Author Topic: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.  (Read 25685 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline YurkshireLad

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 365
  • Country: ca
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #125 on: April 06, 2022, 09:45:29 pm »
Quote
The inflow streamlines that i alluded to are streamlines of aether acceleration, not streamlines of velocity or speed.

How does acceleration towards a central point from every point on a sphere not increase something in the middle? It has to go somewhere, doesn'tduznt it? So there must presumably be streamlines of deceleration to match. Somewhere.

And... how can you have acceleration without a change in velocity or speed?

There's something underneath aether that makes it accelerate. I just invented it, it's called "Uther".

Sorry, I couldn't resist!
 
The following users thanked this post: HuronKing

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #126 on: April 06, 2022, 09:51:54 pm »
There be dragons!

"God bless King Pendragon
Long may his reign drag on!"
T H White:  The Once and Future King
 

Offline hamster_nz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2812
  • Country: nz
Gaze not into the abyss, lest you become recognized as an abyss domain expert, and they expect you keep gazing into the damn thing.
 

Offline aetheristTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #128 on: April 06, 2022, 10:17:22 pm »
Quote
The inflow streamlines that i alluded to are streamlines of aether acceleration, not streamlines of velocity or speed.
How does acceleration towards a central point from every point on a sphere not increase something in the middle? It has to go somewhere, doesn'tduznt it? So there must presumably be streamlines of deceleration to match. Somewhere.

And... how can you have acceleration without a change in velocity or speed?
Yes, acceleration is a change in velocity or speed (i don’t see the problem here).

I said towards the center of the Earth, crudely put. The actual acceleration will of course be a combination of the acceleration of aether into the Sun, & Moon, etc. Teacher mistake-3 if u like.

U raise or infer some good points.

If the gravity at the center of Earth is zero (or somewhere near center), then the acceleration of the aetherwind near center must be zero.  Yes.

If the acceleration of the aetherwind decreases somewhere inside Earth, then there must be a deceleration of the aetherwind, in which case gravity at the bottom of a deep hole might be upwards not downwards. No.
Aether is annihilated in matter, ie in Earth. Hence there is no need for a theoretical deceleration.
Once u pass a certain depth the acceleration will decrease, ie gravity decreases, & near center gravity is zero.
Aetherons that have been annihilated (in the photons inside Earth)(all matter is photons)(all photons are photons) no longer exist, hence they can't themselves accelerate or decelerate.
I admit that this process is not easy to imagine.

The inflow has to increase something in the middle. No.
If aether is annihilated then there is no buildup of anything near the center of the Earth.
Aether is a process, it is an excitation of the praether, the praether is the fundamental essence. The point here is that when a process is annihilated then nothing material is actually annihilated. If i stop juggling some oranges, then my juggling is not annihilated, it no longer exists. And no oranges have been harmed.
I said that nothing material has been annihilated. This wording is klumsy. I might come back & fix.

The acceleration of the aetherwind inside Earth will reach a max at some depth, & hence gravity will reach a max at that depth. Skoolkids of course all wrongly (today) think that gravity is a max at the surface (so did i).
« Last Edit: April 06, 2022, 11:06:16 pm by aetherist »
 

Offline aetheristTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #129 on: April 06, 2022, 10:24:03 pm »
I wonder whether there has been a flame on spacelab?
Close... ISS

https://www.space.com/13766-international-space-station-flex-fire-research.html
I predict that a candle-flame on spacelab can be extinguished by licking finger & thumb & pinching the wick.
 

Offline aetheristTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #130 on: April 06, 2022, 10:27:18 pm »
Quote
The inflow streamlines that i alluded to are streamlines of aether acceleration, not streamlines of velocity or speed.
How does acceleration towards a central point from every point on a sphere not increase something in the middle? It has to go somewhere, doesn'tduznt it? So there must presumably be streamlines of deceleration to match. Somewhere.

And... how can you have acceleration without a change in velocity or speed?
There's something underneath aether that makes it accelerate. I just invented it, it's called "Uther".

Sorry, I couldn't resist!
I reckon that a true Einsteinist would automatically say that spacetime makes the aether accelerate. And that spacetime is under over in & all around the aether.
Uther makes more sense that spacetime. Progress.
 

Offline HuronKing

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 247
  • Country: us
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #131 on: April 06, 2022, 10:35:28 pm »
Is there anything specific in what Mueller & Lenard said that is wrong, re their criticisms of STR & GTR?
Me myself i don’t agree with every criticism in Mueller's book. He has hundreds.
Some criticisms are fatal to STR or GTR, some are important but not fatal. My above question refers to any fatal criticism.

Lenard's arguments were answered directly by Einstein (Lenard's arguments apparently amounting to "wahh! relativity is hard and my brain is too dumb to get it").
https://theconversation.com/when-science-gets-ugly-the-story-of-philipp-lenard-and-albert-einstein-43165

Anything else regarding Lenard on the subject of relativity is scientific jealousy at best and outright racism at worst:

Reactionaries and Einstein's Fame: “German Scientists for the Preservation of Pure Science,” Relativity, and the Bad Nauheim Meeting
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.2194.pdf

Compiling a giant list of 'objections' and 'criticisms' of STR or GTR is as infantile and hackneyed as those giant lists of 'scientists who oppose climate science':
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence

And there are equally large lists of people who claim to have discovered free energy. No one is under any obligation to publish them if they lack basic competency in the theories they're criticizing.

The G.O. Muller list is definitely interesting from a historical point of view and as a nice compilation of active pseudoscientists or honest people who keep making basic mistakes about relativity.
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #132 on: April 06, 2022, 11:02:20 pm »
"The acceleration of the aetherwind inside Earth will reach a max at some depth, & hence gravity will reach a max at that depth. Skoolkids of course all wrongly (today) think that gravity is a max at the surface (so did i)."

Isaac Newton showed that in the interior of a sphere (assuming that the mass density is only a function of the radius), the gravitational force at a point is that of the sphere whose radius equals that of the point. 
The gravitational forces due to the shell outside that radius cancels out.  Consult any textbook about that.
Now, to keep things simple, let us assume that the mass density within the earth is a constant W.
The gravitational force at a radius r inside the sphere is therefore:
     F = GMm/r2, where G is Newton's universal gravitational constant, m is the mass of the test object at that radius and M is the mass of the sphere inside that radius. 
That mass  M = WV, where W is the volume density and V = (4pi/3)r3 is the volume of the sphere inside the radius.
The "strength" or acceleration of gravity is g = F/m.
Therefore, as a function of radius inside the sphere, the acceleration of gravity is
     g = GM/r2 = (G/r2) x WV = (G/r2)x(4pi/3)GWr3 = (4pi/3)xGWxr,
which is directly proportional to r, the radius from the center of the sphere.
This is the physics class calculation:  a civil engineer can then introduce the dependence of the mass density W with radius r and get a slightly different answer, but it will still go to zero at the center.
 

Offline hamster_nz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2812
  • Country: nz
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #133 on: April 06, 2022, 11:31:25 pm »
If the acceleration of the aetherwind decreases somewhere inside Earth, then there must be a deceleration of the aetherwind, in which case gravity at the bottom of a deep hole might be upwards not downwards. No.

With a deep enough hole I think you will find the force of gravity is multiplied by i^2 (i.e. acts in the other direction). If not, dig deeper.

Aether is annihilated in matter, ie in Earth. Hence there is no need for a theoretical deceleration.
What is the special attribute of matter in the Earth, vs that of a steel box around some electronics, or epoxy potting compound, or rock around a mine shaft that allows it to annihilate the aether?
Gaze not into the abyss, lest you become recognized as an abyss domain expert, and they expect you keep gazing into the damn thing.
 

Offline aetheristTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #134 on: April 06, 2022, 11:31:35 pm »
"The acceleration of the aetherwind inside Earth will reach a max at some depth, & hence gravity will reach a max at that depth. Skoolkids of course all wrongly (today) think that gravity is a max at the surface (so did i)."

Isaac Newton showed that in the interior of a sphere (assuming that the mass density is only a function of the radius), the gravitational force at a point is that of the sphere whose radius equals that of the point. 
The gravitational forces due to the shell outside that radius cancels out.  Consult any textbook about that.
Now, to keep things simple, let us assume that the mass density within the earth is a constant W.
The gravitational force at a radius r inside the sphere is therefore:
     F = GMm/r2, where G is Newton's universal gravitational constant, m is the mass of the test object at that radius and M is the mass of the sphere inside that radius. 
That mass  M = WV, where W is the volume density and V = (4pi/3)r3 is the volume of the sphere inside the radius.
The "strength" or acceleration of gravity is g = F/m.
Therefore, as a function of radius inside the sphere, the acceleration of gravity is
     g = GM/r2 = (G/r2) x WV = (G/r2)x(4pi/3)GWr3 = (4pi/3)xGWxr,
which is directly proportional to r, the radius from the center of the sphere.
This is the physics class calculation:  a civil engineer can then introduce the dependence of the mass density W with radius r and get a slightly different answer, but it will still go to zero at the center.
Yes i am ok with all of that. Yes, the reason for the max g being at some depth is that the density is much greater in the say iron core. And yes the gravity is always zero near center.

BA.   However, all of that reminds me of the borehole anomaly. It has been found that the decrease of g with depth does not follow Newton.
G.   And, the measurement of Newton's big G indicates that big G is not a constant.
Me myself i am the only person around who has explained the BA catastrophe & the big G catastrophe. Perhaps my most brilliant discovery. I really must brush up on my Swedish.
 

Offline aetheristTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #135 on: April 06, 2022, 11:41:27 pm »
If the acceleration of the aetherwind decreases somewhere inside Earth, then there must be a deceleration of the aetherwind, in which case gravity at the bottom of a deep hole might be upwards not downwards. No.
With a deep enough hole I think you will find the force of gravity is multiplied by i^2 (i.e. acts in the other direction). If not, dig deeper.
Aether is annihilated in matter, ie in Earth. Hence there is no need for a theoretical deceleration.
What is the special attribute of matter in the Earth, vs that of a steel box around some electronics, or epoxy potting compound, or rock around a mine shaft that allows it to annihilate the aether?
Photons are an annihilation & excitation of the aether. Photons make our fundamental particles. Hence all matter annihilates aether.
EM radiation is a part of every photon, it is emitted by photons. EM radiation too annihilates aether, ie it has mass.

If simple Newton duznt explain the borehole anomaly, nor the big G anomaly, then these are a catastrophe, not a paradox. These are a catastrophe for Newton, & for Einstein, & for (basic) aether theory.
Me myself i am the only one who explains. In my (advanced aether) theory they are a paradox, not a catastrophe.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2022, 11:51:11 pm by aetherist »
 

Offline aetheristTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #136 on: April 06, 2022, 11:49:29 pm »
Is there anything specific in what Mueller & Lenard said that is wrong, re their criticisms of STR & GTR?
Me myself i don’t agree with every criticism in Mueller's book. He has hundreds.
Some criticisms are fatal to STR or GTR, some are important but not fatal. My above question refers to any fatal criticism.
Lenard's arguments were answered directly by Einstein (Lenard's arguments apparently amounting to "wahh! relativity is hard and my brain is too dumb to get it").
https://theconversation.com/when-science-gets-ugly-the-story-of-philipp-lenard-and-albert-einstein-43165

Anything else regarding Lenard on the subject of relativity is scientific jealousy at best and outright racism at worst:

Reactionaries and Einstein's Fame: “German Scientists for the Preservation of Pure Science,” Relativity, and the Bad Nauheim Meeting
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.2194.pdf

Compiling a giant list of 'objections' and 'criticisms' of STR or GTR is as infantile and hackneyed as those giant lists of 'scientists who oppose climate science':
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence

And there are equally large lists of people who claim to have discovered free energy. No one is under any obligation to publish them if they lack basic competency in the theories they're criticizing.

The G.O. Muller list is definitely interesting from a historical point of view and as a nice compilation of active pseudoscientists or honest people who keep making basic mistakes about relativity.
Lists of people is not the same thing as lists of criticisms.
But it would be good if u criticised a selected (basic mistake) criticism, & then i could criticise your criticism.
U might be surprised, i don’t agree with some of the criticisms of STR & GTR.

It just occurred to me. I wonder whether Mueller & Co go further than criticising, ie whether they mention the alternative idea of there being an aether & aetherwind. I can't remember. I think they do.
 

Offline HuronKing

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 247
  • Country: us
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #137 on: April 06, 2022, 11:57:26 pm »
Lists of people is not the same thing as lists of criticisms.
But it would be good if u criticised a selected (basic mistake) criticism, & then i could criticise your criticism.
U might be surprised, i don’t agree with some of the criticisms of STR & GTR.

I've been knocking down tired insane 'criticisms' of relativity for weeks on this forum. I don't need to go hunting for more to satisfy your incoherent ramblings.
There is nothing new in the Muller list (except their disgusting conspiratorial thinking which the more I look into the more it reeks of the evil legacy of Lenard).
https://www.c-span.org/video/?406673-2/the-man-stalked-einstein

When are YOU going to learn some relativity before wasting everyone's time decrying a theory you don't know the first thing about?

Quote
I don’t know what STR predicts re fast moving electrons.
 
The following users thanked this post: daqq

Offline aetheristTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #138 on: April 07, 2022, 12:10:24 am »
Lists of people is not the same thing as lists of criticisms.
But it would be good if u criticised a selected (basic mistake) criticism, & then i could criticise your criticism.
U might be surprised, i don’t agree with some of the criticisms of STR & GTR.
I've been knocking down tired insane 'criticisms' of relativity for weeks on this forum. I don't need to go hunting for more to satisfy your incoherent ramblings.
There is nothing new in the Muller list (except their disgusting conspiratorial thinking which the more I look into the more it reeks of the evil legacy of Lenard).
https://www.c-span.org/video/?406673-2/the-man-stalked-einstein

When are YOU going to learn some relativity before wasting everyone's time decrying a theory you don't know the first thing about?
Quote
I don’t know what STR predicts re fast moving electrons.
Does STR predict that fast moving electrons gain mass?  Something predicted that fast moving electrons gained mass, in the oldendays, but not today they say.

Does STR predict that a fast moving electron has a different longitudinal mass to its transverse mass (or longitudinal inertia  & transverse inertia if u prefer).
I am not up with what they say today about that. What did Einstein say?

E=mcc has zero to do with STR as far as i am aware. Hence it can't predict anything about the mass of fast moving electrons. Nor i think re anything to do with the momentum of fast moving electrons, nor energy.

But u seem to know what STR predicts re fast moving electrons.
 

Offline HuronKing

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 247
  • Country: us
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #139 on: April 07, 2022, 12:48:52 am »
Does STR predict that fast moving electrons gain mass?  Something predicted that fast moving electrons gained mass, in the oldendays, but not today they say.

Does STR predict that a fast moving electron has a different longitudinal mass to its transverse mass (or longitudinal inertia  & transverse inertia if u prefer)
I am not up with what they say today about that. What did Einstein say?

E=mcc has zero to do with STR as far as i am aware. Hence it can't predict anything about the mass of fast moving electrons. Nor i think re anything to do with the momentum of fast moving electrons, nor energy.

But u seem to know what STR predicts re fast moving electrons.

I do because I've done my homework. Why don't you instead of continuing to bathe in ignorance?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_16.html



Short answer - you don't know very much about relativity if you're stuck on understanding the meaning of 'relativistic mass' versus 'rest mass.' Feynman does teach it the older way but he makes it very clear this is about conservation of momentum and energy in reference frames.

You're also constantly using the wrong equation by referring to E = mc^2 exclusively. That's not the equation.
The proper equation is E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 and it's a consequence of relativity (as shown by Feynman Lecture 16). Pedantic on my part? No, because E = mc^2 is a special expression of the mass-energy equivalence formula which means for a massless particle (like the photon) that has momentum we need to consider this in terms of momentum more than anything else.



Quote
As an example of this effect, to deflect the high-speed electrons in the synchrotron that is used here at Caltech, we need a magnetic field that is 2000 times stronger than would be expected on the basis of Newton’s laws. In other words, the mass of the electrons in the synchrotron is 2000 times as great as their normal mass, and is as great as that of a proton! That m should be 2000 times m0 means that 1−v2/c2 must be 1/4,000,000, and that means that v differs from c by one part in 8,000,000, so the electrons are getting pretty close to the speed of light. If the electrons and light were both to start from the synchrotron (estimated as 700 feet away) and rush out to Bridge Lab, which would arrive first? The light, of course, because light always travels faster.1 How much earlier? That is too hard to tell—instead, we tell by what distance the light is ahead: it is about 1/1000 of an inch, or 14 the thickness of a piece of paper! When the electrons are going that fast their masses are enormous, but their speed cannot exceed the speed of light.
Feynman 15-8

Theory and experiment in perfect agreement. While aether rots in the grave.
 

Offline aetheristTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #140 on: April 07, 2022, 02:00:17 am »
Does STR predict that fast moving electrons gain mass?  Something predicted that fast moving electrons gained mass, in the oldendays, but not today they say.

Does STR predict that a fast moving electron has a different longitudinal mass to its transverse mass (or longitudinal inertia  & transverse inertia if u prefer)
I am not up with what they say today about that. What did Einstein say?

E=mcc has zero to do with STR as far as i am aware. Hence it can't predict anything about the mass of fast moving electrons. Nor i think re anything to do with the momentum of fast moving electrons, nor energy.

But u seem to know what STR predicts re fast moving electrons.
I do because I've done my homework. Why don't you instead of continuing to bathe in ignorance?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_16.html

Short answer - you don't know very much about relativity if you're stuck on understanding the meaning of 'relativistic mass' versus 'rest mass.' Feynman does teach it the older way but he makes it very clear this is about conservation of momentum and energy in reference frames.

You're also constantly using the wrong equation by referring to E = mc^2 exclusively. That's not the equation.
The proper equation is E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 and it's a consequence of relativity (as shown by Feynman Lecture 16). Pedantic on my part? No, because E = mc^2 is a special expression of the mass-energy equivalence formula which means for a massless particle (like the photon) that has momentum we need to consider this in terms of momentum more than anything else.

Quote
As an example of this effect, to deflect the high-speed electrons in the synchrotron that is used here at Caltech, we need a magnetic field that is 2000 times stronger than would be expected on the basis of Newton’s laws. In other words, the mass of the electrons in the synchrotron is 2000 times as great as their normal mass, and is as great as that of a proton! That m should be 2000 times m0 means that 1−v2/c2 must be 1/4,000,000, and that means that v differs from c by one part in 8,000,000, so the electrons are getting pretty close to the speed of light. If the electrons and light were both to start from the synchrotron (estimated as 700 feet away) and rush out to Bridge Lab, which would arrive first? The light, of course, because light always travels faster.1 How much earlier? That is too hard to tell—instead, we tell by what distance the light is ahead: it is about 1/1000 of an inch, or 14 the thickness of a piece of paper! When the electrons are going that fast their masses are enormous, but their speed cannot exceed the speed of light.
Feynman 15-8

Theory and experiment in perfect agreement. While aether rots in the grave.
I am not sure what aether theory says about electron mass.  But i see that Lorentz came up with the same equations at an earlier date than Einstein, using aether theory (not STR).  So, i doubt that u can bury aether here. Me myself i don’t like the smell of any ovem, they are both rotten.
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/16913/1/Potters_Kaufmann.pdf
Heuristics versus Norms: On the Relativistic Responses to the Kaufmannn Experiments✩ Jan Potters1
« Last Edit: April 07, 2022, 02:02:26 am by aetherist »
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #141 on: April 07, 2022, 02:00:01 pm »
"The acceleration of the aetherwind inside Earth will reach a max at some depth, & hence gravity will reach a max at that depth. Skoolkids of course all wrongly (today) think that gravity is a max at the surface (so did i)."

Isaac Newton showed that in the interior of a sphere (assuming that the mass density is only a function of the radius), the gravitational force at a point is that of the sphere whose radius equals that of the point. 
The gravitational forces due to the shell outside that radius cancels out.  Consult any textbook about that.
Now, to keep things simple, let us assume that the mass density within the earth is a constant W.
The gravitational force at a radius r inside the sphere is therefore:
     F = GMm/r2, where G is Newton's universal gravitational constant, m is the mass of the test object at that radius and M is the mass of the sphere inside that radius. 
That mass  M = WV, where W is the volume density and V = (4pi/3)r3 is the volume of the sphere inside the radius.
The "strength" or acceleration of gravity is g = F/m.
Therefore, as a function of radius inside the sphere, the acceleration of gravity is
     g = GM/r2 = (G/r2) x WV = (G/r2)x(4pi/3)GWr3 = (4pi/3)xGWxr,
which is directly proportional to r, the radius from the center of the sphere.
This is the physics class calculation:  a civil engineer can then introduce the dependence of the mass density W with radius r and get a slightly different answer, but it will still go to zero at the center.
Yes i am ok with all of that. Yes, the reason for the max g being at some depth is that the density is much greater in the say iron core. And yes the gravity is always zero near center.

BA.   However, all of that reminds me of the borehole anomaly. It has been found that the decrease of g with depth does not follow Newton.
G.   And, the measurement of Newton's big G indicates that big G is not a constant.
Me myself i am the only person around who has explained the BA catastrophe & the big G catastrophe. Perhaps my most brilliant discovery. I really must brush up on my Swedish.

Yes, when you include the variation in density with radius due to the heavy core (using geological models of the Earth's internal layers), the gravity deviates from the linear calculation above.  No aether required.
Which of your YouTube experts has evidence that the gravitational constant G varies substantially over a scale of the Earth's diameter (or even the Solar System dimensions)?
There have been critics of relativity who suggest a time-dependent variation in G:  serious experimental evidence places an upper limit of such variation at roughly 1 part in 1010 per year, while the accuracy of the experimental value itself has improved to about 22 ppm (NIST recommended values).
« Last Edit: April 07, 2022, 02:10:18 pm by TimFox »
 

Offline aetheristTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #142 on: April 07, 2022, 11:44:21 pm »
"The acceleration of the aetherwind inside Earth will reach a max at some depth, & hence gravity will reach a max at that depth. Skoolkids of course all wrongly (today) think that gravity is a max at the surface (so did i)."

Isaac Newton showed that in the interior of a sphere (assuming that the mass density is only a function of the radius), the gravitational force at a point is that of the sphere whose radius equals that of the point. 
The gravitational forces due to the shell outside that radius cancels out.  Consult any textbook about that.
Now, to keep things simple, let us assume that the mass density within the earth is a constant W.
The gravitational force at a radius r inside the sphere is therefore:
     F = GMm/r2, where G is Newton's universal gravitational constant, m is the mass of the test object at that radius and M is the mass of the sphere inside that radius. 
That mass  M = WV, where W is the volume density and V = (4pi/3)r3 is the volume of the sphere inside the radius.
The "strength" or acceleration of gravity is g = F/m.
Therefore, as a function of radius inside the sphere, the acceleration of gravity is
     g = GM/r2 = (G/r2) x WV = (G/r2)x(4pi/3)GWr3 = (4pi/3)xGWxr,
which is directly proportional to r, the radius from the center of the sphere.
This is the physics class calculation:  a civil engineer can then introduce the dependence of the mass density W with radius r and get a slightly different answer, but it will still go to zero at the center.
Yes i am ok with all of that. Yes, the reason for the max g being at some depth is that the density is much greater in the say iron core. And yes the gravity is always zero near center.

BA.   However, all of that reminds me of the borehole anomaly. It has been found that the decrease of g with depth does not follow Newton.
G.   And, the measurement of Newton's big G indicates that big G is not a constant.
Me myself i am the only person around who has explained the BA catastrophe & the big G catastrophe. Perhaps my most brilliant discovery. I really must brush up on my Swedish.
Yes, when you include the variation in density with radius due to the heavy core (using geological models of the Earth's internal layers), the gravity deviates from the linear calculation above.  No aether required.
Which of your YouTube experts has evidence that the gravitational constant G varies substantially over a scale of the Earth's diameter (or even the Solar System dimensions)?
There have been critics of relativity who suggest a time-dependent variation in G:  serious experimental evidence places an upper limit of such variation at roughly 1 part in 1010 per year, while the accuracy of the experimental value itself has improved to about 22 ppm (NIST recommended values).
I have not looked at the latest numbers, but in 2005 the spread was 6.66742 plus or minus 0.0100, which is plus or minus  0.15%, which is plus or minus 1500 ppm, which they somehow claim is plus or minus 150 ppm.

I remember that various teams reported that their measurements of bigG on the surface of the Earth varied with time & location & time of year, ie after correcting for the usual.

Instruments might well measure to plus or minus 22 ppm, but bigG seems to vary by plus or minus  1500 ppm.
Aether theory might explain why bigG varies. I haven’t looked at the problem very closely.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2022, 11:46:18 pm by aetherist »
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #143 on: April 08, 2022, 01:29:02 am »
Note that none of this discussion implies that G varies with space over dimensions comparable to the Earth.  There is speculation that G may vary slightly over time in a roughly periodic fashion.
Traditional measurements of G are extremely difficult:  some new quantum measurements (which still have largish uncertainties) may solve the question when they are improved sufficiently to get better repeatability.
Above all of this is an interesting phenomenon sometimes called "intellectual phase lock", which has been seen in the measurement of other fundamental constants over the years:  when you are setting up a difficult precision measurement, you first check to see if it is in the ballpark of the previous measurements, until the performance and uncertainty of the measurement technology improves to the point where you get a largish difference in the new value.

The status of the journal "Progress in Physics" is, shall we say, controversial.  It's history seems somewhat like that of social media.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2022, 01:31:30 am by TimFox »
 

Offline aetheristTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #144 on: April 08, 2022, 01:52:05 am »
Note that none of this discussion implies that G varies with space over dimensions comparable to the Earth.  There is speculation that G may vary slightly over time in a roughly periodic fashion.
Traditional measurements of G are extremely difficult:  some new quantum measurements (which still have largish uncertainties) may solve the question when they are improved sufficiently to get better repeatability.
Above all of this is an interesting phenomenon sometimes called "intellectual phase lock", which has been seen in the measurement of other fundamental constants over the years:  when you are setting up a difficult precision measurement, you first check to see if it is in the ballpark of the previous measurements, until the performance and uncertainty of the measurement technology improves to the point where you get a largish difference in the new value.

The status of the journal "Progress in Physics" is, shall we say, controversial.  It's history seems somewhat like that of social media.
Interesting.
The same exact paper (i think) was in arxiv Physics.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0512109.pdf
BigG duznt have to be very accurate to get good numbers for orbits etc, koz they use mGs (for each planet & Sun etc), & mGs are known very accurately.
But if the STR explanation for mmf near a wire has to include a frame correction for force, then the bigG teams should have STR & GTR corrections for their bigG measurements. I suppose that they do (i am too lazy to check).
Aetherwind would demand some kind of corrections for bigG too.
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #145 on: April 08, 2022, 03:03:00 am »
arXiv physics has a similar reputation.  It is a collection of pre-prints, many of which are thereafter submitted to peer-reviewed journals.
 

Offline aetheristTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #146 on: April 08, 2022, 10:11:42 am »
It has been said (Maxwell?) that a beam of electrons in vacuo creates a surrounding magnetic field identical to that found around a current carrying wire.
However, an electron beam in vacuo does not have an associated line of protons that can be length contracted by STR.
Hence, the magnetic field around an electron beam can't have an STR explanation.
Does that falsify the STR explanation for mmf?

A single solitary lone electron flying past at speed in vacuo has they say a surrounding magnetic field.
Here, again, there is no associated line of protons. There aint even a line of electrons.
Does that falsify the STR explanation for mmf?
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #147 on: April 08, 2022, 12:39:59 pm »
The standard explanation of this apparent discrepancy is that in Purcell's discussion of a copper wire, the wire itself is electrostatically neutral (equal positive and negative charges), so that the forces due to relative motion of the charge carriers is in addition to zero electrostatic force.
In the case of a beam of charged particles moving through vacuum, the beam is not neutral (it has a net charge), so electrostatic forces exist outside the beam.  The motion of the charged particles in the beam produces additional forces which are magnetic.
 

Offline aetheristTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #148 on: April 08, 2022, 09:06:57 pm »
The standard explanation of this apparent discrepancy is that in Purcell's discussion of a copper wire, the wire itself is electrostatically neutral (equal positive and negative charges), so that the forces due to relative motion of the charge carriers is in addition to zero electrostatic force.
In the case of a beam of charged particles moving through vacuum, the beam is not neutral (it has a net charge), so electrostatic forces exist outside the beam.  The motion of the charged particles in the beam produces additional forces which are magnetic.
Has anyone ever measured a wire-like magnetic field around an electron beam?
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #149 on: April 08, 2022, 09:24:15 pm »
Yes.  There are commercial sources for vacuum-compatible search coils that can sense a pulsed beam of charged particles flowing through the hole in the coil.
Here is one commercial source with several different coil configurations built into vacuum flanges:  https://www.bergoz.com/products/
A coil senses the time-derivative of the magnetic field around the beam, dBdt, as the pulsed beam goes through it.
Here is a tutorial from Fermilab about various "beam diagnostics", including measuring the field induced by the beam current, similar to how clamp-on ammeters measure normal AC through an insulated wire.
https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2000/conf/Conf-00-119.pdf
 
The following users thanked this post: HuronKing


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf