IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: 3D Magnetic field rotation of light
Topic Summary:
Created On: 10 February 2014 09:02 AM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 3 Previous Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 07 March 2014 06:29 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 153
Joined: 30 June 2007

Z your quote

"3D magnoflux energy"; I assume this term is entirely your own: it has no meaning. (flux is concerned with two-dimensional areas and surfaces; energy - a scalar - is a property that is the measure of the ability to do work).

The idea that energy is a scalar numeric is exactly why we need to re-examine our physical concepts.
Energy is 3 dimensional. Energy can be massless. Energy is measured in Joules or Watt-seconds or some exact equivalents.
Energy can be intensified by squashing it into a smaller volume of space.
Where are the equations that explain these phenomena?
CliveS
 07 March 2014 10:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ectophile

Posts: 541
Joined: 17 September 2001

I'm still utterly baffled as to what point you are trying to make, and why you think any new Physics is required.

I can't help thinking of a phrase from Wolfgang Pauli: "it's not even wrong" (Wikipedia link)

-------------------------
S P Barker BSc PhD MIET
 08 March 2014 08:40 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zuiko

Posts: 521
Joined: 14 September 2010

Originally posted by: acsinuk
Energy can be intensified by squashing it into a smaller volume of space.

Where are the equations that explain these phenomena?

CliveS


I think this question betrays why you are confused.



Energy available in a given volume of something at given conditions (the work that this this something can do) is the energy density (of that something).

Efficiency is dependent on the means of extracting that energy. If you burned petrol (a chemical reaction) more work could be done than if you burned a chocolate bar.


Energy in a given mass (Joule per kilogramme) is the specific energy.

W

Edited: 08 March 2014 at 04:23 PM by Zuiko
 08 March 2014 12:02 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1040
Joined: 05 September 2004

Originally posted by: ectophile


I can't help thinking of a phrase from Wolfgang Pauli: "it's not even wrong" (Wikipedia link)


There is a pre-Pauli version of the "Not Even Wrong" type statement given by the physicist Arthur Schuster in 1911,

"We all prefer being right to being wrong, but it is better to be wrong than to be neither right nor wrong"

Arthur Schuster (1911), "The Progress of Physics", Cambridge University Press, p.117.

For the context of this quote online, see for example here

Schuster spend a year at the University of Heidelberg studying under Gustav Kirchhoff. So the above sentiment may have pre-existed Pauli in the German aural tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schuster


-------------------------
James Arathoon
 08 March 2014 04:28 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zuiko

Posts: 521
Joined: 14 September 2010

Originally posted by: acsinuk
Energy is 3 dimensional.


Assuming you mean three dimensions of length (which is the common meaning of three-dimensional) then, no.

Originally posted by: acsinuk
Energy is measured in Joules or Watt-seconds or some exact equivalents.


These units do not have the dimension L^3, so you have contradicted yourself.

You should always do a dimensional analysis to ensure that your calculations are correct.

Edited: 08 March 2014 at 04:51 PM by Zuiko
 09 March 2014 10:55 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 153
Joined: 30 June 2007

Yes, 3D usually means volume dimensionally but how do you describe massless energy in the MKS system.
3D magnoflux energy could more correctly be called 3D Maxwellian electromagnetic energy.
In Maxwells equations there are no references to matter or mass, only abstract references to rates of change of 3D current flux twisting movements. From this we can deduce that kilograms[K] are not fundamental to energy only length[L] and time[S] which means that matter is a secondard derived unit of fundamental EM energy.
So we need to modify and expand the MKS system; but how??
As matter is made from electric charge I T at right angles to voltageV,
could be we should replace MKS with MVIS system and rewrite the physics accordingly.
CliveS
 10 March 2014 09:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

Reading through the above posts reminds me of that long-ago popular song "the music goes around and around ... ". I must offer my (useless) congratulations to Zuiko who appears to be the one original thinker.

The basic problem in all these discussions is right back with the Michelson-Morley experiment; it was brilliantly conceived and executed but produced an entirely unacceptable result namely that light travels between two points (A and B ) at a speed which is independent of any relative motion between A and B . Whatever your church you cannot possibly accept that interpretation although of course you must accept the experimental result?

It is always seemed to me that if anything moves between A and B then it has to be in the direction that it orthogonal to the line AB ? For many years, although I felt driven to accept my conclusion, I was at a loss to find a mechanism. However I found comfort in the fact that Heaviside had an intuitive faith in his operational calculus even though he could not prove it?.

Today I have found a mechanism which, true or false, offers a resolution to my personal problem but which has poked its nose into almost every branch of science in which we dabble. Needless to say that, in going off onto an unbeaten track, I have been obliged to shoot many sacred cows which alone will get me drummed out of the Brownies.

Think on these things and see if the floundering around does not abate:
light does not travel in a straight line between A and B ; rather is it an illusion.
To talk of the propagation speed of light is therefore a matter of whimsy.
Energy was a concept brought in to help in explanations that otherwise were not getting anywhere; it too is a whimsy.

Einstein's (in)famous equation is wrong; the inverse proportion is between the force of gravity and a similar force of radiation; the constant of proportionality is Mass (much more acceptable than this square of an ephemeral velocity).
Apply this last to cosmological calculations and the mystery of "Dark Matter" has gone away.

That is probably enough indigestion for the time being?

Ken Green
 11 March 2014 12:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zuiko

Posts: 521
Joined: 14 September 2010

Originally posted by: kengreen
The basic problem in all these discussions is right back with the Michelson-Morley experiment; it was brilliantly conceived and executed but produced an entirely unacceptable result namely that light travels between two points (A and B ) at a speed which is independent of any relative motion between A and B.



This was the genius of Einstein - he "proved" (I put it in quotes because all theories may at some point be disproven) that objects do not move in three dimensional space (or two dimensional if along a straight line as in your example) but in four-dimensional spacetime.

And that ALL objects are moving at the same rate through spacetime.

i.e. all objects have the same spacetime "quota" regardless of their displacement through space or time: sat in your armchair, you are moving through spacetime at the same rate as a beam of light.

By sitting still in your chair, you are using all your spacetime quota on moving through time and none on moving through space (I say none, but relative to the centre of the Milky Way, you are hurtling along!); whereas a beam of light uses all its spacetime quota on moving though space and none on time. In effect, time for a light beam has stopped: for it, getting from one end of the universe to another happens in an instant.


So, that was Einstein's genius: he realized that an object is not merely moving from A - B; it is moving from A - B through time; and time, like motion, is relative. What is constant, for everything, is the spacetime quota: the velocity through spacetime.


This has been proven to such accuracy that is as near to a fact as can be possible in science. For example, the clocks on GPS satellites run fast by about 40 micro seconds per day than clocks on earth; and this is corrected for so that our GPS systems work.

(though things get tricky at atomic scales, where space and time merge together into a fog and become indistinguishable).

Edited: 11 March 2014 at 01:11 PM by Zuiko
 11 March 2014 02:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

No Zuiko,

Most definitely must I take issue with you over the totally unacceptable proposition that time (as a vector) can be combined with the three non-challengeable dimensions of space to form that ridiculous issue from the human mind; namely "Space-Time". The proposition is simply not acceptable even if it succeeded in digging Einstein out of a hole!

Sorry, dear boy, but your reply ducks the question; the thing that was proven by the M-M experiment was that the two gentlemen were not measuring the speed at which light propagates - they sincerely believed that they were - but were in fact measuring some quite different parameter and, if you make two measurements on the same thing then you should not express surprise that they are revealed as identical.

By and large Einstein based his formula on that faulse conclusion (blame cannot be attributed to him) but, if you start off on the wrong track it is inevitable that you arrive possibly nowhere?

In my 45-year struggle I went all the way back to the MM experiment and started afresh while rejecting the early comparison between newly-discovered galvanism and the water technology of the day. It was a long and difficult journey but I came out with an explanation which makes modern day Physics a disaster.

Ken Green
 11 March 2014 02:28 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

No Zuiko,

Most definitely must I take issue with you over the totally unacceptable proposition that time (as a vector) can be combined with the three non-challengeable dimensions of space to form that ridiculous issue from the human mind; namely "Space-Time". The proposition is simply not acceptable even if it succeeded in digging Einstein out of a hole!

Sorry, dear boy, but your reply ducks the question; the thing that was proven by the M-M experiment was that the two gentlemen were not measuring the speed at which light propagates - they sincerely believed that they were - but were in fact measuring some quite different parameter and, if you make two measurements on the same thing then you should not express surprise that they are revealed as identical.

By and large Einstein based his formula on that faulse conclusion (blame cannot be attributed to him) but, if you start off on the wrong track it is inevitable that you arrive possibly nowhere?

In my 45-year struggle I went all the way back to the MM experiment and started afresh while rejecting the early comparison between newly-discovered galvanism and the water technology of the day. It was a long and difficult journey but I came out with an explanation which makes modern day Physics a disaster.

Ken Green
 11 March 2014 02:49 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zuiko

Posts: 521
Joined: 14 September 2010

Originally posted by: kengreen

Most definitely must I take issue with you over the totally unacceptable proposition that time (as a vector) can be combined with the three non-challengeable dimensions of space to form that ridiculous issue from the human mind; namely "Space-Time". The proposition is simply not acceptable even if it succeeded in digging Einstein out of a hole!



Whether or not it is acceptable to you is irrelevent.

It is true!

Proving otherwise will be a very difficult thing to do: greater minds than us have been trying to do so for a nearly one-hundred years. Everyone has failed.



Might I suggest that your difficulty (and all our difficulties) in understanding spacetime is that our brains have evolved to make a clear distinction between the two. It helped our ancestors to be able to make a (false) distinction between the time the prey got from A-B and the distance their prey travelled in that time. Whilst that makes sense on the flat African savannah to primitive hunters with slow (relatively speaking) brains and bodies, if we measure the universe with accuracy, the common sense of our hunter-ancestors will not work. It took a million years for a human to make the leap of intellect to see how objects really move through time and space. No wonder, a mere 100 years later, we still struggle with the concept.




If a gun is fired on a train, and the bullet leaves the muzzle at 1,000 mph and the train is going 300 mph, how fast is the bullet going?

Edited: 11 March 2014 at 04:39 PM by Zuiko
 11 March 2014 07:57 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

This time I could well write YES Zuiko; I admire a man who can stand by his convictions - why else am I so comfortable with myself :-) ?

For all our marvellous methods of making unbelievable measurements and calculations it still remains a fact that the probe now well on its way into deep space is reportedly drifting off course - a phenomenon it seems that the best brains we have are unable to explain; i.e. we are not half so well informed as we would like to believe.

I would challenge your confident statements reference space-time and the development of our brains which, undoubtedly, were evolved to work in terms of outline shapes long before Man appeared which must have been much longer before communication using words?

I do not pretend that my work in any way provides an alternative to Physics - rather it stands alongside. To distinguish The Physics with which I earned a living from the NEW stuff with which I played in my spare time I removed the PHY from physics and replaced it with my initials (KHG); the resulting word of course is not pronounceable, which is probably in order, but I refer to it as KIZZICKS.

I find that it works as well as Physics and, in many ways, it is superior to Physics and so drives my thinking today. Sorry but once again I must beg pardon for finding your last Post to be incomprehensible in that it is a series of accepted statements rather than a reasoned argument.

The Science that we have developed here on Earth is only an offshoot of the scientific process that wends its way without concern throughout the boundless Space.

I'm sure that if you can put aside your lifetime addiction you can move forward a surprising way.

Ken Green
 11 March 2014 11:15 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zuiko

Posts: 521
Joined: 14 September 2010

okay, moving forwards,

what is the kizzicks solution to the moving clock?


Two identical synchronised clocks. One is put on a jet aeroplane and flown around the world. It is then compared to the indentical clock that remained at rest and is found to be running slow.

The experiment is repeated, but the aeroplane is flown faster. The faster the plane flies, the slower the aeroplane's clock is compared to the clock at rest.


What is the difference in time, dt? and why?

dt = ?
 12 March 2014 12:40 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

Yes Zuiko, that scores as a very good question. Afraid I cannot offer a reasoned explanation any more than could those confronted by the MM results. I am of course tempted to say that probably our clocks do not measure the parameter at which we are aiming but that is much too easy. Do we really know exactly what we mean xxbxy by TIME ? In fact it is a question which has perplexed me for perhaps 20 years or more but ... ...?

If you want to delve further into my delusions try Googling for (exactly as I write it) ,

" Khgisics "

(The first "i" is an error in production.)
(Other errors arise from my ongoing battle with the Dragon!)

Ken Green
 12 March 2014 09:27 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zuiko

Posts: 521
Joined: 14 September 2010

Well, the present answer, provided by Einstein, is an equation that, when written out, is about an inch long. It is as simple as pythagoras' theorem (which it has a lot in common with) - school children can use it.

And it has been proven to be accurate every single time it has been experimentally tested. And of course, extremely useful in modern technology.

A better explanation that Einstein's has to be pretty damned good; so it stands to reason that if you are going to try to disprove, or improve his theories which everybody has failed to do, then that one - moving clocks run slow - is where to start.


Einstein defined time as the interval between two events measured by an accurate clock. Space as the 3-dimensional distance between these two events, and spacetime as a combination of the two. And the genius was, that everybody's and everything has the same velocity through spacetime. Which is quite something.


Other scientists will say that time is an increase in entropy - which is just a corollory of Einstein's explanation.





Philosophers tend to make things a lot more confusing, without adding anything useful.

And of course, it accelerates as we get older!

Edited: 12 March 2014 at 10:46 AM by Zuiko
 12 March 2014 09:54 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

Dear Zuiko,

Having slept on it I decided to give you my thoughts on the flying clock problem. When it is claimed that the flown clock is running more slowly it is, if I may say so, a superficial, seemingly-obvious and far from being rigourous conclusion.

For sake of argument assume that the clocks do in fact remain synchronous. Before the flight the clocks are also moving over the same path again in synchrony but it is much too glib to assume that, as the Earth rotates, they follow a circular path?

In truth that is correct where the point of reference is the centre of the Earth. In itself the Earth is rotating about the centre of the Sun which in turn is pursuing a circular track as it circulates with the Galaxy - we have no idea of the path pursued by the Galaxy?

Let's start by simplifying the model. Both clocks are moving in a circular path about the Sun but the Sun's relative motion is a disturbing force that must result in precession? BUT

(a) Would precession, in terms of distance travelled, be the same for the earthbound (reference) clock as for the in-flight clock?

(b) sorry, I can't recall my second query but it is of only minimal importance in view of the other processions which I have mentioned above.
The mathematics involved is way beyond my abilities and it always has been so.

(c) such an experiment would need to be repeated with the reference clock located on Earth's equator and with the in-flight clock flown at aeroplane height, again at sub-orbital height, again above free-fall height and yet again way out toward free space? Yet again following a polar great circle and, to be thorough, a great circle midway between. It would be most interesting to give all the data to someone capable of crunching it. Frankly I have no idea as to the possible/probable result.

In putting me down a few Posts back you used the expression "it's true"? Allow me to say that possibly the both difficult of conclusions involves knowing ALL the facts and deducing from them what exactly Is Truth :-) ?


And you continue to throw at me the well -worn accepted platitudes.
Ken Green
 12 March 2014 11:00 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zuiko

Posts: 521
Joined: 14 September 2010

The point of reference is any point you choose to make. This is the entire point of "relative" motion. A clock moving relative to another will run slower. You are free to choose your point of reference (after all, your point of reference is relative to all others, so it makes no difference)


a) The moving clock, relative to the stationary clock, has travelled the circumference of the earth futher than the stationary clock.

c) Such experiments have been done, and much of our technology exploits time dilation. Moving clocks run slow. They also shrink along the dimension that they are moving.


If you have "no idea of the result of such an experiment" why on earth do you think that the present explanation (which you do not care for is wrong and needs improving? That makes no logical sense.
 12 March 2014 01:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

0h Zuiko,
the
I fear that you will never be A follower of Ken Green - probably like me you are getting too old to change horses :-) ?

You will write of "time dilation" and of the Lorenzt' contraction both of which belong in the field of Physics whereas my points arise from Khgsics; you are defending a whimsical barrier.

One of my main points is that, in free space, there are no reference points or signposts of any sort. Of course, like Euclid, you can make a bland statement such that "let A be any point" but even with a fully working and properly calibrated Inertial Navigation System you could only navigate reference to that point A - and in space the 20,000-dollar question is "where in hell is Point A situated?

If we are to hold a logical argument you must abandon that Physics of yours which is based absolutely and entirely on earthbound experiences. I dispute entirely on logical grounds your statement that "moving clocks run slow" - the only statement that you are entitled to make is that "moving clocks APPEAR to run slow "?

The whole basis of my book is that accepted physics is falling over its sloppy interpretations which were more than forgiveable in the past. I am urging scientists to stop taking the easy path and try a little trail-breaking.

Ken Green
 12 March 2014 01:57 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zuiko

Posts: 521
Joined: 14 September 2010

Lets get this right - you are saying an accepted and proven theory is sloppy, yet when you are asked about the failings of this theory you are unable to answer because you do not understand it?

What if you take, rather than the easy path, the difficult path and try to understand an existing problem prior to making an incorrect solution to a problem you do not understand?

Let me make the assertation that the sloppiness is on your part, and that a first step would be to find a solution to a real problem in physics rather than a problem in your understanding of physics (which your questions betray)?

cheers
W


PS your statement "moving clocks APPEAR to run slow" is the same as saying "stationary clocks APPEAR to run on time". It is all relative, which is the point you are finding difficult to grasp.
 12 March 2014 04:43 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

Hey,

Hang on there a moment - it seems to me that perhaps you could benefit from the services of a good mirrorJ?

I drifted into Khgsics precisely because I wished for explanations of the many idiocies and contradictions that are sprinkled throughout our study called Physics. Explanations were there none because my elders and peers alike were only interested in sweeping the problems under somebody else's carpet.

The problem of relative values are well understood by me because I never take someone else's word - rather do I insist on working it out for myself and on this basis I found your physics to be imponderable bewildering and often nonsensical!

For instance, do you consider that a free wandering spacecraft could navigate in space using Inertial Navigation? All navigation requires a starting point and, out in space, should you lose contact with your launch site you would be irrevocably lost! Finding your way back home could only be a slice of unbelievable luck.

Are you aware of the difference between doing Physics here on Earth and performing the same studies out in free space? The question cannot be answered simply because it is not possible to carry out the necessary experiments but that does not by any means negate that question. In the same manner most of the ripostes that you offer are just accepted pie-in-the-sky.

I know that this will create the joke of the century but, unless I am certifiable, why have I spent most of my spare time over the last 50 years trying to make sense of it.

Ken Green
IET » Energy » 3D Magnetic field rotation of light

<< 1 2 3 Previous Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.