And i did it.
You did? I must've missed that - perhaps you can repeat it (this time not ignoring any corrections the kindly Tim Fox has pointed out).(ie the silly STR cause of mmf)
You do realise that in repeating that kind of thing you are essentially saying to everyone else here "you are silly and stupid", which is not really a good way to get people on-side before you even start trying to explain stuff. There is no need to be a troll other than to wind people up - is that what you're here for?
Here below i have shown copies of parts of some of my Replys. Not one has been debunked (u ask that i not ignore any corrections)(there were no corrections).
When i say "the silly STR cause of mmf" I am not saying that everyone here is silly & stupid. I am emphasising that the STR cause of mmf is silly, & that STR itself is silly. I realize that some years ago i too believed in STR etc. It took say one year of googling before i realised the real nature & failings of STR. I was shocked. Now, 13 yrs later, i am still learning. I don’t expect everyone here to be as interested in STR as me.
However, the STR explanation of mmf around a wire is an electrical thing & should of course interest everyone around here, but a proper (full) understanding of that there explanation needs a study of STR itself, taking years, few around here would be that interested, that’s ok, that duznt make anyone silly or stupid.
Reply#5.
The Veritasium youtube etc tells us that drifting electrons drifting at (Veritasium says) 0.3 mm/s in the lab frame have the same spacings (center to center) as the Cu nuclei (ie protons)(which are stationary in the lab frame). Veritasium & Co have to invoke that postulate, koz they know that a stationary charge is not attracted or repelled by a wire carrying an electric current. But, if, when there is zero electric current, the electron to electron spacing is the same as the proton to proton spacing, then, when the current is turned on, & electrons drift, surely STR demands that in the lab frame the electron to electron spacing will be contracted. In which case the wire will have a negative charge in the lab frame.
Reply#11.
One more catastrophe which might qualify as STRIKE-2. While Veritasium's kitty & The Science Asylum's squirrel are moving along at say 0.03 mm/s in the drifting electron frame, they suffer a repulsion due to the excess of positive charge in the wire, due to the length contraction of the spacing of the protons. What Veritasium & Co failed to tell us is that the kitty & the squirrel were carrying magnetic compasses, & the compasses reacted to the magnetic field, in the same way that they always react, even tho the kitty & squirrel & compasses were moving at 0.03 mm/s. And they failed to tell us that the compasses reacted exactly in that same way (to the magnetic field) at any & every speed (eg -3 mm/s, 00 mm/s, + 3 mm/s)(or at any speed that u might care to nominate). In other words, the kitty & squirrel got (can get) a double dose of magnetomotive force. They get the standard magnetomotive force from the magnetic field (which exists at all velocities), plus they can get the pseudo STR magnetomotive force (which varies with velocity). What a disaster. But there are lots more disasters to follow.
Reply#20.
Here (below in italics)(& in the linked pdf)(& in the three jpg attached below) is what Purcell says in his own version of the pathetic Einsteinian attempt to wave away this STR catastrophe (that i call STRIKE-1).
https://cdn.bc-pf.org/resources/physics/Theory/Purcell-electricity_and_magnetism_3rd_edition.pdfI say that we all agree that there is zero force on a stationary test charge in the lab frame when there is no electric current in the stationary wire. I say that Einsteinists (eg Purcell) need to explain why the force remains zero, when the current is switched on. I say that (when the current is switched on) STR demands that the electron to electron spacings of the conduction electrons must (suddenly) contract, due to their (sudden) drift velocity, in which case the wire must (suddenly) have a nett negative charge, in which case the (say positive)(stationary) test charge must be (suddenly) attracted. But, Einsteinists wave away this obvious catastrophe by working backwards. (1) They admit that we all know that there is zero force (after the current is switched on), & (2) then they say that this zero force can only be zero if the electron to electron spacings of the (now) drifting electrons are the same as the (stationary) proton to proton spacings, & (3) then they explain that – well, actually, they don’t explain, they don’t explain how it is that the electron to electron spacings stay the same, ie before & after the current is switched on. What a disaster.
Reply#27.
There are lots of (stupid) youtubes re the (stupid) STR cause of the mmf near a wire. They all briefly & quietly assert or infer that the electron spacings stay the same, ie before & after the current is switched on. A disaster for STR. I called it STRIKE-1, but that makes it look as if u are allowed a number of strikes – NO – one strike & the STR cause of mmf is out, that game is over. And, if u think about it, STR is also out, that makes it two lost games, each has been struck out with the one pitch, its a case of killing two birds with one stone. When i say STR is also out (falsified), i mean the length contraction part of STR (not the time dilation part).
Reply#29.
So, Purcell & Co say that the center to center spacings of drifting conduction electrons in a wire dilate when the current is switched on. Actually, that is a postulate, alltho Purcell & Co don’t give it that status. They know that raising it to the level of a postulate would be like waving a red flag, & they would rather sneak it into the conversation with zero fanfare. So here below is my version of this postulate (1). And i have composed & added a few other (mostly implicit) postulates (some good)(some bad)(some ugly).
Reply#34.
If u look at Purcell's 3 pages attached to my reply #20, u will see his Fig 5.22 (a) &(b) & (c).
He duznt have a (d) showing the stationary protons & stationary electrons in a stationary wire in the stationary lab frame. No, Purcell is too clever for that. That would emphasise the extent of his fudge/push/lie/nonsense.
Purcell's initial condition is Fig 5.22(a), with the electrons drifting.
Reply#68.
I see that D'Abramo & Jefimenko preceded me in pointing out that Purcell stinx.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.07169.pdfA note on Purcell’s basic explanation of magnetic forces Germano D’Abramo
Abstract. In the 1960s, E.M. Purcell presented a basic explanation of the magnetic force experienced by a test charge moving parallel to a stationary current-carrying wire. According to Purcell’s derivation, this force results from the difference between the relativistic length contraction of the distance among the stationary positive charges of the wire and the relativistic length contraction of the distance among the negative charges moving in the wire, when the charges are observed in the rest frame of the test charge. The contraction difference generates a charge density unbalance that in the rest frame of the test charge is experienced as an electrostatic force, while in the lab frame is perceived as the magnetic force. In the present paper, we show that Purcell’s approach is problematic since it generates inconsistencies and paradoxes. We maintain that Purcell’s derivation has only an illustrative and expository value and should not be taken literally as describing something that really and physically happens in the wire. Furthermore, we believe that the difficulties pointed out here should be explicitly presented and discussed when introducing Purcell’s approach in physics courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels.Reply#78.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.4405&rep=rep1&type=pdfIs magnetic field due to an electric current a relativistic effect? Oleg D Jefimenko
Abstract. 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.Reply#86.
One problem with STR explaining mmf, is that after it explains the mmf, there is still nearly 100% of the mmf (lets call it B') sitting there in parallel with the non-mmf. But, there is no way that B' can contribute any mmf (according to STR). What a disaster.
Reply#158.
A DC beam in a long glass tube would be simpler. But the spinning disc or cylinder reminds me of Kennard's version of the Faraday disc X where Kennard shows a falsification of the STR explanation for mmf around a current carrying wire.
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Kennard.pdf Attached below are pages of Kennard's 1912 paper.
Reply#160.
(1) A glass tube would show whether an electron beam makes a similar mmf to what is found around a wire carrying an electric current. Talking bout steady DC current.
(2a) A glass tube would show whether an electron beam makes an identical mmf to (2b) what is found around a wire carrying an electric current, if the wire is a part of that circuit. Talking bout steady DC current.
Apparently neither test has ever been done. We can be sure of that, koz, if it (one ovem)(or both) had ever been done, then thems who reckon that the sun shines out of Einstein's bum would be crowing about it from rooftops, but they aint, so it haznt. No, i am wrong. They might be crowing if (1) shows an mmf. But they would not be crowing if (2a) equals (2b), koz (2a) has no protons that can length contract. And, if they think about it, they shouldn’t be crowing re (1).
Reply#162.
Faraday (Faraday Disc) proved that STR was wrong back in say 1831, 74 yrs before STR was invented in 1905. Michelson & Morley (MMX) proved that STR was wrong in 1887, 18 yrs before 1905. Kennard (Kennard coil version of Faraday Disc) proved that STR was wrong in 1912. And if an aetherist (or anyone else) ever does that there (2a)(2b)(electron beam in glass tube) experiment then that too will prove that STR is wrong. Funny, there is no way that (2a)(2b) can confirm STR, it can only falsify STR.
Reply#168.
But, if the magnetic field of a steady DC electron beam in vacuo (in a glass tube) is equal to the magnetic field of the wire supplying the steady DC, then this falsifies the STR explanation (ie that it is due to the length contraction of the wire), because there is no wire for the electron beam, there is only vacuum. The vacuum contains spacetime, & i suppose that Einsteinists could claim that the space of the spacetime contracts, but that would i think require that the electrons spacings also contract, which would give the beam a double dose of negative charge, which is the opposite of what Einsteinists are looking for.
Reply#172.
Re Purcell's STR explanation. I will now add that in his final step (of his derivation of the equation) he invokes a relativistic change in the Coulomb force to correct the force to a value seen in the stationary lab frame. However, in STR, charge has the same value in every frame, ie Einsteinists say that charge is invariant. But Purcell says that the force (due to charge) is not invariant. Smells fishy to me. Earlier i pointed out Purcell's mistake/push that he did in his first step, & it looks to me that he adds another in his final step. I think that the 2 pushes are in the same direction, ie they don’t negate each other. If they negated then he would not need them.