indicates, the earth attractor
acts on our atoms and not on the mass of our atoms.
Einstein's idea that Newton's first law applies to planet orbits
because the planets travel an imaginary curved space-time geodesic,
merely extends Newton's definition of an imaginary perfectly circular,
centripetal force caused, inertial mass (ma) generated view of
planetary motion, by further co-opting the least action planet orbits,
within an extended new age Ptolemaic, mathematical model. While
maintaining our centrist view for a mass generated notion for gravity,
Einstein backed into a more accurate, partially electromagnetic,
mathematical frame. For now, I'll leave it to the reader to contemplate
the idea that the earth attractor acts on our constituent atoms and not
on their mass, and to:
1) consider how well blackholes, curved space-time, and the big bang,
will survive theoretically when it is realized that the earth attractor
acts on our atoms and not on our mass.
2) show that the balance scale measures inertial mass and that,
gravitational "mass" does not exist. This should be easy for those who
consider classical mechanics their strong suit.
3) consider possible reasons for the Pioneer anomalies.
4) consider possible reasons for the Foucalt pendulum anomalies during
total solar eclipses.
5) consider alternatives to dark matter and energy.
Endnotes:
[1] The verbal argument Newton used to connect his inertial mass driven
centripetal force to Kepler's laws is, by my notes here, vague. So far
I have loosely traced it from the balance scale through the pendulum to
Jupiter's moons and the Sun. Newton used the third law which provided
the equal and opposite, attraction-resistance pair. Though as Einstein
was "happy" to learn later, we feel no resistance during freefall.
Which would be the case if the earth attractor acts on our atoms and
not on our mass. This from old notes. Must re-check the publication. So
Im still working on it in that sense. However the sole purpose of my
argument here is to show that Newton defined centripetal force in terms
of inertial mass. This explains the assumptive equivalence directly.
The reason inertial and so called gravitational mass are quantitatively
the same will be entertained in another post, shortly.
[2] Should I declare an equivalence principle here? Say, since the
observer cannot tell the difference they are the same. Call it the 2nd
observer dependent equivalence principle? ... uh. No not that. Its more
of an uncertainty... kinda'... except that it can be reduced to an
"either/or" uncertainty. Now we're getting into Boolean mathematical
stuff here. Test both cases. ... well, that leaves only the "or" in
this case. We've certainly tested the hell out of the "either". :)
[3] Isaac Newton's interpretation of the freefall phenomenon; Albert
Einstein's interpretation of the freefall data; and my interpretation
of that data; lead to entirely different conclusions. I say that
inertial mass does not figure into the earth attractor mathematics,
therefore the earth attractor does not act on inertial mass. Einstein
postulated that because he could not feel his own weight (resistance)
in freefall, and because he could not tell if he was in an accelerated
frame, or in a gravitational frame, and because the measured, so called
gravitational mass, and the measured inertial mass are quantitatively
the same, they are in fact, the same. I will expand on this in my next
post.
HAPPY NEW YEAR 2007, folks.
Have a good time,
johnreed |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Stuart Twyford |
| Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I was reading recently that magnetic fields can be regarded as electric
field with relativistic length contraction applied to them.
This seems to contradict my understanding of Maxwells equations in the
case of a stationary charged object near a current carrying wire.
eg:
If we have a wire with a current, and I bring a positively charged
object near the wire, according to Maxwells equations, the wire
generates a magnetic field in the intertial reference frame of the wire.
The object is at rest relative to this frame, and therefore feels no
magnetic force.
In the relativistic view, the electrons in the wire will be length
contracted, and therefore will appear closer together to the charged
object, and will exert and stronger attractive force than the positive
ions in the wire. This is equivalent to the charged object experiencing
a magnetic force.
Which is correct? Or have I got it wrong? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| J Thomas |
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
johnlawrencereedjr wrote:
Quote: Therefore, and as experiment indicates, the earth attractor
acts on our atoms and not on the mass of our atoms.
Some years ago I asked on one of the physics hewsgroups -- I think it
might have been this one -- whether it was possible that gravity acts
on atoms and not on mass.
An actual physicist responded and described an experiment in which he
wanted to separate fast neutrons from slow neutrons. What he did was to
get the neutrons all moving in roughly the same direction, and then he
sampled the high end for fast neutrons and the low end for slow
neutrons. The slower the neutron, the more time for gravity to act on
it and the farther it falls. This method succeeded.
So gravitation doesn't act only on atoms, it also acts on neutrons. It
might also act on charged subatomic particles but it's so weak compared
to their charges that it's hard to tell. I imagine the experiment could
possibly be done. Like, start with a source for beta particles, and
send them down a long vacuum-filled metal tube to a target. Check
whether you get significantly more hits in the lower half of the
target. Then turn the whole thing over and do it upside down. Check
again. Look for confounding variables, for anything other than
gravitation that might affect it. Can you be sure you've eliminated
every electric field or magnetic field that won't get turned over? When
you think you've found everything, publish. I haven't heard that this
experiment has been done but it would be interesting, at least to me.
If gravity acts on electrons then it probably acts on everything except
possibly neutrinos. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| J Thomas |
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Stuart Twyford wrote:
Quote: I was reading recently that magnetic fields can be regarded as electric
field with relativistic length contraction applied to them.
This seems to contradict my understanding of Maxwells equations in the
case of a stationary charged object near a current carrying wire.
Figure out what the math says in both cases. Then decide whether they
contradict.
This stuff probably doesn't fit your intuition. If you listen to what
people say, when your intuition is wrong, you'll probably misunderstand
them. Unless they say it with math, and then there's a chance they
still aren't saying what they mean, or aren't describing what the math
is connected to well enough for you to get it. But that's your chance
to follow what they're saying. Getting it from stories told in english
is pretty much hopeless, unless perhaps the stories are saying very
specificially what an experiment did and what the observed result was.
Which set of Maxwell's equations are you interested in? There's one set
that starts out assuming magnetic and electric fields cross distance
instantaneously. That set can be used to show that light (and
electromagnetic fields) has a finite speed, but the instantaneous
assumptions are still built into the equations. Then there's a version
with time delays but without relativity. And there's the version with
relativity. And probably others.
Quote: If we have a wire with a current, and I bring a positively charged
object near the wire, according to Maxwells equations, the wire
generates a magnetic field in the intertial reference frame of the wire.
The object is at rest relative to this frame, and therefore feels no
magnetic force.
Let's review our maxwelian intuition. First off, let's think about
magnetic lines of force. If you dump a bunch of thin iron filings on a
magnet, they'll turn into little magnets themselves and line up. They
attract each other on the ends but they repel each other side to side,
so if you're lucky you'll get a bunch of separate lines, that get
spread out as they get farther from the magnet and that cluster
together at the magnet's poles. It's only reasonable once you see that
to think as if a magnetic field is made of lines of force just like the
iron filings. Strongest where they cluster together and weaker where
they spread apart. This might not be a particularly useful way to
imagine it, but it's the way they did think of them.
Electric currents are different. To make the "lines of force" idea
work, you wind up with circular lines of magnetic force around the
electric wires. Either way, what happens when you have a charge that
moves sideways relative to a magnetic field -- so it cuts across
magnetic lines of force -- is a force that tends to move the charge
sideways. (With a presumably equal and opposite force on the magnet.)
The new force is perpendicular to the direction of motion, and it's
perpendicular to the lines of force the charge cuts across.
"No matter whether the rock hits the pot or the pot hits the rock --
either way the pot gets it." Never mind whether it's the charge moving
across the magnetic field or the magnetic lines of force moving across
the charge, the new force does the same thing. Whether it's the charge
moving and making a magnetic field or the magnet moving, either way you
get the equal and opposite reaction. So the current in the wire has a
velocity down the wire, and the magnetic lines of force are
perpendicular to that, in a circle around the wire, and the direction
parallel to that is toward or away from the wire. By the right-hand
rule, it's toward.
OK, but the original Maxwell's equations assumed an electrostatic
charge -- the force you get between charges that aren't moving -- and
then figured the magnetic effect due to relative motion as an offset
from that. Say that the charges are one millimeter apart and one of
them is moving at half-lightspeed at right angles to the stationary
one. The static charge you ought to start with isn't from where the
charge is now -- it's from where the charge was around a nanosecond
ago, to allow time for the field to get there. That's about 1/sqrt(3)
millimeters away. It throws everything off. But you can figure about
the stationary charge's effect on the moving one, it was in the same
place a nanosecond ago that it is now. And equal-and-opposite-reaction
will tell you what force the moving charge gets. That doesn't work when
both charges are moving, though.
What if it's two electrons traveling down two channels cut in a piece
of silicon, a millimeter apart. Each of them gets a push from the
other. That push is sqrt(3)/2 units sideways and 1/2 unit forward. They
can't go sideways, but they can push each other forward. Where's the
equal and opposite action? It's gone. Relativity will fix everything up
but it utterly robs you of your intution. The math for relativity is
easy, but getting comfortable enough with it that you can talk about it
without doing the math is hard.
Quote: In the relativistic view, the electrons in the wire will be length
contracted, and therefore will appear closer together to the charged
object, and will exert and stronger attractive force than the positive
ions in the wire. This is equivalent to the charged object experiencing
a magnetic force.
Relative to the stationary charge, won't the ones that are approaching
be length-contracted and the ones that are going away be
length-extended? You get blue-shift in front and red-shift behind? I
can't guess what's going on without actually calculating it. And from
the way you ask your questions, neither should you. Your intuition is
no good and it will never get good unless you do the math.
Quote: Which is correct? Or have I got it wrong?
Probably they're both wrong. When your math comes out OK, and you
back-check it and that comes out OK, and you check it again, and
somebody else checks it and they're confident you did it right, then go
over the details of how the math works and see if you can make it make
sense. Math is the language of truth. Not that it's guaranteed to be
true, but it's the language where you can actually have a fighting
chance to know what's being said. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Autymn D. C. |
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
| Objects do not fall at the same rate. They fall by their mass. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| johnlawrencereedjr |
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
J Thomas wrote:
Quote: johnlawrencereedjr wrote:
Therefore, and as experiment indicates, the earth attractor
acts on our atoms and not on the mass of our atoms.
Some years ago I asked on one of the physics hewsgroups -- I think it
might have been this one -- whether it was possible that gravity acts
on atoms and not on mass.
jr writes>
This is interesting. I would like to access that post. Can you provide
limiting search criteria? Also can you recall the train of logic in
your mind that caused you to ask the question?
Quote:
An actual physicist responded and described an experiment in which he
wanted to separate fast neutrons from slow neutrons. What he did was to
get the neutrons all moving in roughly the same direction, and then he
sampled the high end for fast neutrons and the low end for slow
neutrons. The slower the neutron, the more time for gravity to act on
it and the farther it falls. This method succeeded.
jr writes>
Succeeded at what? I don't see such experiments as deciding the issue.
Once we learn that mass is emergent in the classical frame, and that
Planck's constant acts as a conversion factor for mass as a component
of energy, in terms of frequency and wavelength in the atomic frame,
any determination of gravity in the atomic frame will be in
electromagnetic terms.
Quote:
So gravitation doesn't act only on atoms, it also acts on neutrons.
jr writes>
I agree, to the extent that neutrons retain granularity inside the
atom.
It
Quote: might also act on charged subatomic particles but it's so weak compared
to their charges that it's hard to tell. I imagine the experiment could
possibly be done. Like, start with a source for beta particles, and
send them down a long vacuum-filled metal tube to a target. Check
whether you get significantly more hits in the lower half of the
target. Then turn the whole thing over and do it upside down. Check
again. Look for confounding variables, for anything other than
gravitation that might affect it. Can you be sure you've eliminated
every electric field or magnetic field that won't get turned over? When
you think you've found everything, publish. I haven't heard that this
experiment has been done but it would be interesting, at least to me.
If gravity acts on electrons then it probably acts on everything except
possibly neutrinos.
jr writes>
I have no issue with the expanse of the gravitational action. My issue
is its cause. As long as we continue to use mass as its generator we
will never even consider that it acts on atoms, because we can't feel
it acting on our atoms except when we are pulled to the surface of the
earth while in contact with the earth, and when we are traveling in a
direction counter to the direction of the action on our atoms. This
applies to inertia and gravity with minor connecting arguments, as the
action on our atoms is quantified by us in terms of mass. Which is fine
for practical uses where resistance is quantified in terms of ma and mg
and which we as inertial objects work against.
What I call a reductio ad absurdem argument against mass as the
generator, my peers call blackholes. The only basis for such an absurd
notion is mass generated gravitation. And it forever precludes the
recognition of an electromagnetic cause. We know that gravity acts on
matter. Therefore we know that it acts on atoms. We assume it acts on
mass because we define the universe in terms of quantities we sense and
work against as inertial objects, which we qualify as. I select the
atom as opposed to mass, because the atom is a more useful term than
matter, and because it provides a segue into electromagnetic causes.
Its not that the particles we have assumed to retain granularity inside
the atom are acted upon via their mass, but that the atom and all other
objects come under the electromagnetic umbrella, and mass is a term for
resistance that we work against.
Thanks for the response. I don't know how the post I put up got in the
same subject area as Twyfords, but I am glad it did. I enjoyed your
response to his post and look forward to reviewing your stuff
regularly.
Have a good time.
johnreed |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:30 am
|
|