Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 129
Like Tree19Likes

Thread: Mahesh's necro of quantum theory thread

  1. #1 Mahesh's necro of quantum theory thread 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    Before 23 years, I had proved that relative velocity may be more than light velocity. CERN proved experimentally that velocity of Neutrinos may be more than light, if this news will be confirmed then that will be new beginning of science. Please read paper "What is matter & dark matter is made up of?" on my web site www.maheshkhati.com. This paper may help to find solution to problems like what is dark matter? & about true relativity. I strongly oppose special theory of relativity because I think that has some basic fundamental problems


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,095
    ‎"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."
    - Albert Einstein, 1954
    Before people mention it, I would also state that Einstein, a self-admitted agnostic, only said so because he did not want to seem ignorant that his "limited" brain capacity could come to a to a final and unambiguous conclusion. He was as unsure about the issue as he was with any of his own theories that we today use in our daily life.


    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
     

  4. #3 Neutrinos velocity in CERN proves Einstein's special theory of relativity is wrong. 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    Before 23 years, I had proved mathematically that relative velocity may be more than light velocity. CERN proved experimentally that velocity of Neutrinos may be more than light, if this news will be confirmed then that will be new beginning of physics.
    Please read paper "What is matter & dark matter is made up of?" on my web site www.maheshkhati.com. This paper may help to find solution to problems like what is dark matter? & about true relativity. I strongly oppose special theory of relativity
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    Before 23 years, I had proved mathematically that relative velocity may be more than light velocity. CERN proved experimentally that velocity of Neutrinos may be more than light, if this news will be confirmed then that will be new beginning of physics.
    Please read paper "What is matter & dark matter is made up of?" on my web site www.maheshkhati.com. This paper may help to find solution to problems like what is dark matter? & about true relativity. I strongly oppose special theory of relativity
    Why have we never heard of your "proof"?
    I intend to carry on accepting the Special Theory of Relativity despite your opposition!
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    Special theory of relativity has many fundamental problems like, inertial frame of reference. Perfect inertial frame of reference is not present in world. every thing is accelerating with relative to other. This galaxy is accelerating with relative to other galaxy, even this world may be accelerating with relative to other world. Pl' visit my web site www.maheshkhati.com. Presently theoretical physics has many challenges like 90 % dark matter is misty for it & if CERN experiment is confirmed. 100 years of journey of physics based on relativity goes to road block. I think this happen due to we try to find solution in wrong way in past 100 years. This world is simple. We complected it by considering photon is super natural & It's only velocity with relative to any body is C & ultimate.
     

  7. #6  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    Before 23 years, I had proved mathematically that relative velocity may be more than light velocity. CERN proved experimentally that velocity of Neutrinos may be more than light, if this news will be confirmed then that will be new beginning of physics.
    Please read paper "What is matter & dark matter is made up of?" on my web site www.maheshkhati.com. This paper may help to find solution to problems like what is dark matter? & about true relativity. I strongly oppose special theory of relativity
    Why have we never heard of your "proof"?
    I intend to carry on accepting the Special Theory of Relativity despite your opposition!
    It's an Interwebz proof, not one acceptable by a peer reviewed journal
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    At the time of Newton. There was no general but law of Newton was accepted by all. Truth may be in any form. at the end of day, truth will be a winner.
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    The uncertainty is, I believe, a small factor in a large picture. Chaos is said to develop into order. If I may use a spiritual example (and God has been mentioned more than once in this thread) the bible is clear that God is all powerful and can do anything including ordering everything, but apparently that "anything" includes leaving things to chance, "Time and chance happen to all men." Ecclesiastes 9:11
    I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
    Ecclesiastes 9:10-12 (in Context) Ecclesiastes 9 (Whole Chapter) Moderator, if this type of answer is not allowed, simply delete it.
    Last edited by Aristarchus in Exile; November 4th, 2011 at 01:09 PM.
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    The uncertainty is, I believe, a small factor in a large picture. Chaos is said to develop into order. If I may use a spiritual example (and God has been mentioned more than once in this thread) the bible is clear that God is all powerful and can do anything including ordering everything, but apparently that "anything" includes leaving things to chance, "Time and chance happen to all men." Ecclesiastes 9:11
    I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
    Ecclesiastes 9:10-12 (in Context) Ecclesiastes 9 (Whole Chapter) Moderator, if this type of answer is not allowed, simply delete it.
    It's not appropriate to post this kind of material in a science forum, but the 2011 necromancy of this thread is pretty much all pseudoscience anyway. Extracted and moved.
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    The uncertainty is, I believe, a small factor in a large picture. Chaos is said to develop into order. If I may use a spiritual example (and God has been mentioned more than once in this thread) the bible is clear that God is all powerful and can do anything including ordering everything, but apparently that "anything" includes leaving things to chance, "Time and chance happen to all men." Ecclesiastes 9:11
    I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
    Ecclesiastes 9:10-12 (in Context) Ecclesiastes 9 (Whole Chapter) Moderator, if this type of answer is not allowed, simply delete it.
    It's not appropriate to post this kind of material in a science forum, but the 2011 necromancy of this thread is pretty much all pseudoscience anyway. Extracted and moved.
    Thank you Harold .. it's nice to find a moderator who is moderate and thoughtful. A genuine pleasure.
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    Perfect inertial frame of reference is not present in world.
    Why on earth is that relevant.

    every thing is accelerating with relative to other.
    Everything is moving relative to everything else - all motion is relative. But that is not true of acceleration. But of course you know that, don't you?

    Pl' visit my web site www.maheshkhati.com.
    It only demonstrates how little you know of physics.
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    I answer your question one by one
    1)Earth is also accelerating. May be angular acceleration around sun or with our galaxy accelerating away from other galaxy but we fill we are in inertial frame of reference because centrifugal force balances with centripetal force (for angular acceleration of earth). This balance create a filling of inertial frame of reference. Man in falling lift also fill, he is stable. No force is acting on him because force of gravity is balances due to force of acceleration acting is completely opposite direction (force form due to continuous change of state of motion). Frame stable with relative to so call inertial frame or moving with same velocity with relative to this frame also fill the same inertial filling.
    Actually every thing is accelerating, earth is accelerating, Sun is accelerating, Galaxy is accelerating, Some day we will find. This world is accelerating with relative to other world. There is no frame in world which is perfectly inertial or stable. Even linearity is also relative, If I draw linear line on earth then from space if rotation of earth is consider it is not linear. So. in my paper "what is matter & dark matter made up of? on my web site www.maheshkhati.com. I say inertial frame of reference is the relativistic concept.
    2)On earth, man on train moving with same velocity is in inertial frame of reference by your concept but this frame is falling with earth in curve direction due to gravity of sun or moving in curve direction with our planetary system in milky way galaxy etc. This things can not be rule out. So, your inertial frame is not inertial but accelerating.
     

  14. #13 Mahesh you are funny 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    Well, I came across this Mahesh and I couldn't help but to laugh out loud. Please do go to his website if you want to be BLOWN AWAY by his proof of why E = MC^2 - and how he uses that "proof" to "show" that tachyons move faster than light...hahaha this pseudo-science is just hillarious.
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    World don't believe on dark matter, dark energy, dual nature of particle & even don't think that Neutrino can have velocity more than light at first instant but now, these are basic problems of physics but some thing is seriously missing in modern physics, so such problems are created. I try to answer this problem in simplest way. I may be wrong in some thoughts but I am not completely wrong. Tomorrow some of my thoughts may give way to solution of these problems. This may be time to think again from scratch. Thanks for your comments.
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    Wow - where do I begin.
    I am pretty sure that you have NO idea about the current standing of the Physics community on those issues. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are very real - we just don't know what they are yet. Your microsoft word 6th grade algebra is NOT an explanation for any of those two options. You lack any sort of astronomical, cosmological, relativistic, quantum mechanical, or mathematical background to assess any of those issues. For the record, wave particle duality is well established experimentally and theoretically (I would refer you to wikipedia, but I don't think you'd be able to follow based on your "research" which I have had the chance to look over today). And your explanation for tachyons is fascinating. In a nutshell, you say: If we have a spin, there is an associated E_spin.
    Then: E = 0.5mc^2 + Espin = 0.5mv^2 ==> v > c!
    Where do I start - you show complete ignorance of what spin is, as well as how relativity works. You cannot just postulate that you can have energy above the relativistic limit, and then claim that for this to happen v is greater than c! It is circular reasoning, and plain wrong as you are assuming that the relativistic energy is 0.5mc^2... emmm no. E^2 = m^2 + p^2 in natural units. This is verified. From this equation, plus QM - we get Quantum field theory, which is the best tested physical theory we have. Even if it turns out that neutrinos are faster than the speed of light, which may be just an honest mistake, that would just mean that we have found a breach in our current understanding of Physics that would have to be generalized to include such results - and this is where you fail!
    Don't pretend you have anything valuable to provide -
    John Galt and Markus Hanke like this.
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by diegocaba View Post
    Well, I came across this Mahesh and I couldn't help but to laugh out loud. Please do go to his website if you want to be BLOWN AWAY by his proof of why E = MC^2 - and how he uses that "proof" to "show" that tachyons move faster than light...hahaha this pseudo-science is just hillarious.
    The second CERN test confirms their first, that neutrinos can move faster than light.

    Because we understand time so poorly I often think that E=MC2 should have a time factor other than
    what is included in the equation.
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    No! You cannot say that it has been shown that neutrinos are faster than light until at least another experiment has confirmed the results, that is the basic principle of experimental science: data has to be recreatable!! No one at CERN or OPERA is claiming that neutrinos move at speeds faster than c categorically - they are being honest scientifically and putting these baffling results out there so the community can debug them.

    However, even if they do move faster than light - so what! It just means that we will have discovered a new regime in which relativity is not valid, and mind you neutrinos are the "ideal" candidate for this as we really don't understand their properties - it is the only fundamental particle that we know of that has properties that don't fit in the standard model, namely their flavour oscillations. It is interesting to note that if neutrinos are tachyons, they would have to have a form of "imaginary mass" - a property that could be connected to flavour oscillations because the amplitude of neutrino oscillation is directly proportional to the change in mass between the different neutrino types.
    It would be MUCH more shattering if they had found that electrons, or quarks, are moving faster than light.

    And regarding your naive point about how little we know about "time" - em... time is built into the development of E=mc^2. The main tenant of both special and general relativity is that time is another coordingate in Minkowski space (a generalization of "normal" Euclidean space), and from that we derive that mass is a form of energy. The real equation from which the mediatic E = mc^2 comes from is, as I said before, E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2, where p is momentum and thus a function of time, just as E is a function of time, and m here is the rest mass. So time IS built into the equation, it just happens that the more elegant and simplified way to write it is without time explicitely written out.
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by diegocaba View Post
    No! You cannot say that it has been shown that neutrinos are faster than light until at least another experiment has confirmed the results, that is the basic principle of experimental science: data has to be recreatable!! No one at CERN or OPERA is claiming that neutrinos move at speeds faster than c categorically - they are being honest scientifically and putting these baffling results out there so the community can debug them.

    However, even if they do move faster than light - so what! It just means that we will have discovered a new regime in which relativity is not valid, and mind you neutrinos are the "ideal" candidate for this as we really don't understand their properties - it is the only fundamental particle that we know of that has properties that don't fit in the standard model, namely their flavour oscillations. It is interesting to note that if neutrinos are tachyons, they would have to have a form of "imaginary mass" - a property that could be connected to flavour oscillations because the amplitude of neutrino oscillation is directly proportional to the change in mass between the different neutrino types.
    It would be MUCH more shattering if they had found that electrons, or quarks, are moving faster than light.

    And regarding your naive point about how little we know about "time" - em... time is built into the development of E=mc^2. The main tenant of both special and general relativity is that time is another coordingate in Minkowski space (a generalization of "normal" Euclidean space), and from that we derive that mass is a form of energy. The real equation from which the mediatic E = mc^2 comes from is, as I said before, E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2, where p is momentum and thus a function of time, just as E is a function of time, and m here is the rest mass. So time IS built into the equation, it just happens that the more elegant and simplified way to write it is without time explicitely written out.
    CERN did the second test and confirmed the first .. it was announced in the newspapers yesterday. Just found this: http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/73798.html

    I'm not a mathematician. What does the symbol ^ stand for?
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24


    ... a DIFFERENT experiment has to verify it, if there is an unknown systematic error of course the same experiment will yield the same results. And they didn't do a "second test" - they merely got rid of a few assumptions, but ran the same data through their analysis, and even though their statistics are worse, the results are still confirmed. A systematic error in the equipment or in their analysis is still not dismissed. It will take at least 3 or 4 years for Minos to confirm or debunk the results.

    I'm done with this thread if you can't read basic algebra
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by diegocaba View Post


    ... a DIFFERENT experiment has to verify it, if there is an unknown systematic error of course the same experiment will yield the same results. And they didn't do a "second test" - they merely got rid of a few assumptions, but ran the same data through their analysis, and even though their statistics are worse, the results are still confirmed. A systematic error in the equipment or in their analysis is still not dismissed. It will take at least 3 or 4 years for Minos to confirm or debunk the results.

    I'm done with this thread if you can't read basic algebra
    From the url: "Researchers whose experiments weeks ago resulted in what appeared to be sub-atomic particles traveling faster than the speed of light recently sharpened their experiment and conducted it again. The result: Same thing."

    Should I be done with you just because you won't click on or read a url provided as substantiation for a statement?
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    [
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by diegocaba View Post


    ... a DIFFERENT experiment has to verify it, if there is an unknown systematic error of course the same experiment will yield the same results. And they didn't do a "second test" - they merely got rid of a few assumptions, but ran the same data through their analysis, and even though their statistics are worse, the results are still confirmed. A systematic error in the equipment or in their analysis is still not dismissed. It will take at least 3 or 4 years for Minos to confirm or debunk the results.

    I'm done with this thread if you can't read basic algebra
    From the url: "Researchers whose experiments weeks ago resulted in what appeared to be sub-atomic particles traveling faster than the speed of light recently sharpened their experiment and conducted it again. The result: Same thing."

    Should I be done with you just because you won't click on or read a url provided as substantiation for a statement?

    Quoting from your article:

    "I am not sure what more they can do using this experiment," Witherell added. "At this point, the only thing that will really change our understanding is to have one or more experiments agree or disagree with Opera's measurement."
    Last edited by diegocaba; November 23rd, 2011 at 11:59 AM.
     

  23. #22  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    I'm not a mathematician. What does the symbol ^ stand for?
    Exponentiation.

    E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
    means:
    E2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2

    And no, we don't yet know if neutrinos can travel faster than light. I wouldn't put money on it.
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    I'm not a mathematician. What does the symbol ^ stand for?
    Exponentiation.

    E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
    means:
    E2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2

    And no, we don't yet know if neutrinos can travel faster than light. I wouldn't put money on it.
    Thank you, Strange. I had looked it up in Wikipedia also. Not having a formal science education has, I think, allowed me to be more free thinking, allowing me to come up with, for instance, anti-gravity bubbles as cause or partial cause for expansion of the universe.
     

  25. #24  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Not having a formal science education has, I think, allowed me to be more free thinking ...
    It also allows you to be more wrong. And not even know you are wrong.

    And I don't mean this as any sort of insult. It is just that if you don't know much about something, how much can you really contribute? It would be like me saying to the guy fixing my car, "it might be the frobnilator" because I can be, you know, more "free thinking" about how an engine works.
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    Can we explain by Quantum physics the particle (having small rest mass) moving with more than velocity of light ? No, Even it has velocity equal to light its mass or moment will be infinite & associated energy is also infinite. This all happen because of special relativity. If I opposes special relativity how I consider Quantum physics which deal with special relativity. If I oppose relativity, I have no option but to express energy in E kinetic, E potential form to avoid complication may anybody call this as 6th standard mathematics. Just forget tachyons which is an imaginary particle. In case of photon, total energy = kinetic energy=mc^2=hu by quantum physics. If I don't split this energy into linear kinetic energy & angular kinetic energy due to spin (may be of cumulative or individual energitic particle) then this complete mc^2 became linear kinetic energy.
    I don't say that I am perfect but special theory of relativity must be wrong. This split the particles with special power particle like (photons) & other ordinary particles. We must perform Michelson- Morley experiment for other particle beam like electrons also. I think, we will get same result as light.
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    Can we explain by Quantum physics the particle (having small rest mass) moving with more than velocity of light ? No, Even it has velocity equal to light its mass or moment will be infinite & associated energy is also infinite. This all happen because of special relativity. If I opposes special relativity how I consider Quantum physics which deal with special relativity. If I oppose relativity, I have no option but to express energy in E kinetic, E potential form to avoid complication may anybody call this as 6th standard mathematics. Just forget tachyons which is an imaginary particle. In case of photon, total energy = kinetic energy=mc^2=hu by quantum physics. If I don't split this energy into linear kinetic energy & angular kinetic energy due to spin (may be of cumulative or individual energitic particle) then this complete mc^2 became linear kinetic energy.
    I don't say that I am perfect but special theory of relativity must be wrong. This split the particles with special power particle like (photons) & other ordinary particles. We must perform Michelson- Morley experiment for other particle beam like electrons also. I think, we will get same result as light.
    No Mahesh - you are plain wrong.
    For a photon, m= 0, and E = pc = hu. Period. The mass doesn't contribute to the energy, because it is not there! Even if the photon is a spin 1 particle, this doesn't contribute any energy because quantum mechanical spin is not like a ball spinning, where we have a rotational kinetic energy term. QM spin is an intrinsic angular momentum that a particle just carries, and at a deep level is just a consequence of Noether's Theorem.
    Put very simply: in the same way that energy is conserved because we assume that time translations don't affect our physics laws (this is verified experimentally), angular momentum has to be conserved because we assume that rotations in space don't change our physics laws. For a number of physical processes this means that particles have to carry intrinsic angular momenta - which is really a tensor in some spinor space.

    Eitherway, you are also wrong because you jsut split them evenly and, randomly, say that they contribute equally to the energy of a particle, or system of particles, your "derivation" doesn't specify this. This is wrong for a number of reasons: For example: When you include any particle in an external magnetic, if it has a spin, this will contribute to the energy of the particle. However, so will the actual angular momentum of thar particle, usually called l (little L) in simple quantum mechanics. It turns out that, for some particles (like an electron) there is a different proportionality factor g between the spin energy in a magnetic field and the angular momentum energy in the magnetic field than for other particles (like a proton) even if they have the same spin!! This is tested, among other ways, by the Zeeman effect in Hydrogen.
    This is a deep consequence of the fact that protons are composite particles, and electrons aren't. But even non-composite bosons like the Z or the W particles have different proportionality factors because their spins arise from different rotations in space.

    Point being: you cannot just claim that energy is split evenly between spin and motion because (in the special cases when spin contributes to E) they contribute in very different ways. And what you cannot say is that, because some experiment may have found a gap in relativity (NOT in quantum mechanics!) we can throw away all the other achievements in Quantum Mechanics without providing a valid alternative that explains, in at least as good of a detail as the previous theory, what we already know and have tested thousands of times.

    It is not that you are not perfect - you just show an utter lack of knowledge and preparation that is stunning to even consider.
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    I'm not a mathematician. What does the symbol ^ stand for?
    Exponentiation.

    E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
    means:
    E2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2

    And no, we don't yet know if neutrinos can travel faster than light. I wouldn't put money on it.
    Thank you, Strange. I had looked it up in Wikipedia also. Not having a formal science education has, I think, allowed me to be more free thinking, allowing me to come up with, for instance, anti-gravity bubbles as cause or partial cause for expansion of the universe.

    It has been well established since the times of Galileo that Math is the language of science - you cannot wave your hands and claim that "anti-gravity" bubbles are responsible for the expansion of the universe without even having started to understand the current state of knowledge in cosmology or astronomy. Go learn, get a university degree, go to grad school, publish papers in real journals, and we can talk about your anti-bubbles in 10 years.
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    By Quantum physics :-A photon's linear momentum is directly related to its energy by p=E/c, Photons have intrinsic angular momentum (i.e. quantum spin) that always has the same magnitude. Photons are spin-1 particles. In other words, the angular momentum of a photon is a basic inbuilt and unchanging property of a photon, just like the mass or the spin of an electron is an intrinsic property. When a photon collides with something else, the photon disappears. Its angular momentum is added to the original angular momentum of the object.
    This is what Quantum mechanics says because according to relativity mass & energy are incontrovertible but I oppose this thought. According to me it is not necessary to convert mass into energy. In any particle mass is there, energy is there & E=mc^2 this correlation is there & when that collide with other particle mass & energy with same correlation get transfer to that particle. It is not necessary to consider conversion. Energy is the capacity of doing work. We can not bundle any capacity. Photon total energy is kinetic energy can anybody bundle kinetic energy. No, this is not possible. Photon has a capacity to do work directly by this energy. It can even rotate small light wheel by this momenta. Quantum physic says rest mass of photon is zero. Can anybody see the rest photon. No. it is not possible.
    I know, I am not perfect but not completely wrong. I appreciate your knowledge of physics. Thanks
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    This is what Quantum mechanics says because according to relativity mass & energy are incontrovertible but I oppose this thought. According to me it is not necessary to convert mass into energy. In any particle mass is there, energy is there & E=mc^2 this correlation is there & when that collide with other particle mass & energy with same correlation get transfer to that particle. It is not necessary to consider conversion. Energy is the capacity of doing work. We can not bundle any capacity. Photon total energy is kinetic energy can anybody bundle kinetic energy. No, this is not possible. Photon has a capacity to do work directly by this energy. It can even rotate small light wheel by this momenta. Quantum physic says rest mass of photon is zero. Can anybody see the rest photon. No. it is not possible.
    I know, I am not perfect but not completely wrong. I appreciate your knowledge of physics. Thanks

    ??? How can you say that you oppose mass being a form of energy and then say that E = mc^2 ?? I'm afraid that doesn't make sense.

    I am afraid that I am not following your logic from then on - it is utter nonsense. When you say "we cannot bundle any capacity" do you mean experimentally? In a mental experiment? It really depends on your definition of "bundle" - if bundle is just a discrete amount of something, of course you can bundle a "capacity" - which is a very improper term by the way. A photon is as much of a bundle of kinetic energy as you are when, say, you are running. The only difference is that you have a mass, and the photon does not, so for the photon to exist it has to be moving, because existance of a particle necessarily implies it has an associated energy - and it cannot be in the form of a rest mass. Thus, you cannot see a rest photon because it is just impossible in any frame of reference.

    I don't understand what your point is. Please make your point clear in one line - what part of QM and/or relativity do you oppose? What do you claim photons are? If mass is not energy, what do you mean by E=mc^2?
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by diegocaba View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    I'm not a mathematician. What does the symbol ^ stand for?
    Exponentiation.

    E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
    means:
    E2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2

    And no, we don't yet know if neutrinos can travel faster than light. I wouldn't put money on it.
    Thank you, Strange. I had looked it up in Wikipedia also. Not having a formal science education has, I think, allowed me to be more free thinking, allowing me to come up with, for instance, anti-gravity bubbles as cause or partial cause for expansion of the universe.

    It has been well established since the times of Galileo that Math is the language of science - you cannot wave your hands and claim that "anti-gravity" bubbles are responsible for the expansion of the universe without even having started to understand the current state of knowledge in cosmology or astronomy. Go learn, get a university degree, go to grad school, publish papers in real journals, and we can talk about your anti-bubbles in 10 years.

    "Go learn, get a university degree, go to grad school, publish papers in real journals ..." That's exactly what 'they' said to Michael Faraday .. and history doesn't know 'their' names but it sure knows Faraday's.

    "Although Faraday received little formal education and knew little of higher mathematics, such as calculus, he was one of the most influential scientists in history." Michael Faraday - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    P.S. Since when is school the only place a person can get an education? Have you never heard of Google and Wikipedia?
    (Oh .. and books and public libraries.)

    Study the rainbow.

    P.S. By measuring temperature around the edges of the voids it will almost certainly reveal if the voids are expanding and compressing space at their borders.

     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by diegocaba View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    I'm not a mathematician. What does the symbol ^ stand for?
    Exponentiation.

    E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
    means:
    E2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2

    And no, we don't yet know if neutrinos can travel faster than light. I wouldn't put money on it.
    Thank you, Strange. I had looked it up in Wikipedia also. Not having a formal science education has, I think, allowed me to be more free thinking, allowing me to come up with, for instance, anti-gravity bubbles as cause or partial cause for expansion of the universe.

    It has been well established since the times of Galileo that Math is the language of science - you cannot wave your hands and claim that "anti-gravity" bubbles are responsible for the expansion of the universe without even having started to understand the current state of knowledge in cosmology or astronomy. Go learn, get a university degree, go to grad school, publish papers in real journals, and we can talk about your anti-bubbles in 10 years.

    "Go learn, get a university degree, go to grad school, publish papers in real journals ..." That's exactly what 'they' said to Michael Faraday .. and history doesn't know 'their' names but it sure knows Faraday's.

    "Although Faraday received little formal education and knew little of higher mathematics, such as calculus, he was one of the most influential scientists in history." Michael Faraday - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    P.S. Since when is school the only place a person can get an education? Have you never heard of Google and Wikipedia?
    (Oh .. and books and public libraries.)

    Study the rainbow.

    Here is the thing: you saying that just shows how little you know about the topics you are talking about. Only PRODIGIES could do what Faraday did at his time, and even so, he was a clear experimentalist and only described physical behaviour as opposed to coming up with the underlying principles that described such behaviours - that was done by others (with "formal eduacation") building on his results.
    Even so - he worked in the middle of the 19th century when electromagnetism was at its babiest steps, and what he did was conceivable then.

    I dare you to - withouht any formal education - design and build a machine that will test the Higgs Mechanism for creating mass, or build a machine that will measure the electron's magnetic moment to an even better accuracy, or come up with a new Lagrangian that will make the strong force solvable via some method like perturbation theory. Yes, chances are you don't have any real idea about what those things mean because you have never been shown what they mean. You would need to spend years reading the most advanced technical designs, or advanced theoretical physics, to superficially understand the current state of affairs of science, let alone advance it. If you really think a wikipedia article holds all that information, you are very deeply misinformed.

    So yes, I stand by my words: go get a degree, go to grad school, learn, prove your value, and then we can talk.

    Oh, do you even know why the rainbow is like it is? What it's real shape is? Why it shows those seven colors? Trust me, I have studied it. A long time ago.
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by diegocaba View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by diegocaba View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    I'm not a mathematician. What does the symbol ^ stand for?
    Exponentiation.

    E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
    means:
    E2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2

    And no, we don't yet know if neutrinos can travel faster than light. I wouldn't put money on it.
    Thank you, Strange. I had looked it up in Wikipedia also. Not having a formal science education has, I think, allowed me to be more free thinking, allowing me to come up with, for instance, anti-gravity bubbles as cause or partial cause for expansion of the universe.

    It has been well established since the times of Galileo that Math is the language of science - you cannot wave your hands and claim that "anti-gravity" bubbles are responsible for the expansion of the universe without even having started to understand the current state of knowledge in cosmology or astronomy. Go learn, get a university degree, go to grad school, publish papers in real journals, and we can talk about your anti-bubbles in 10 years.

    "Go learn, get a university degree, go to grad school, publish papers in real journals ..." That's exactly what 'they' said to Michael Faraday .. and history doesn't know 'their' names but it sure knows Faraday's.

    "Although Faraday received little formal education and knew little of higher mathematics, such as calculus, he was one of the most influential scientists in history." Michael Faraday - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    P.S. Since when is school the only place a person can get an education? Have you never heard of Google and Wikipedia?
    (Oh .. and books and public libraries.)

    Study the rainbow.

    Here is the thing: you saying that just shows how little you know about the topics you are talking about. Only PRODIGIES could do what Faraday did at his time, and even so, he was a clear experimentalist and only described physical behaviour as opposed to coming up with the underlying principles that described such behaviours - that was done by others (with "formal eduacation") building on his results.
    Even so - he worked in the middle of the 19th century when electromagnetism was at its babiest steps, and what he did was conceivable then.

    I dare you to - withouht any formal education - design and build a machine that will test the Higgs Mechanism for creating mass, or build a machine that will measure the electron's magnetic moment to an even better accuracy, or come up with a new Lagrangian that will make the strong force solvable via some method like perturbation theory. Yes, chances are you don't have any real idea about what those things mean because you have never been shown what they mean. You would need to spend years reading the most advanced technical designs, or advanced theoretical physics, to superficially understand the current state of affairs of science, let alone advance it. If you really think a wikipedia article holds all that information, you are very deeply misinformed.

    So yes, I stand by my words: go get a degree, go to grad school, learn, prove your value, and then we can talk.

    Oh, do you even know why the rainbow is like it is? What it's real shape is? Why it shows those seven colors? Trust me, I have studied it. A long time ago.
    I hope you haven't forgotten as much about the rainbow as you have forgotten about curiosity and immagination and instinct and truth and beauty, the things Einstein thrived on. I challenge you to relearn the rainbow.

    P.S. I understand that in some circles my 170 IQ at the grade high school level qualified me as being considered a prodijy. I have read considerably since then, almost all non-fiction on a variety of topics.
    Last edited by Aristarchus in Exile; November 23rd, 2011 at 01:07 PM.
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    Hahaha, your words speak for themselves. There is no point in speaking with those who don't listen. If you really think Einstein would side with you, you are dillusional.
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    If photon= bundle of energy & energy=capacity of doing work then what is mean by energy of photon. It is capacity of doing work of bundle of capacity of doing work.This is cyclic reference. Photon should not be bundle of kinetic energy but some thing else.
    In world, actual visible existence remain is of matter & it's different fields only (that create different forces). Mass, velocity, acceleration, momentum, inertia, kinetic energy, potential energy, pressure etc are the terms created to understand properties & action of these matter in the universe. Beauty of this world is these terms are nicely inter related with each other & their is harmony. When I run with with some velocity my kinetic energy, mass & velocity is related by equation E=0.5mv^2 this does not mean that mass or velocity or energy is inter convertible or same. They are only related with each other nicely. According to me in photon, energy & mass are just inter related with one another with formula E=mc^2 but mass & energy are incomplete without considering of any matter.
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by diegocaba View Post
    Hahaha, your words speak for themselves. There is no point in speaking with those who don't listen. If you really think Einstein would side with you, you are dillusional.
    Albert and I drink tea together every night, and he keeps telling me, "Bob, you are one smart guy! Please pass the cream and sugar."
    Blacksand459 likes this.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    I am against special theory of relativity but not against general theory of relativity completely. Einstein say, matter create impression on space. My thought is that not only creates impression but create reference frame. Just consider about only -ve charge particles on earth then we see strong -ve field (flux) around earth but it is balance by +ve cumulative charge strong field by +ve charge particles & net result is non observe electromagnetic balance strong flux. These balanced non observe flux & gravity will create reference frame around earth. This may be reason why Michelson- Morley experiment shows velocity of photon is equal in all direction on earth. Time factor may be (or not be) differ due to intensity of this flux but not due to velocity.
    Proved concept (until now):- photon is electromagnetic vibrating field quantum. But over all, it is charge less particle
    My thought is just parallel to above:- Photon is vibrating electromagnetic field produce due to vibration of small +ve & -ve packets of charges (form due to small energetic particles). Spin of particle may be cumulative spin or individual spin contributed to form this resonance of electromagnetic field.

    If Neutrino has velocity more than light then that will be a problem to special relativity & Quantum Mechanics both. Quantum mechanics can not explain this result. Relative mass of Neutron will be complex (-a)^0.5 then.
    Every mathematical relation deals with minimum two different variables like E=mc^2. If energy & mass is not related but same (as you said) then such relation is not required.
    In your comments, You say photon does not have any mass only energy & momentum & again said that mass being a part of energy. These statements are contradict to one another. If mass being a part of energy then photon must have mass m =E/c^2.
    You can asked me a question that if Electron can not be accelerated to velocity of light but Neutrino move with velocity more than light velocity. How is this possible?
    Answer of this question :-If I tied cheetah to my Jeep & drive it with velocity of 80 km/hr. Cheetah will run with that velocity quite easily because this is maximum natural velocity of Cheetah. If I accelerate Jeep speed with velocity 100 km /hr then Cheetah will oppose to this forced acceleration which is more than its natural velocity. This oppose will increases as this velocity increases more and more. When this velocity reaches to 200 km/hr. Cheetah may die & body will be dis-integrated.
    Same thing happen with particle also, every particle has its natural velocity. This velocity can be increased by adding photon in Natural way but if acceleration is forced acceleration i.e. by acting external force then that particle will oppose this acceleration more & more. So, electron opposes this acceleration more & more. This is reason for more force is require for electron for same acceleration. If this accelerated velocity is to much then it will die i.e. dis-integrated (sonic boom of particle). Electron is charged particle this can not be accelerated to the velocity of light. Non charge particle for photon, Neutron can move with velocity C (or more) naturally because this is not their forced acceleration but their natural velocity. For detail visit my web site www.maheshkhati.com.
    Last edited by Mahesh khati; November 29th, 2011 at 12:24 PM.
     

  38. #37  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    I hope you haven't forgotten as much about the rainbow as you have forgotten about curiosity and immagination and instinct and truth and beauty, the things Einstein thrived on. I challenge you to relearn the rainbow.
    Curiosity must explore from a firm foundation of established facts, not an ephermeral platform of "if onlys".
    Imaginations should soar, but also have the power to examine their wings, not just the land they see beneath them.
    Instincts for truth and beauty do not appear to be distributed equally among mankind. For example you seem to have been shortchanged on at least one of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    IP.S. I understand that in some circles my 170 IQ at the grade high school level qualified me as being considered a prodijy. I have read considerably since then, almost all non-fiction on a variety of topics.
    From your spelling of prodigy and your unfamiliarity with the ^ symbol, I take it that language and mathematics were frowned upon in your high school. Perhaps that is why you ignored them in your subsequent extensive autodidactic reading of non-fiction works.
    diegocaba and Blacksand459 like this.
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    I am against special theory of relativity but not against general theory of relativity completely. Einstein say, matter create impression on space. My thought is that not only creates impression but create reference frame. Just consider about only -ve charge particles on earth then we see strong -ve field (flux) around earth but it is balance by +ve cumulative charge strong field by +ve charge particles & net result is non observe electromagnetic balance strong flux. These balanced non observe flux & gravity will create reference frame around earth. This may be reason why Michelson- Morley experiment shows velocity of photon is equal in all direction on earth. Time factor may be (or not be) differ due to intensity of this flux but not due to velocity.
    Proved concept (until now):- photon is electromagnetic vibrating field quantum. But over all, it is charge less particle
    My thought is just parallel to above:- Photon is vibrating electromagnetic field produce due to vibration of small +ve & -ve packets of charges (form due to small energetic particles). Spin of particle may be cumulative spin or individual spin contributed to form this resonance of electromagnetic field.
    I am afraid that I don't understand the thought that you are trying to put forth in this paragraph. What is this flux that you are talking about? What makes it up? I am going to venture thought that you have never really understood what an electromagnetic "vibration" really is, I'd say that you don't really understand what the current definition of a photon is.
    Furthermore, it is not only the Michelson-Morley experiment that shows that light is measured to have the same speed in all reference frames, it is an axiom from which we derive a vast amount of predictions which are all verified experimentally. Thus, at least until you show that there is an experiment that contradicts SR (and the neutrino experiment doesn't count because it doesn't invalidate the fact that light moves at c) OR provide an alternative theory that explains every single one of the experiments that SR explains, your theory is just bogus. This is basic theory of science.
    Oh, also, you can't be, logically, against SR but accept GR. It would be akin to saying you accept that cars work, but that you claim blue cars don't. One follows from the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    If Neutrino has velocity more than light then that will be a problem to special relativity & Quantum Mechanics both. Quantum mechanics can not explain this result. Relative mass of Neutron will be complex (-a)^0.5 then.
    Every mathematical relation deals with minimum two different variables like E=mc^2. If energy & mass is not related but same (as you said) then such relation is not required.
    In your comments, You say photon does not have any mass only energy & momentum & again said that mass being a part of energy. These statements are contradict to one another. If mass being a part of energy then photon must have mass m =E/c^2.
    You can asked me a question that if Electron can not be accelerated to velocity of light but Neutrino move with velocity more than light velocity. How is this possible?
    Answer of this question :-If I tied cheetah to my Jeep & drive it with velocity of 80 km/hr. Cheetah will run with that velocity quite easily because this is maximum natural velocity of Cheetah. If I accelerate Jeep speed with velocity 100 km /hr then Cheetah will oppose to this forced acceleration which is more than its natural velocity. This oppose will increases as this velocity increases more and more. When this velocity reaches to 200 km/hr. Cheetah may die & body will be dis-integrated.
    Same thing happen with particle also, every particle has its natural velocity. This velocity can be increased by adding photon in Natural way but if acceleration is forced acceleration i.e. by acting external force then that particle will oppose this acceleration more & more. So, electron opposes this acceleration more & more. This is reason for more force is require for electron for same acceleration. If this accelerated velocity is to much then it will die i.e. dis-integrated (sonic boom of particle). Electron is charged particle this can not be accelerated to the velocity of light. Non charge particle for photon, Neutron can move with velocity C (or more) naturally because this is not their forced acceleration but their natural velocity. For detail visit my web site www.maheshkhati.com.
    No - basic QM doesn't impose a limit on the speed of anything. Thus, the experiment doesn't violate basic QM. It would invalidate, if proved to be true, that Quantum Field Theory is incorrect only for neutrinos, in so far as QFT = QM + SR (basically). But note, this would be the case only for neutrinos.
    Em.... I don't think you understand what E = mc^2 means: it is mathematical speak for "mass is a form of energy". Of course such a relation is needed to describe how much m makes an E. One could envision a relation like E = m^2c^2/M, where M is some nature-given constant Mass term for example. This would also imply that mass is just a form of energy, just that the conversion between one and the other would be different. Obviously this is not the case, it is just to illustrate the point.

    Em.... look, E^2 = m^2 + p^2 if we set c = 1 (this is called a system of natural units). If m = 0 (like for a photon), then E = p. No problem. IF we have a particle with mass at rest, then E = m. Also no problem. They are two different scenarios, you really don't get math if you can't distinguish those two cases.
    Em ... no. Your cheetah example sucks. Only massless particles have a nature-given speed: c. If you have a mass, you can always pump more energy in (not necessarily via photons btw) and make it speed more UNTIL you are infinitessimally below c. It is an axiom (up until now not disproven) that no particle with a mass can move beyond c. So you cannot have a jeep pulling on a particle at a speed v > c, because the jeep itself has a mass. Now, even if neutrinos do move at speeds greater than c (as I said before, this is NOT confirmed yet) this will just mean we have discovered a special kind of cheetah, as you correctly say a cheetah with a complex mass, but it doesn't mean that suddenly every other cheetah will be able to move beyond c as well.
    Last edited by diegocaba; December 13th, 2011 at 07:10 PM.
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    But problem is why one Cheetah (Neutrino) is disobeying your fundamental laws of physics like SR. My problem is with this Special theory of relativity. QM is all right in quantum mechanics but SR is main problem for me. If SR is correct then you can not explain existence of Neutrino having velocity more than light or even C. There can not be a particles which obeys SR (like electrons), Create SR (Photons) & disobey SR (Neutrinos) in one world.
    MY PROBLEM WITH Special Theory of relativity:-
    1st problem:-My 1st interaction with SR is at 18 year of age. Dr. Khare explain me light velocity is constant irrespective of observer's state of motion. I asked if I fixed frame of reference on earth, I will get velocity of light constant in all direction on earth but light emitted from nearest star has same velocity with relative to this frame of reference. When I find velocity of this 4 light year away star with relative to this frame of reference revolving with earth. I found that it is much more than C (V=wR). If star velocity is more than C then light velocity emitted from star must be more than C. I said that if velocity of star is more than light then star should not be seen by us.
    2nd problem:-Dr Khare was surprise. He check my calculation & found correct. Next day, He try to explain it to me in following way
    a)This is an illusion not real velocity. This effect is due to rotation of earth. My answer:- this is not illusion because we can calculate distance travel in that reference frame divided by 24 hrs. As this is calculated quantity, this is not illusion & we can see stars are moving with that velocity from East to West. I say if we have Geosynchronous satellite (just imagine) which is stable with this frame of reference at distance 4 light year then relative velocity of star with this stable satellite will be more than C.
    b)Khare said that This reference frame is non inertial frame of reference because it has angular acceleration. My answer:-Every frame of reference in world is accelerating. Earth is accelerating, Sun is accelerating, galaxy is accelerating, after some days, we will find this whole world is accelerating with relative to other world. We all lived in complex falling lift (may be in circular or elliptical in path). As summation of forces in falling lift is zero we fill that we are stable & in inertial frame of reference but perfect inertial frame of reference is not present in the world. Einstein always speak about inertial frame of reference which is not present in the world.
    3rd problem:-After completing B.E. in Civil. As I have interest in physics. I complete BSc in physics before joining Engineer job (for bread & butter). In BSc, I come across very interesting problem. If two electrons moving in one direction with same velocity. then both will get attracted towards one another due to formation of magnetic field (Pinch effect). Just for second forget about earth, then Both electrons must be stable with relative to one another & not moving. If I consider one electron as observer for other electron then other electron will not be in any motion (stable). This non relative motion should not create any magnetic field which acts on one another but reverse is happened. Means, Big mass like earth act as special reference frame for electron or elementary particle on earth may be for Photons also.
    When CERN is established. I know such result will arise & I published paper on my web site 3 years back. So, people will not think that this is my after thought. I am very confident same result will be get repeated in Fermi lab & else where.
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    But problem is why one Cheetah (Neutrino) is disobeying your fundamental laws of physics like SR. My problem is with this Special theory of relativity. QM is all right in quantum mechanics but SR is main problem for me. If SR is correct then you can not explain existence of Neutrino having velocity more than light or even C. There can not be a particles which obeys SR (like electrons), Create SR (Photons) & disobey SR (Neutrinos) in one world.
    MY PROBLEM WITH Special Theory of relativity:-
    1st problem:-My 1st interaction with SR is at 18 year of age. Dr. Khare explain me light velocity is constant irrespective of observer's state of motion. I asked if I fixed frame of reference on earth, I will get velocity of light constant in all direction on earth but light emitted from nearest star has same velocity with relative to this frame of reference. When I find velocity of this 4 light year away star with relative to this frame of reference revolving with earth. I found that it is much more than C (V=wR). If star velocity is more than C then light velocity emitted from star must be more than C. I said that if velocity of star is more than light then star should not be seen by us.
    2nd problem:-Dr Khare was surprise. He check my calculation & found correct. Next day, He try to explain it to me in following way
    a)This is an illusion not real velocity. This effect is due to rotation of earth. My answer:- this is not illusion because we can calculate distance travel in that reference frame divided by 24 hrs. As this is calculated quantity, this is not illusion & we can see stars are moving with that velocity from East to West. I say if we have Geosynchronous satellite (just imagine) which is stable with this frame of reference at distance 4 light year then relative velocity of star with this stable satellite will be more than C.
    b)Khare said that This reference frame is non inertial frame of reference because it has angular acceleration. My answer:-Every frame of reference in world is accelerating. Earth is accelerating, Sun is accelerating, galaxy is accelerating, after some days, we will find this whole world is accelerating with relative to other world. We all lived in complex falling lift (may be in circular or elliptical in path). As summation of forces in falling lift is zero we fill that we are stable & in inertial frame of reference but perfect inertial frame of reference is not present in the world. Einstein always speak about inertial frame of reference which is not present in the world.
    3rd problem:-After completing B.E. in Civil. As I have interest in physics. I complete BSc in physics before joining Engineer job (for bread & butter). In BSc, I come across very interesting problem. If two electrons moving in one direction with same velocity. then both will get attracted towards one another due to formation of magnetic field (Pinch effect). Just for second forget about earth, then Both electrons must be stable with relative to one another & not moving. If I consider one electron as observer for other electron then other electron will not be in any motion (stable). This non relative motion should not create any magnetic field which acts on one another but reverse is happened. Means, Big mass like earth act as special reference frame for electron or elementary particle on earth may be for Photons also.
    When CERN is established. I know such result will arise & I published paper on my web site 3 years back. So, people will not think that this is my after thought. I am very confident same result will be get repeated in Fermi lab & else where.
    It is completely sound to have a theory that only applies to some particles but not others. One can logically accept a world in which all particles - except neutrinos - follow SR. This is analogous to all particles that are charged being affected by electromagnetic fields, and all uncharged particles not. Some theories apply to some particles, but not all. This is elementary.

    You bring up an interesting point - and I must say that your professor was very right: your rotating wheel, star system, or whatever does not hold under SR because it is an accelerating system. SR is simply not applicatble there because a rotating object is accelerating. This was the main feat of Einstein, he developed GR to deal with these kind of issues. GR is thus a generalization of SR, making SR only valid for inertial frames of reference. Here is the crux: it doesn't matter that there are no real inertial frame of reference, what matters is that they approximately are. For example, you say that SR is not valid on Earth because it is rotating, and thus accelerating. It is shown however that SR does work because the magnitude of such an acceleration is minute compared to, say, the velocity of light (with some appropiate unit conversion) so we can approximately call it an intertial frame for most purposes.
    It doesn't really matter, because we can always be pedantic and try to solve classic SR problems like length contraction and so on directly from GR - even though they are incredibly hard doing so - and obtain the same results! What you are missing is the fundamental point of physics theories: they build on each other and are just generalizations that work in some regimes. Coming up with a different regime in which the theory fails (where the theory didn't claim to work before) is not a valid contradiction of the theory.

    You talk about the pinch effect. It is a very interesting problem that all physics majors have to deal with in their studies of E&M - and I don't believe it for a minute that you hold a BSc in Physics because you would know this: Magnetic and Electric fields are two sides of the same coin, and depending on your relative velocity you will see one, the other, or a mix of both. This is the crux of SR applied to E&M. In the pinch effect, if you boost yourself into the electrons frame of reference of course you will no longer see a magnetic field because no charges are moving. You will instead see an electric field that will make the electrons attract. This is covered in elementary E&M books like Griffiths, so I refer you to such a book. There is no need to introduce a vague "earth reference" to account for this effect.

    Also, CERN has been well established for decades... I am guessing you mean the LHC (again shows your complete ignorance on these topics) - and if you think that if a particle collision experiment is going to "prove" that SR is wrong in such a fundamental way as you propose you are very wrong.

    It would also be nice to at least acknowledge all the points that I have been making in the previous posts and that you are ignoring completely.
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    I am now creating very interesting relative story. Please listen.
    One man is in the train moving from one station to another. He has two hanging charge balls from his both hands with charge –e with non conductive threads at small distance. This train cabin has big windows. One Cockroach is sitting on one of that light ball from inner side. One Padre is waiting at next station & observing this approaching train with binocular & also see through big window of train. He is observing the man having charged balls from that window. Then what will happen by your relativity.
    1) For man in train cabin:-Nothing is happen. As charge balls are stable with relative to observer. Magnetic field will not form. Only small repulsive force will act on both balls due to same charge & Cockroach will be live.
    2) For Padre on next station:- He observed that both balls will get attracted toward each other due to formation of magnetic field (Pinch effect) form due to their relative motion with observer. If this velocity is much more then there will be more attraction. Due to this more magnetic attraction consider that both charged balls will get collided & poor Cockroach sitting on inner side of ball get killed due to collision.
    Padre shouted “Oh, that man has killed that innocent Cockroach”.
    Now, train reaches to next station after slowing down, Padre will see that magnetic attraction disappear & ball with blood strain reaches to original position & dead Cockroach will fall on to the train floor. Padre rushed into train cabin & shouted to man “You have killed that Cockroach. I have observe it & blood is there on that ball”
    Man innocently said,” Cockroach is not killed in collision. I, charge balls & Cockroach all are at same rest position. Cockroach is live.”
    Now both Padre & man are at same frame of reference means only one is true. Who is true? Cockroach is killed in collision or Cockroach is not dead & still sitting on ball. Please answer this problem.
    I don’t like special theory of relativity because it gives more important to observer than event.
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    How much did the cockroach charge the balls for killing the padre and why did the padre's prayers save him?
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    How much did the cockroach charge the balls for killing the padre and why did the padre's prayers save him?
    Story telling is a art & complex problem can be explain in very easy & effective way. Above story can be come into existence by using very power full DC supply with high velocity. It is not necessary for me to kill cockroach (can do some work by that force also) but as this event is irreversible & more effective. I use it in this story. diegocaba is intelligent theoretical young physicist. He will come with intelligent answer.
    Last edited by Mahesh khati; December 4th, 2011 at 01:16 PM.
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by diegocaba View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    But problem is why one Cheetah (Neutrino) is disobeying your fundamental laws of physics like SR. My problem is with this Special theory of relativity. QM is all right in quantum mechanics but SR is main problem for me. If SR is correct then you can not explain existence of Neutrino having velocity more than light or even C. There can not be a particles which obeys SR (like electrons), Create SR (Photons) & disobey SR (Neutrinos) in one world.
    MY PROBLEM WITH Special Theory of relativity:-
    1st problem:-My 1st interaction with SR is at 18 year of age. Dr. Khare explain me light velocity is constant irrespective of observer's state of motion. I asked if I fixed frame of reference on earth, I will get velocity of light constant in all direction on earth but light emitted from nearest star has same velocity with relative to this frame of reference. When I find velocity of this 4 light year away star with relative to this frame of reference revolving with earth. I found that it is much more than C (V=wR). If star velocity is more than C then light velocity emitted from star must be more than C. I said that if velocity of star is more than light then star should not be seen by us.
    2nd problem:-Dr Khare was surprise. He check my calculation & found correct. Next day, He try to explain it to me in following way
    a)This is an illusion not real velocity. This effect is due to rotation of earth. My answer:- this is not illusion because we can calculate distance travel in that reference frame divided by 24 hrs. As this is calculated quantity, this is not illusion & we can see stars are moving with that velocity from East to West. I say if we have Geosynchronous satellite (just imagine) which is stable with this frame of reference at distance 4 light year then relative velocity of star with this stable satellite will be more than C.
    b)Khare said that This reference frame is non inertial frame of reference because it has angular acceleration. My answer:-Every frame of reference in world is accelerating. Earth is accelerating, Sun is accelerating, galaxy is accelerating, after some days, we will find this whole world is accelerating with relative to other world. We all lived in complex falling lift (may be in circular or elliptical in path). As summation of forces in falling lift is zero we fill that we are stable & in inertial frame of reference but perfect inertial frame of reference is not present in the world. Einstein always speak about inertial frame of reference which is not present in the world.
    3rd problem:-After completing B.E. in Civil. As I have interest in physics. I complete BSc in physics before joining Engineer job (for bread & butter). In BSc, I come across very interesting problem. If two electrons moving in one direction with same velocity. then both will get attracted towards one another due to formation of magnetic field (Pinch effect). Just for second forget about earth, then Both electrons must be stable with relative to one another & not moving. If I consider one electron as observer for other electron then other electron will not be in any motion (stable). This non relative motion should not create any magnetic field which acts on one another but reverse is happened. Means, Big mass like earth act as special reference frame for electron or elementary particle on earth may be for Photons also.
    When CERN is established. I know such result will arise & I published paper on my web site 3 years back. So, people will not think that this is my after thought. I am very confident same result will be get repeated in Fermi lab & else where.
    It is completely sound to have a theory that only applies to some particles but not others. One can logically accept a world in which all particles - except neutrinos - follow SR. This is analogous to all particles that are charged being affected by electromagnetic fields, and all uncharged particles not. Some theories apply to some particles, but not all. This is elementary.

    You bring up an interesting point - and I must say that your professor was very right: your rotating wheel, star system, or whatever does not hold under SR because it is an accelerating system. SR is simply not applicatble there because a rotating object is accelerating. This was the main feat of Einstein, he developed GR to deal with these kind of issues. GR is thus a generalization of SR, making SR only valid for inertial frames of reference. Here is the crux: it doesn't matter that there are no real inertial frame of reference, what matters is that they approximately are. For example, you say that SR is not valid on Earth because it is rotating, and thus accelerating. It is shown however that SR does work because the magnitude of such an acceleration is minute compared to, say, the velocity of light (with some appropiate unit conversion) so we can approximately call it an intertial frame for most purposes.
    It doesn't really matter, because we can always be pedantic and try to solve classic SR problems like length contraction and so on directly from GR - even though they are incredibly hard doing so - and obtain the same results! What you are missing is the fundamental point of physics theories: they build on each other and are just generalizations that work in some regimes. Coming up with a different regime in which the theory fails (where the theory didn't claim to work before) is not a valid contradiction of the theory.

    You talk about the pinch effect. It is a very interesting problem that all physics majors have to deal with in their studies of E&M - and I don't believe it for a minute that you hold a BSc in Physics because you would know this: Magnetic and Electric fields are two sides of the same coin, and depending on your relative velocity you will see one, the other, or a mix of both. This is the crux of SR applied to E&M. In the pinch effect, if you boost yourself into the electrons frame of reference of course you will no longer see a magnetic field because no charges are moving. You will instead see an electric field that will make the electrons attract. This is covered in elementary E&M books like Griffiths, so I refer you to such a book. There is no need to introduce a vague "earth reference" to account for this effect.

    Also, CERN has been well established for decades... I am guessing you mean the LHC (again shows your complete ignorance on these topics) - and if you think that if a particle collision experiment is going to "prove" that SR is wrong in such a fundamental way as you propose you are very wrong.

    It would also be nice to at least acknowledge all the points that I have been making in the previous posts and that you are ignoring completely.
    I am waiting for your answer for story in my comment 41 from last 5 days. This is not a problem of length contraction but of death, so answer is really difficult. But if your SR is so much real then it must answer to such a simple E&M problem.
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    I am now creating very interesting relative story. Please listen.
    One man is in the train moving from one station to another. He has two hanging charge balls from his both hands with charge –e with non conductive threads at small distance. This train cabin has big windows. One Cockroach is sitting on one of that light ball from inner side. One Padre is waiting at next station & observing this approaching train with binocular & also see through big window of train. He is observing the man having charged balls from that window. Then what will happen by your relativity.
    1) For man in train cabin:-Nothing is happen. As charge balls are stable with relative to observer. Magnetic field will not form. Only small repulsive force will act on both balls due to same charge & Cockroach will be live.
    2) For Padre on next station:- He observed that both balls will get attracted toward each other due to formation of magnetic field (Pinch effect) form due to their relative motion with observer. If this velocity is much more then there will be more attraction. Due to this more magnetic attraction consider that both charged balls will get collided & poor Cockroach sitting on inner side of ball get killed due to collision.
    Padre shouted “Oh, that man has killed that innocent Cockroach”.
    Now, train reaches to next station after slowing down, Padre will see that magnetic attraction disappear & ball with blood strain reaches to original position & dead Cockroach will fall on to the train floor. Padre rushed into train cabin & shouted to man “You have killed that Cockroach. I have observe it & blood is there on that ball”
    Man innocently said,” Cockroach is not killed in collision. I, charge balls & Cockroach all are at same rest position. Cockroach is live.”
    Now both Padre & man are at same frame of reference means only one is true. Who is true? Cockroach is killed in collision or Cockroach is not dead & still sitting on ball. Please answer this problem.
    I don’t like special theory of relativity because it gives more important to observer than event.
    What is this supposed to be about ? The two charged balls are at rest relative to each other, and since there is no outside field nothing will happen at all. The same is true for the outside observer looking at the setup - the presence of a magnetic field and its effects has nothing to do with the observer's frame of reference, hence both observers will see the same thing ??
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    I am now creating very interesting relative story. Please listen.
    One man is in the train moving from one station to another. He has two hanging charge balls from his both hands with charge –e with non conductive threads at small distance. This train cabin has big windows. One Cockroach is sitting on one of that light ball from inner side. One Padre is waiting at next station & observing this approaching train with binocular & also see through big window of train. He is observing the man having charged balls from that window. Then what will happen by your relativity.
    1) For man in train cabin:-Nothing is happen. As charge balls are stable with relative to observer. Magnetic field will not form. Only small repulsive force will act on both balls due to same charge & Cockroach will be live.
    2) For Padre on next station:- He observed that both balls will get attracted toward each other due to formation of magnetic field (Pinch effect) form due to their relative motion with observer. If this velocity is much more then there will be more attraction. Due to this more magnetic attraction consider that both charged balls will get collided & poor Cockroach sitting on inner side of ball get killed due to collision.
    Padre shouted “Oh, that man has killed that innocent Cockroach”.
    Now, train reaches to next station after slowing down, Padre will see that magnetic attraction disappear & ball with blood strain reaches to original position & dead Cockroach will fall on to the train floor. Padre rushed into train cabin & shouted to man “You have killed that Cockroach. I have observe it & blood is there on that ball”
    Man innocently said,” Cockroach is not killed in collision. I, charge balls & Cockroach all are at same rest position. Cockroach is live.”
    Now both Padre & man are at same frame of reference means only one is true. Who is true? Cockroach is killed in collision or Cockroach is not dead & still sitting on ball. Please answer this problem.
    I don’t like special theory of relativity because it gives more important to observer than event.
    What is this supposed to be about ? The two charged balls are at rest relative to each other, and since there is no outside field nothing will happen at all. The same is true for the outside observer looking at the setup - the presence of a magnetic field and its effects has nothing to do with the observer's frame of reference, hence both observers will see the same thing ??
    In Special theory of relativity, two reference frame sees world in completely different way. In one reference frame as given in 3rd paragraph of comment no. 40 by diegocaba. Electrons stable with relative to one another when are in collective motion with relative to observer get attracted towards each other. As electrons has their relative motion with observer. (well known as PInch effect.). As magnetic field is form due to this relative motion with relative to observer. This magnetic field forms a force of attraction on electron. This problem is similar to above problem. diegocaba said that if you are in the frame of reference of electrons then as motion of charge is zero with relative to you. So magnetic attraction is zero. If you are out side observer & electrons (charge) is moving with relative to you then there is magnetic attraction & formation of pinch effect. To explain that such thing is not possible at one instant in two reference frames & how relativity is wrong & how such thing will create complication. I have created this story. I am very clear that Cockroach will get killed. Refer my 1st paper in www.maheshkhati.com.
     

  48. #47  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    I am now creating very interesting relative story. Please listen.
    One man is in the train moving from one station to another. He has two hanging charge balls from his both hands with charge –e with non conductive threads at small distance. This train cabin has big windows. One Cockroach is sitting on one of that light ball from inner side. One Padre is waiting at next station & observing this approaching train with binocular & also see through big window of train. He is observing the man having charged balls from that window. Then what will happen by your relativity.
    1) For man in train cabin:-Nothing is happen. As charge balls are stable with relative to observer. Magnetic field will not form. Only small repulsive force will act on both balls due to same charge & Cockroach will be live.
    2) For Padre on next station:- He observed that both balls will get attracted toward each other due to formation of magnetic field (Pinch effect) form due to their relative motion with observer. If this velocity is much more then there will be more attraction. Due to this more magnetic attraction consider that both charged balls will get collided & poor Cockroach sitting on inner side of ball get killed due to collision.
    Padre shouted “Oh, that man has killed that innocent Cockroach”.
    Now, train reaches to next station after slowing down, Padre will see that magnetic attraction disappear & ball with blood strain reaches to original position & dead Cockroach will fall on to the train floor. Padre rushed into train cabin & shouted to man “You have killed that Cockroach. I have observe it & blood is there on that ball”
    Man innocently said,” Cockroach is not killed in collision. I, charge balls & Cockroach all are at same rest position. Cockroach is live.”
    Now both Padre & man are at same frame of reference means only one is true. Who is true? Cockroach is killed in collision or Cockroach is not dead & still sitting on ball. Please answer this problem.
    I don’t like special theory of relativity because it gives more important to observer than event.
    What is this supposed to be about ? The two charged balls are at rest relative to each other, and since there is no outside field nothing will happen at all. The same is true for the outside observer looking at the setup - the presence of a magnetic field and its effects has nothing to do with the observer's frame of reference, hence both observers will see the same thing ??
    In Special theory of relativity, two reference frame sees world in completely different way. In one reference frame as given in 3rd paragraph of comment no. 40 by diegocaba. Electrons stable with relative to one another when are in collective motion with relative to observer get attracted towards each other. As electrons has their relative motion with observer. (well known as PInch effect.). As magnetic field is form due to this relative motion with relative to observer. This magnetic field forms a force of attraction on electron. This problem is similar to above problem. diegocaba said that if you are in the frame of reference of electrons then as motion of charge is zero with relative to you. So magnetic attraction is zero. If you are out side observer & electrons (charge) is moving with relative to you then there is magnetic attraction & formation of pinch effect. To explain that such thing is not possible at one instant in two reference frames & how relativity is wrong & how such thing will create complication. I have created this story. I am very clear that Cockroach will get killed. Refer my 1st paper in www.maheshkhati.com.
    Within the train's frame of reference, the two charged balls are at rest relative to each other. From the outside observer's frame of reference, the two balls are still at rest relative to each other, even though they move uniformely in relation to the observer. All that matters is the relative motion of the two charges in relation to each other that produces EM phenomena. Observers in different reference frames see different aspects of the same EM field, but the field is not affected in any physical sense by simple change of SR frames. So where do you get your pinch effect from ??
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    I am now creating very interesting relative story. Please listen.
    One man is in the train moving from one station to another. He has two hanging charge balls from his both hands with charge –e with non conductive threads at small distance. This train cabin has big windows. One Cockroach is sitting on one of that light ball from inner side. One Padre is waiting at next station & observing this approaching train with binocular & also see through big window of train. He is observing the man having charged balls from that window. Then what will happen by your relativity.
    1) For man in train cabin:-Nothing is happen. As charge balls are stable with relative to observer. Magnetic field will not form. Only small repulsive force will act on both balls due to same charge & Cockroach will be live.
    2) For Padre on next station:- He observed that both balls will get attracted toward each other due to formation of magnetic field (Pinch effect) form due to their relative motion with observer. If this velocity is much more then there will be more attraction. Due to this more magnetic attraction consider that both charged balls will get collided & poor Cockroach sitting on inner side of ball get killed due to collision.
    Padre shouted “Oh, that man has killed that innocent Cockroach”.
    Now, train reaches to next station after slowing down, Padre will see that magnetic attraction disappear & ball with blood strain reaches to original position & dead Cockroach will fall on to the train floor. Padre rushed into train cabin & shouted to man “You have killed that Cockroach. I have observe it & blood is there on that ball”
    Man innocently said,” Cockroach is not killed in collision. I, charge balls & Cockroach all are at same rest position. Cockroach is live.”
    Now both Padre & man are at same frame of reference means only one is true. Who is true? Cockroach is killed in collision or Cockroach is not dead & still sitting on ball. Please answer this problem.
    I don’t like special theory of relativity because it gives more important to observer than event.
    What is this supposed to be about ? The two charged balls are at rest relative to each other, and since there is no outside field nothing will happen at all. The same is true for the outside observer looking at the setup - the presence of a magnetic field and its effects has nothing to do with the observer's frame of reference, hence both observers will see the same thing ??
    In Special theory of relativity, two reference frame sees world in completely different way. In one reference frame as given in 3rd paragraph of comment no. 40 by diegocaba. Electrons stable with relative to one another when are in collective motion with relative to observer get attracted towards each other. As electrons has their relative motion with observer. (well known as PInch effect.). As magnetic field is form due to this relative motion with relative to observer. This magnetic field forms a force of attraction on electron. This problem is similar to above problem. diegocaba said that if you are in the frame of reference of electrons then as motion of charge is zero with relative to you. So magnetic attraction is zero. If you are out side observer & electrons (charge) is moving with relative to you then there is magnetic attraction & formation of pinch effect. To explain that such thing is not possible at one instant in two reference frames & how relativity is wrong & how such thing will create complication. I have created this story. I am very clear that Cockroach will get killed. Refer my 1st paper in www.maheshkhati.com.
    Within the train's frame of reference, the two charged balls are at rest relative to each other. From the outside observer's frame of reference, the two balls are still at rest relative to each other, even though they move uniformely in relation to the observer. All that matters is the relative motion of the two charges in relation to each other that produces EM phenomena. Observers in different reference frames see different aspects of the same EM field, but the field is not affected in any physical sense by simple change of SR frames. So where do you get your pinch effect from ??
    I was also thinking in the same way. So, in BSc, I asked one question to Lecturer If same current is flowing from two parallel conductor of same metal & cross sectional size then average velocity of electrons will be same in one direction in both cables. If for second, I forget about earth then all electrons are stable with relative to one another then why they produce magnetic field which attract both cable (electrons) towards one another. He explain me in relative way, he say motion of charge electron with relative to you create a current. (rate of flow of charge QV) & that current create a magnetic field which attracts electrons toward one another (& conductors get attracted). To explain his idea he give example of this pinch effect. If two plates are placed at some distance & very high voltage is applied between both plates electron come out from -ve electrode & move towards +ve collector plate. In this motion electron may be moving with same velocity (due same voltage difference) & stable with relative to one another but also get attracted towards one another called pinch effect. Because motion of charge create current which form circular magnetic field & electron get attracted towards one another.
    Charge may be stable with relative to each other but motion with relative to you create magnetic attraction or repulsion. I was shocked due to this answer because this will create such a problems. Then read the some books & write down chapter 2 of my paper.
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by diegocaba View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    But problem is why one Cheetah (Neutrino) is disobeying your fundamental laws of physics like SR. My problem is with this Special theory of relativity. QM is all right in quantum mechanics but SR is main problem for me. If SR is correct then you can not explain existence of Neutrino having velocity more than light or even C. There can not be a particles which obeys SR (like electrons), Create SR (Photons) & disobey SR (Neutrinos) in one world.
    MY PROBLEM WITH Special Theory of relativity:-
    1st problem:-My 1st interaction with SR is at 18 year of age. Dr. Khare explain me light velocity is constant irrespective of observer's state of motion. I asked if I fixed frame of reference on earth, I will get velocity of light constant in all direction on earth but light emitted from nearest star has same velocity with relative to this frame of reference. When I find velocity of this 4 light year away star with relative to this frame of reference revolving with earth. I found that it is much more than C (V=wR). If star velocity is more than C then light velocity emitted from star must be more than C. I said that if velocity of star is more than light then star should not be seen by us.
    2nd problem:-Dr Khare was surprise. He check my calculation & found correct. Next day, He try to explain it to me in following way
    a)This is an illusion not real velocity. This effect is due to rotation of earth. My answer:- this is not illusion because we can calculate distance travel in that reference frame divided by 24 hrs. As this is calculated quantity, this is not illusion & we can see stars are moving with that velocity from East to West. I say if we have Geosynchronous satellite (just imagine) which is stable with this frame of reference at distance 4 light year then relative velocity of star with this stable satellite will be more than C.
    b)Khare said that This reference frame is non inertial frame of reference because it has angular acceleration. My answer:-Every frame of reference in world is accelerating. Earth is accelerating, Sun is accelerating, galaxy is accelerating, after some days, we will find this whole world is accelerating with relative to other world. We all lived in complex falling lift (may be in circular or elliptical in path). As summation of forces in falling lift is zero we fill that we are stable & in inertial frame of reference but perfect inertial frame of reference is not present in the world. Einstein always speak about inertial frame of reference which is not present in the world.
    3rd problem:-After completing B.E. in Civil. As I have interest in physics. I complete BSc in physics before joining Engineer job (for bread & butter). In BSc, I come across very interesting problem. If two electrons moving in one direction with same velocity. then both will get attracted towards one another due to formation of magnetic field (Pinch effect). Just for second forget about earth, then Both electrons must be stable with relative to one another & not moving. If I consider one electron as observer for other electron then other electron will not be in any motion (stable). This non relative motion should not create any magnetic field which acts on one another but reverse is happened. Means, Big mass like earth act as special reference frame for electron or elementary particle on earth may be for Photons also.
    When CERN is established. I know such result will arise & I published paper on my web site 3 years back. So, people will not think that this is my after thought. I am very confident same result will be get repeated in Fermi lab & else where.
    It is completely sound to have a theory that only applies to some particles but not others. One can logically accept a world in which all particles - except neutrinos - follow SR. This is analogous to all particles that are charged being affected by electromagnetic fields, and all uncharged particles not. Some theories apply to some particles, but not all. This is elementary.

    You bring up an interesting point - and I must say that your professor was very right: your rotating wheel, star system, or whatever does not hold under SR because it is an accelerating system. SR is simply not applicatble there because a rotating object is accelerating. This was the main feat of Einstein, he developed GR to deal with these kind of issues. GR is thus a generalization of SR, making SR only valid for inertial frames of reference. Here is the crux: it doesn't matter that there are no real inertial frame of reference, what matters is that they approximately are. For example, you say that SR is not valid on Earth because it is rotating, and thus accelerating. It is shown however that SR does work because the magnitude of such an acceleration is minute compared to, say, the velocity of light (with some appropiate unit conversion) so we can approximately call it an intertial frame for most purposes.
    It doesn't really matter, because we can always be pedantic and try to solve classic SR problems like length contraction and so on directly from GR - even though they are incredibly hard doing so - and obtain the same results! What you are missing is the fundamental point of physics theories: they build on each other and are just generalizations that work in some regimes. Coming up with a different regime in which the theory fails (where the theory didn't claim to work before) is not a valid contradiction of the theory.

    You talk about the pinch effect. It is a very interesting problem that all physics majors have to deal with in their studies of E&M - and I don't believe it for a minute that you hold a BSc in Physics because you would know this: Magnetic and Electric fields are two sides of the same coin, and depending on your relative velocity you will see one, the other, or a mix of both. This is the crux of SR applied to E&M. In the pinch effect, if you boost yourself into the electrons frame of reference of course you will no longer see a magnetic field because no charges are moving. You will instead see an electric field that will make the electrons attract. This is covered in elementary E&M books like Griffiths, so I refer you to such a book. There is no need to introduce a vague "earth reference" to account for this effect.

    Also, CERN has been well established for decades... I am guessing you mean the LHC (again shows your complete ignorance on these topics) - and if you think that if a particle collision experiment is going to "prove" that SR is wrong in such a fundamental way as you propose you are very wrong.

    It would also be nice to at least acknowledge all the points that I have been making in the previous posts and that you are ignoring completely.
    I am waiting for your answer for story in my comment 41 from last 5 days. This is not a problem of length contraction but of death, so answer is really difficult. But if your SR is so much real then it must answer to such a simple E&M problem.

    I have been extremely busy the last few days and I have not had a chance to respond. But here is the answer.
    You bring up an interesting analogy, and I must say that I had to pull out my undergraduate electrodynamics to answer the question. For reference, I am going to be referring to Griffiths Introduction to Electrodynamics, 3rd Edition, Chapter 12 : "Electrodynamics and Relativity"

    Your example is flawed: two charges moving in a line, from an external point of view, are creating a magnetic field that indeed would make them attract if it were the only field acting on the charges. This is Example 12.14 in Griffiths. However: two moving charges also create an electric field that radiates from the instantaneous positions given by Example 12.13 in Griffiths. I am not going to write down both equations because it would defeat the point of the forum, but basically when you use the Lorentz Force law on both fields that an external observer would see, the force that both balls feel is not one analogous to the pinch effect, but rather it is a force that actually pushes them apart. Thus, the observer in the train and the observer on the train tracks both see both balls moving apart, and there is no paradox.

    Basically, you went wrong in assuming that the pinch effect would naively act in the same way for point charges as it does for a stream of current (that mathematically is usually assumed to be infinite in length). Since there are no other charges moving along with the two balls that will create a steady stream of current, the pinch effect is invalid.

    I hope that answers your paradox.

    Furthermore, doing some more reading I have realized that your point about rotating objects being in violation of SR is wrong: Ehrenfest paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It was posed long ago and solved also long ago. Please read the wikipedia article, it will be very enlightening.
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Good point diegocaba...turns out my answer in post #47 was actually wrong.
    I stand corrected :-)
    diegocaba likes this.
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    In special theory of relativity mass is relative, energy is relative, time is relative but charge is invariance i.e. e=eo. Means in motion also charge remain same i.e. charge field which create repulsion remain same. In Lorentz force law F=charge force+ magnetic force =qE +qv B, here charge force has not having any velocity component but magnetic force is related by velocity. Magnetic force increases with increase in velocity of charge.

    This is reason for electrons get attracted towards one another because repulsive force remains same as this is due to similar charges but magnetic force increases to much due to higher velocity of charges. Here force of attraction is much more than force of repulsion. So, pinch effect is created. (This is very simple solution, change of shape of space due to velocity in not taken into account. As I oppose relativity)
    Just for second, I accepted that all you have said is true. Both balls will get repel from one another as force of repulsion is more than force of attraction.

    Then give me answer of one question:-
    Force of repulsion between the charge balls increases with increase in relative velocity with observer or decreases with increase in relative velocity with observer. Previous story can be corrected accordingly.
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    In special theory of relativity mass is relative, energy is relative, time is relative but charge is invariance i.e. e=eo. Means in motion also charge remain same i.e. charge field which create repulsion remain same. In Lorentz force law F=charge force+ magnetic force =qE +qv B, here charge force has not having any velocity component but magnetic force is related by velocity. Magnetic force increases with increase in velocity of charge.

    This is reason for electrons get attracted towards one another because repulsive force remains same as this is due to similar charges but magnetic force increases to much due to higher velocity of charges. Here force of attraction is much more than force of repulsion. So, pinch effect is created. (This is very simple solution, change of shape of space due to velocity in not taken into account. As I oppose relativity)
    Just for second, I accepted that all you have said is true. Both balls will get repel from one another as force of repulsion is more than force of attraction.

    Then give me answer of one question:-
    Force of repulsion between the charge balls increases with increase in relative velocity with observer or decreases with increase in relative velocity with observer. Previous story can be corrected accordingly.
    Oh geez... where do I start... You really did not look at my reply did you? When you boost yourself into other frames (like going from the train to the platform) the fields all change, but they change in such a way that the physics stays the same. You cannout just apply the non-relativistic Lorentz Force to get the kinematics, you have to use a relativistic formulation of the force law.

    I am not going to to dwell into the math because it would be beyond the scope of this forum. You can go get a book yourself, and have the humbleness to realize that there have been many intelligent people before you who have figured these things out, to the point where it is considered elementary physics.

    For the record, your logic is fundamentally flawed: you cannot say X is wrong because I am not using a theory Y to understand it, since I oppose Y in the first place. That is called circular reasoning, and while it might be internally self-consistent it is neither real or correct, as evidenced by experiment.

    Also, did you read about the Ehrenfest paradox?
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman Blacksand459's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Thumb Area of Michigan
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by diegocaba View Post
    Hahaha, your words speak for themselves. There is no point in speaking with those who don't listen. If you really think Einstein would side with you, you are dillusional.
    I really see no need to be rude. You may have an extensive knowledge of science, but in my opinion, being "right" is no license for snobbishness.
    Murphy's Law: More or less, if a cat always lands on its feet, and the bread always lands peanut butter side down, then if you strap a piece of bread to a cat and drop it, what happens? It implodes.
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    Your comment:-Basically, you went wrong in assuming that the pinch effect would naively act in the same way for point charges as it does for a stream of current (that mathematically is usually assumed to be infinite in length). Since there are no other charges moving along with the two balls that will create a steady stream of current, the pinch effect is invalid.
    Means according to you, stream of electrons moving in one direction create current. Such electrons stream create magnetic field which attracts electrons toward one another (Pinch effect). If electrons velocity increases with observer then more magnetic fields is created which attract electrons more severally. OK by using your thought, I just modify my story.
    One man is in the train moving from one station to another. He has two hanging boxes from his both hands. In each box, there is arrangement, one straight cable is attached to battery & current (electrons) is flowing from that cables in direction of motion of train. Man holds strings in such away that cables are parallel to one another. Then due to pinch effect, electrons, cables, boxes get attracted toward one another. By using weights & pulley arrangements, magnetic attraction between boxes in nullify by applying opposite force to pinch force. Now, any additional pinch force will attract boxes towards one another. This train cabin has big windows. One Cockroach is sitting on one of that light box from inner side. One Padre is waiting at next station & observing this approaching train with binocular & also see through big window of train. He is observing the man having boxes from that window. Then what will happen by your relativity.
    1) For man in train cabin:-Nothing is happen. As boxes are with equilibrium of forces. Magnetic attraction is just balanced by opposite pull. Cockroach will be live.
    2) For Padre on next station:- Now velocity of electrons with observer is more than previous as velocity of train is get added into it. He observed that both boxes will get attracted toward each other due to formation of more magnetic strong field (due to more relative velocity of electrons with him)(Pinch effect). More magnetic force will form due to electrons more relative motion with observer. If this velocity is much more then there will be more attraction. Due to this more magnetic attraction consider that both boxes will get collided & poor Cockroach sitting on inner side of box get killed due to collision.
    Padre shouted “Oh, that man has killed that innocent Cockroach”.
    Now, train reaches to next station after slowing down, Padre will see that additional magnetic attraction disappear & boxes with blood strain reaches to original position & dead Cockroach will fall on to the train floor. Padre rushed into train cabin & shouted to man “You have killed that Cockroach. I have observe it & blood is there on that boxl”
    Man innocently said,” Cockroach is not killed in collision. I, boxes & Cockroach all are at same rest position. Cockroach is live.”
    Now both Padre & man are at same frame of reference means only one is true. Who is true? Cockroach is killed in collision or Cockroach is not dead & still sitting on box. Please answer this problem.
    Last edited by Mahesh khati; December 10th, 2011 at 01:43 PM.
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    My above story asked question that pinch effect (formation of magnetic field) due motion of stream of electrons i.e. current is depend on velocity with respect to observer or not. If observer (man in train) moving in direction of electrons then due to less velocity pinch effect is less than the rest observer(Padre). If this formation of magnetic attraction (Pinch force) is depend on observer then we will get different magnitude of pinch forces by different observer’s state of motions. These different pinches will create a problem. These different forces can create different irreversible events. Same Cockroach can be live, can be injured by small force, can be killed and can be smashed.
    I don’t like relativity because observer is creator in it. Even event not happen in rest can be also created. If you asked to electron, it will say that where is magnetic force due to linear velocity & pinch?
    Last edited by Mahesh khati; December 11th, 2011 at 01:35 PM.
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    My above story asked question that pinch effect (formation of magnetic field) due motion of stream of electrons i.e. current is depend on velocity with respect to observer or not. If observer (man in train) moving in direction of electrons then due to less velocity pinch effect is less than the rest observer(Padre). If this formation of magnetic attraction (Pinch force) is depend on observer then we will get different magnitude of pinch forces by different observer’s state of motions. These different pinches will create a problem. These different forces can create different irreversible events. Same Cockroach can be live, can be injured by small force, can be killed and can be smashed.
    I don’t like relativity because observer is creator in it. Even event not happen in rest can be also created. If you asked to electron, it will say that where is magnetic force due to linear velocity & pinch?
    I am done answering your questions until you start acknowledging that I have answered all your previous points and you have been unable to give any replys at all, whether it is regarding the energies associated to spins, rotational systems, or your mixing up of QM and relativity. Instead of quizzing me on elementary physics problems, why don't you have the humbleness to realize that there have been many intelligent people before either one of us who have answered all these questions, and these answers are all readily available. I gave you one reference before, and I am happy to give you many more if you want to get hold of some books and start learning, as opposed to assuming that the whole principles on which our technology has been built are flawed.
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    41 to 56 comments are dedicated to this pinch effect. We can not live this discussion at this important point after so much discussion. Pinch effect is also very important point. This deal with effect (formation of magnetic field) created by stream of electrons. This effect is related by observer & it is important. So, please answer to the comment 54. This effect will create different magnitude of forces that will do work (may be different irreversible events).
    We will discuss your every answer separately after completing this point as I am not satisfied.
    I am not quizzing you but you are protecting your SR nicely. I will read all books you refer to me. Please give publisher address also. Thanks.
     

  59. #58  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    41 to 56 comments are dedicated to this pinch effect. We can not live this discussion at this important point after so much discussion. Pinch effect is also very important point. This deal with effect (formation of magnetic field) created by stream of electrons. This effect is related by observer & it is important. So, please answer to the comment 54. This effect will create different magnitude of forces that will do work (may be different irreversible events).
    We will discuss your every answer separately after completing this point as I am not satisfied.
    I am not quizzing you but you are protecting your SR nicely. I will read all books you refer to me. Please give publisher address also. Thanks.
    Mahesh, the experimental setup you describe is quite straightforward. How about you find yourself a partner and perform it yourself if you are so convinced that SR is wrong - you don't even need a train for this, a car, a bicycle, or anything else that moves uniformly will do for this, and you needn't even go to relativistic speeds. Let us know how you get on. Remember that any claimed outcome must be independently re-creatable.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; December 12th, 2011 at 01:36 PM.
     

  60. #59  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I really don't get this whole argument. Is this not the classic problem of "Moving Magnet and Conductor" revisited in a slightly different setup ? In my mind ( and correct me if I am wrong, because I am not an expert in ED ), this really boils down to the fact that one of the observers measures the effects of the magnetic aspect of the field (charges not moving), whereas the other one measures the effects of the electric field aspect (moving charges). It is the same field though (the charges are the same ones !!!), so the resultant force on the two charged balls ( be it a pinch effect or otherwise ) is exactly the same, and therefore both observes will find the same outcome of the experiment, whatever this turns out to be. It really couldn't be any other way, because otherwise physical laws would be different for different observers, and experiments would have a different outcome depending on which state the experimenter and the setup are in, which is obviously not the case in the absence of accelerating forces.
    This does not even have much to do with SR - if you take this setup to relativistic speeds, then obviously you need to use the relativistic field equations for this, which introduce new terms in the relations effectively compensating for any relativistic effects. The outcome is still the same for both observers in the end. SR at its most basic level really only says that all observers see the same set of physical laws in the absence of gravity/acceleration, regardless of their relative state of motion; no fancy maths are needed to realize this, and it is completely intuitive to me. Just imagine what the world would look like if this wasn't true ?? I think we would somehow have noticed by now. In my mind this discussion has now become a waste of time.
    Mahesh, if you think SR / GR is wrong, please present a verifiable mathematical argument why this is so. If you think that in your setup you get different outcomes for the two observers, then please calculate the magnetic and electrical forces for a given charge, and show us mathematically that they cannot be equal for each observer. On the other hand, I present you mathematical proof that they are indeed equal for any given speed and any given charge for each observer :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_...ductor_problem

    Over to you, Mahesh - you are the one claiming that the long established and experimentally well verified theory of SR is wrong, so the onus is on you to proof that the above referenced calculations are wrong. I await your response.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; December 12th, 2011 at 01:35 PM.
    diegocaba likes this.
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    41 to 56 comments are dedicated to this pinch effect. We can not live this discussion at this important point after so much discussion. Pinch effect is also very important point. This deal with effect (formation of magnetic field) created by stream of electrons. This effect is related by observer & it is important. So, please answer to the comment 54. This effect will create different magnitude of forces that will do work (may be different irreversible events).
    We will discuss your every answer separately after completing this point as I am not satisfied.
    I am not quizzing you but you are protecting your SR nicely. I will read all books you refer to me. Please give publisher address also. Thanks.
    Mahesh, the experimental setup you describe is quite straightforward. How about you find yourself a partner and perform it yourself if you are so convinced that SR is wrong - you don't even need a train for this, a car, a bicycle, or anything else that moves uniformly will do for this, and you needn't even go to relativistic speeds. Let us know how you get on. Remember that any claimed outcome must be independently re-creatable.
    In this story there are 3 possibilities 1) As electrons are generally stable with relative to one another in parallel cable with same current only electric charge which is present in that frame of electrons will act on one another. .......(but this is wrong because if such thing happen all electronic instrument on earth will shut down)
    2)If SR is true then different magnetic fields will produced by different velocity of electrons for different observers...........(but this is also wrong because this will produce different types of irreversible different events by different intensity of magnetic fields in different reference frames. Now we can create very sensitive instrument that even small difference in force will create big irreversible events)
    3)Some frame may be special or Earth may act as special frame of reference for all elementary particles on earth. This is very much possibility. Electron may be expressing our kinetic energy & do magnetic signature on earth combine gravitational field & balance charge field. OR big matter is creating our own reference frame. This may be reason for photon velocity is equal in all direction on earth……
     

  62. #61  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by
    [FONT=&amp
    2)If SR is true then different magnetic fields will produced by different velocity of electrons for different observers...........(but this is also wrong because this will produce different types of irreversible different events by different intensity of magnetic fields in different reference frames. Now we can create very sensitive instrument that even small difference in force will create big irreversible events)

    [/FONT]
    No this is incorrect, in fact it is the exact opposite. SR postulates that two observers moving along at the same constant speed will observe the same magnetic field, because they must be subject to the same laws of physics.
     

  63. #62  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post

    3)Some frame may be special or Earth may act as special frame of reference for all elementary particles on earth. This is very much possibility. Electron may be expressing our kinetic energy & do magnetic signature on earth combine gravitational field & balance charge field. OR big matter is creating our own reference frame. This may be reason for photon velocity is equal in all direction on earth……
    No there are no "special" frames of reference; all frames are equal in the absence of gravity and acceleration. Near the earth you have a gravitational field due to the mass of the earth, so strictly speaking SR is only an approximation here. You would need to use the laws of General Relativity, which are formulated differently.
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by
    [FONT=&amp
    2)If SR is true then different magnetic fields will produced by different velocity of electrons for different observers...........(but this is also wrong because this will produce different types of irreversible different events by different intensity of magnetic fields in different reference frames. Now we can create very sensitive instrument that even small difference in force will create big irreversible events)

    [/FONT]
    No this is incorrect, in fact it is the exact opposite. SR postulates that two observers moving along at the same constant speed will observe the same magnetic field, because they must be subject to the same laws of physics.
    I have not said that different observer has same state of motion. They may be moving with different velocities. It is also possible that imaginary observer is moving with electron. These observers will see different Pinch effects(magnetic attraction). For imaginary observer this pinch effect will be zero.
     

  65. #64  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by
    [FONT=&amp
    2)If SR is true then different magnetic fields will produced by different velocity of electrons for different observers...........(but this is also wrong because this will produce different types of irreversible different events by different intensity of magnetic fields in different reference frames. Now we can create very sensitive instrument that even small difference in force will create big irreversible events)

    [/FONT]
    No this is incorrect, in fact it is the exact opposite. SR postulates that two observers moving along at the same constant speed will observe the same magnetic field, because they must be subject to the same laws of physics.
    I have not said that different observer has same state of motion. They may be moving with different velocities. It is also possible that imaginary observer is moving with electron. These observers will see different Pinch effects(magnetic attraction). For imaginary observer this pinch effect will be zero.
    This doesn't matter, because only the relative motion between the two counts. This means that in the absence of an absolute frame of reference you can always treat one of the observers as being at rest and the other one as moving relative to the one at rest. Once again, you get the same result, because one of them sees a magnetic force, the other one an electric one. Both produce the same resulting force on the charge/current.
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by
    [FONT=&amp
    2)If SR is true then different magnetic fields will produced by different velocity of electrons for different observers...........(but this is also wrong because this will produce different types of irreversible different events by different intensity of magnetic fields in different reference frames. Now we can create very sensitive instrument that even small difference in force will create big irreversible events)

    [/FONT]
    No this is incorrect, in fact it is the exact opposite. SR postulates that two observers moving along at the same constant speed will observe the same magnetic field, because they must be subject to the same laws of physics.
    I have not said that different observer has same state of motion. They may be moving with different velocities. It is also possible that imaginary observer is moving with electron. These observers will see different Pinch effects(magnetic attraction). For imaginary observer this pinch effect will be zero.
    This doesn't matter, because only the relative motion between the two counts. This means that in the absence of an absolute frame of reference you can always treat one of the observers as being at rest and the other one as moving relative to the one at rest. Once again, you get the same result, because one of them sees a magnetic force, the other one an electric one. Both produce the same resulting force on the charge/current.
    In pinch effect all electrons are moving with constant velocity from one -ve plate to other +ve plate if you fixed frame of reference on one electron, then for that reference frame all electrons will be at rest & static charge will not create any pinch effect.
     

  67. #66  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Mahesh, this is not a good example, because it only makes things more complicated than they need to be. To answer your question, no, the electrons at rest do not see a pinch effect, but they see a magnetic field from their charges at rest which will generate the same resultant force as the pinch effect from the moving current. So once again, the result is the same. The reason why this is not a good example is that electrons are quantum particles and cannot be put to rest without violating the Heisenberg principle. The quantum effects here unnecessarily complicate the original subject matter, but nonetheless SR still applies as before.
     

  68. #67  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Mahesh, just let it go. We can spent hours and hours going through pinch effect scenarios, yet I will always be able to show you that the resultant force is the same for all observers. We are just wasting time here.
    diegocaba likes this.
     

  69. #68  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    If you are so convinced that SR is wrong, then please show us a general mathematical proof. In essence, proof to us that Lorentz transformations are wrong. This is pure maths.
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I really don't get this whole argument. Is this not the classic problem of "Moving Magnet and Conductor" revisited in a slightly different setup ? In my mind ( and correct me if I am wrong, because I am not an expert in ED ), this really boils down to the fact that one of the observers measures the effects of the magnetic aspect of the field (charges not moving), whereas the other one measures the effects of the electric field aspect (moving charges). It is the same field though (the charges are the same ones !!!), so the resultant force on the two charged balls ( be it a pinch effect or otherwise ) is exactly the same, and therefore both observes will find the same outcome of the experiment, whatever this turns out to be. It really couldn't be any other way, because otherwise physical laws would be different for different observers, and experiments would have a different outcome depending on which state the experimenter and the setup are in, which is obviously not the case in the absence of accelerating forces.
    This does not even have much to do with SR - if you take this setup to relativistic speeds, then obviously you need to use the relativistic field equations for this, which introduce new terms in the relations effectively compensating for any relativistic effects. The outcome is still the same for both observers in the end. SR at its most basic level really only says that all observers see the same set of physical laws in the absence of gravity/acceleration, regardless of their relative state of motion; no fancy maths are needed to realize this, and it is completely intuitive to me. Just imagine what the world would look like if this wasn't true ?? I think we would somehow have noticed by now. In my mind this discussion has now become a waste of time.
    Mahesh, if you think SR / GR is wrong, please present a verifiable mathematical argument why this is so. If you think that in your setup you get different outcomes for the two observers, then please calculate the magnetic and electrical forces for a given charge, and show us mathematically that they cannot be equal for each observer. On the other hand, I present you mathematical proof that they are indeed equal for any given speed and any given charge for each observer :

    Moving magnet and conductor problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Over to you, Mahesh - you are the one claiming that the long established and experimentally well verified theory of SR is wrong, so the onus is on you to proof that the above referenced calculations are wrong. I await your response.
    Thank-you Markus - I couldn't agree more.
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Mahesh, this is not a good example, because it only makes things more complicated than they need to be. To answer your question, no, the electrons at rest do not see a pinch effect, but they see a magnetic field from their charges at rest which will generate the same resultant force as the pinch effect from the moving current. So once again, the result is the same. The reason why this is not a good example is that electrons are quantum particles and cannot be put to rest without violating the Heisenberg principle. The quantum effects here unnecessarily complicate the original subject matter, but nonetheless SR still applies as before.
    I am at project site with my small net book but I try to give mathematical answer to your problem.
    Let consider one straight cable with fixed cross section area through which current I is moving
    Let, Number of free electrons present in unit length of cable which
    contribute in flow of current = N
    Charge of each electron = e
    Average velocity of each electron in cable= V
    So, total charge of free electrons in unit length of cable which
    contribute in flow of current
    Q = N e
    But we know, current is the rate of flow charge.
    I = Q . V
    I = N . e .V
    If N & e is consider constant then I is proportional to V, means if Velocity of electron increases current in the cable increases.
    Above formula can be written as
    I =function of velocity of electrons = f1(V)-----(1)
    This current creates circular magnetic field & it intensity is depend on current intensity.
    i.e. Magnetic force is the function of current.(I don’t give Biot–Savart law)
    So, Magnetic force F=f2(I)--------(2)
    As magnetic force is the function of current & current is the function of velocity of electrons then from (1) & (2)
    Magnetic force F= f(V),
    i.e. magnetic force is the function of velocity of electrons in the cable. If velocity of electron increases, current in the cable increases & due to increase in current magnetic force increases.
    Here the problem starts :- because velocity is the relative term. Different observer will see different velocity of same electrons. This will create different magnetic forces. If observer moves parallel to flow of electron in the direction of electrons then this magnetic attraction will be less. If observer moves in opposite direction then this magnetic attraction will be more. This is not attraction between charge field & magnetic field but this is attraction between two magnetic fields created by parallel currents . Two separate parallel conductor get attracted towards one another by this force.
    Presence of conductors is not compulsory for pinch effect. Even electrons moving parallel in space get attracted towards one another by magnetic attraction.
    Last edited by Mahesh khati; December 13th, 2011 at 02:03 PM.
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Mahesh, this is not a good example, because it only makes things more complicated than they need to be. To answer your question, no, the electrons at rest do not see a pinch effect, but they see a magnetic field from their charges at rest which will generate the same resultant force as the pinch effect from the moving current. So once again, the result is the same. The reason why this is not a good example is that electrons are quantum particles and cannot be put to rest without violating the Heisenberg principle. The quantum effects here unnecessarily complicate the original subject matter, but nonetheless SR still applies as before.
    The theory of Special Relativity allows one to transform the magnetic field into a static electric field for an observer moving at the same speed as the charge in the diagram. The amount of current is particular to a reference frame.
    This is the comment given in Electric current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ......chapter Electromagnetism
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Mahesh, this is not a good example, because it only makes things more complicated than they need to be. To answer your question, no, the electrons at rest do not see a pinch effect, but they see a magnetic field from their charges at rest which will generate the same resultant force as the pinch effect from the moving current. So once again, the result is the same. The reason why this is not a good example is that electrons are quantum particles and cannot be put to rest without violating the Heisenberg principle. The quantum effects here unnecessarily complicate the original subject matter, but nonetheless SR still applies as before.
    The theory of Special Relativity allows one to transform the magnetic field into a static electric field for an observer moving at the same speed as the charge in the diagram. The amount of current is particular to a reference frame.
    This is the comment given in Electric current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ......chapter Electromagnetism
    You don't understand how these things work - and you refuse to accept that you have been corrected many times. Your comment #70 is yet another example of your limited high school knowledge of physics, and also a direct contradiction of the quote you include in #71. Stop wasting people's time.
     

  74. #73  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    No there are no "special" frames of reference; all frames are equal in the absence of gravity and acceleration. Near the earth you have a gravitational field due to the mass of the earth, so strictly speaking SR is only an approximation here. You would need to use the laws of General Relativity, which are formulated differently.
    And I feel it is important to note at this point that General Relativity reduces to Special Relativity in the appropriate conditions. In the absence of gravity or acceleration, GR makes the same predictions as SR.

    One cannot agree with GR but disagree with SR.
     

  75. #74  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Mahesh, this is not a good example, because it only makes things more complicated than they need to be. To answer your question, no, the electrons at rest do not see a pinch effect, but they see a magnetic field from their charges at rest which will generate the same resultant force as the pinch effect from the moving current. So once again, the result is the same. The reason why this is not a good example is that electrons are quantum particles and cannot be put to rest without violating the Heisenberg principle. The quantum effects here unnecessarily complicate the original subject matter, but nonetheless SR still applies as before.
    The theory of Special Relativity allows one to transform the magnetic field into a static electric field for an observer moving at the same speed as the charge in the diagram. The amount of current is particular to a reference frame.
    This is the comment given in Electric current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ......chapter Electromagnetism
    Mahesh, you are now at a stage where you are completely embarrassing yourself. Have you actually read that article ? Have you followed the links provided ? This article proves that you are completely wrong in your childish attempts to disprove SR with basic principles of electrodynamics. As you seem to be unable to follow the maths and arguments involved, I will summarize this for you one last time ( excerpts taken from Wikipedia pages referenced above ) :

    1. The amount of current is particular to a reference frame, and so is the magnetic field
    2. The chosen reference frame determines whether you see an EM phenomenon as an electrostatic effect, or as magnetism
    3. These fields intermix - the electric field in one frame contributes to the magnetic field in another, and vice versa !
    4. If you do the maths, you find that the resultant vector force is the same in both frames

    A general proof looks something like this, and if you had any understand of this at all you would easily be able to find this is any old ED textbook :

    Moving magnet and conductor problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    And in particular also

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic..._and_magnetism

    This proof holds true in all scenarios.
    There you have it, I have given you proof, mathematical and otherwise, that the resultant force is always the same. Stop embarrassing yourself any further, and just let it go.
    Strange and diegocaba like this.
     

  76. #75  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Mahesh, this is not a good example, because it only makes things more complicated than they need to be. To answer your question, no, the electrons at rest do not see a pinch effect, but they see a magnetic field from their charges at rest which will generate the same resultant force as the pinch effect from the moving current. So once again, the result is the same. The reason why this is not a good example is that electrons are quantum particles and cannot be put to rest without violating the Heisenberg principle. The quantum effects here unnecessarily complicate the original subject matter, but nonetheless SR still applies as before.
    I am at project site with my small net book but I try to give mathematical answer to your problem.
    Let consider one straight cable with fixed cross section area through which current I is moving
    Let, Number of free electrons present in unit length of cable which
    contribute in flow of current = N
    Charge of each electron = e
    Average velocity of each electron in cable= V
    So, total charge of free electrons in unit length of cable which
    contribute in flow of current
    Q = N e
    But we know, current is the rate of flow charge.
    I = Q . V
    I = N . e .V
    If N & e is consider constant then I is proportional to V, means if Velocity of electron increases current in the cable increases.
    Above formula can be written as
    I =function of velocity of electrons = f1(V)-----(1)
    This current creates circular magnetic field & it intensity is depend on current intensity.
    i.e. Magnetic force is the function of current.(I don’t give Biot–Savart law)
    So, Magnetic force F=f2(I)--------(2)
    As magnetic force is the function of current & current is the function of velocity of electrons then from (1) & (2)
    Magnetic force F= f(V),
    i.e. magnetic force is the function of velocity of electrons in the cable. If velocity of electron increases, current in the cable increases & due to increase in current magnetic force increases.
    Here the problem starts :- because velocity is the relative term. Different observer will see different velocity of same electrons. This will create different magnetic forces. If observer moves parallel to flow of electron in the direction of electrons then this magnetic attraction will be less. If observer moves in opposite direction then this magnetic attraction will be more. This is not attraction between charge field & magnetic field but this is attraction between two magnetic fields created by parallel currents . Two separate parallel conductor get attracted towards one another by this force.
    Presence of conductors is not compulsory for pinch effect. Even electrons moving parallel in space get attracted towards one another by magnetic attraction.
    Are you actually for real ? Did you understand anything at all of what we have tried to explain to you ? There is only one velocity, and that's the relative one between the observer and the charge.
    The charge moves = electric current = electric field
    The charge rests = magnetic field
    You do the maths as referenced in post 74, you find that the resultant force is the same in both scenarios. Why is this so hard for you to understand ?
     

  77. #76  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Mahesh, let me make this perfectly clear to you now :

    1. The scenarios you have given have all been explained by diegocaba and myself
    2. We have explained to you, in simple terms, the relationship between magnetic and electric aspects, and how these change in relation to an observer's frame of reference
    3. We have provided ample references for all the above explanations
    4. It has been proven mathematically for all cases that the resultant forces are equal and independent of the observer's frame of reference - see post 74

    As far as I am concerned this discussion ends here. All these points have been discussed, resolved and proven to be in accordance with both SR and ED over a hundred years ago by minds greater than yours or mine, and are all experimentally verified. If you don't believe what we are saying to you, then go ahead and perform your own experiments. It is straight forward, and I can assure you that you will not find any proof that SR is wrong.
    I have never studied Electromagnetism in any great detail, yet the basic principles at work here are so fundamental and straightforward that I can only marvel at your inability to grasp the simple concept of magnetic and electric fields being combined in an electromagnetic field ! Why is this so difficult for you ? If you cannot understand this, then you are in no position to attack a theory as well verified as SR is.
    If you want to argue your point further, then please be my guest - we are all entitled to our own follies. I for my part will not waste any more time on people who do not actually want to understand what is explained to them, because it would interfere with their personal beliefs.

    Best of luck,
    Markus
     

  78. #77  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    And by the way - next time you turn on your TV, go and marvel at the fact that the satellite that transmits your signal - which moves at high speed in a geostationary orbit in relation to the center of the earth - is not being crushed by pinch effect forces, in spite of all the current generated by its solar panels.
    * Is out of here and unsubscribed *
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Mahesh, let me make this perfectly clear to you now :

    1. The scenarios you have given have all been explained by diegocaba and myself
    2. We have explained to you, in simple terms, the relationship between magnetic and electric aspects, and how these change in relation to an observer's frame of reference
    3. We have provided ample references for all the above explanations
    4. It has been proven mathematically for all cases that the resultant forces are equal and independent of the observer's frame of reference - see post 74

    As far as I am concerned this discussion ends here. All these points have been discussed, resolved and proven to be in accordance with both SR and ED over a hundred years ago by minds greater than yours or mine, and are all experimentally verified. If you don't believe what we are saying to you, then go ahead and perform your own experiments. It is straight forward, and I can assure you that you will not find any proof that SR is wrong.
    I have never studied Electromagnetism in any great detail, yet the basic principles at work here are so fundamental and straightforward that I can only marvel at your inability to grasp the simple concept of magnetic and electric fields being combined in an electromagnetic field ! Why is this so difficult for you ? If you cannot understand this, then you are in no position to attack a theory as well verified as SR is.
    If you want to argue your point further, then please be my guest - we are all entitled to our own follies. I for my part will not waste any more time on people who do not actually want to understand what is explained to them, because it would interfere with their personal beliefs.

    Best of luck,
    Markus
    This is proven fact that when current I move through two parallel conductors. Then, there is attraction between these two conductors due to magnetic field produced by the current I in that cable (as charge effect is just negligible here). If current increases attraction between cables increases. (This effect is used in many instruments in the world). I think there no different thoughts between me & you for this, as these are the proved facts.
    Means, if we have two parallel copper wire with of 1mm diameter,
    Then for 6 ampere current this attraction between cables will be just double than 3 ampere current.
    First consider 3 ampere current,
    Copper has a density of 8.94 g/cm, and an atomic weight of 63.546 g/mol, so there are 140685.5 mol/m. In 1 mole of any element there are 6.021023 atoms (Avogadro's constant). Therefore in 1m of copper there are about 8.51028 atoms (6.021023 140685.5 mol/m). Copper has one free electron per atom, so n is equal to 8.51028 electrons per m.
    Assume a current I=3 amperes, and a wire of 1 mm diameter (radius in meters = 0.0005m). This wire has a cross sectional area of 7.8510-7 m2 (A= π0.00052). The charge of 1 electron is q=-1.610−19 Coulombs. The velocity of electrons in cables will be: (similar example is present in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=462978142)
    V=I/nAq

    V=3/(8.5x10^28)x(7.85x10^-7)x(1.6x(10^-19)
    V=0.00028 m/s
    Means, if we increase current in that parallel conductors from 3 amperes to 6 amperes. Velocity of electrons increases from 0.00028 to 0.00056 m/s for the observer of experiment.
    (It is experimentally proved fact that attraction between cables just increases when current in the cables is increases.)
    Means, attraction between parallel cables increases when current increases from 3 ampere to 6 ampere.
    Means, attraction between parallel cables increases when electrons in that cables moves from velocity 0.00028 to 0.00056 m/s for the observer of this experiment.
    In this setup observer is at rest. We are only increasing velocity of electrons in that copper cable.
    This clearly proves that just increasing velocity of electrons with related to observer. We can increase pinch effect. (If you want exact increase of force between two parallel cables then I can give that also but it is not necessary. You can find it at any E-M book)
    This clearly proves that pinch attraction is depend on velocity of electrons with related to observer.
     

  80. #79  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Oh boy, I can't believe you are still on here.

    Outside observer sees a pinch effect ( magnetic force caused by flowing current ), electron at rest sees the magnetic force from charges at rest. Both are equal, so long as we make sure that no other variables in the experimental setup change.

    Regardless of the exact mechanism of how the E and B fields are created, I have already proven to you in post 74 that all observers will see the same force, regardless of their frame of reference; this proof was done for the general case, and holds true for all scenarios. You on the other hand have as per yet failed to provide proof that in the general case the calculations referenced in post 74 are incorrect. In fact I have not seen you use the proper vector relations at all; all you seem to be able to employ is secondary school scalar maths.
    I will not repeat myself just because you refuse to acknowledge that you have not understood the principles already explained to you.
     

  81. #80  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Btw, will you explain to me how you propose to double your current while maintaining the same voltage along the same wire ??
    You cannot increase current without increasing either voltage or charge density in the cable. In both cases the magnetic field in the rest frame changes accordingly also.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; December 14th, 2011 at 05:09 AM.
     

  82. #81  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Mahesh, I think the only reason why you still argue here is because you are so convinced that SR is wrong that you are no longer prepared to listen to mine or anyone else's arguments. Your mind is set, therefore I am just wasting my time on you. If you want to keep believing that SR is wrong, every physicist before you was wrong, every experiment that was ever performed in support of SR was wrong ( or tempered with ), and all the proofs we have provided are invalid, then so be it. You are entitled to your own beliefs.
    Good bye and good luck, Markus
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Btw, will you explain to me how you propose to double your current while maintaining the same voltage along the same wire ??
    You cannot increase current without increasing either voltage or charge density in the cable. In both cases the magnetic field in the rest frame changes accordingly also.
    Our conversation start when you said that pinch effect is not the relative term & velocity of electrons will not change any pinch effect. In 78 comments, I clearly proved that pinch effect is the relative term. If average velocity of electron in cable (or between two parallel plate with high voltage applied) increases, current increases & ultimately Pinch effect (magnetic field) increases.
    Here, Velocity of electron, this term create a problem because this is relative term. This velocity changes with observers also. This will create problem & Current is the rate of flow of charge (this is also relative term as flow has some velocity).
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by mahesh khati View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by markus hanke View Post
    btw, will you explain to me how you propose to double your current while maintaining the same voltage along the same wire ??
    You cannot increase current without increasing either voltage or charge density in the cable. In both cases the magnetic field in the rest frame changes accordingly also.
    our conversation start when you said that pinch effect is not the relative term & velocity of electrons will not change any pinch effect. In 78 comments, i clearly proved that pinch effect is the relative term. If average velocity of electron in cable (or between two parallel plate with high voltage applied) increases, current increases & ultimately pinch effect (magnetic field) increases.
    here, velocity of electron, this term create a problem because this is relative term. This velocity changes with observers also. This will create problem & current is the rate of flow of charge (this is also relative term as flow has some velocity).
    for the last time mahesh:
    When you move to a different frame of reference, magnetic fields and electric fields start mixing, because they are both part of the same object called an electromagnetic field. They mix in such a way that even though different observers will see different individual magnetic and electric fields, overall the physics they see (forces, accelerations, velocities...) is the same. there is no paradox - bugs will survive no matter how complicated a system you come up with.

    stop it now, you're making a fool of yourself over and over again
     

  85. #84  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahesh khati View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Btw, will you explain to me how you propose to double your current while maintaining the same voltage along the same wire ??
    You cannot increase current without increasing either voltage or charge density in the cable. In both cases the magnetic field in the rest frame changes accordingly also.
    Our conversation start when you said that pinch effect is not the relative term & velocity of electrons will not change any pinch effect. In 78 comments, I clearly proved that pinch effect is the relative term. If average velocity of electron in cable (or between two parallel plate with high voltage applied) increases, current increases & ultimately Pinch effect (magnetic field) increases.
    Here, Velocity of electron, this term create a problem because this is relative term. This velocity changes with observers also. This will create problem & Current is the rate of flow of charge (this is also relative term as flow has some velocity).


    Pity you for 78 wasted posts, because it takes me only one single reference to show that you are wrong ( ref post 74 ). You just refuse to admit that.
    Actually I feel a little sorry for you; you have built yourself a prison of your own misguided delusions, and thrown away the key. And then if people come and want to hand you the key back, you blindly slap their hands away.
    There are plenty of good, honest people who come to this forum because they have a genuine desire to learn and understand, and I am more than happy to help them out wherever I can. I have learned a valuable lesson myself in this thread - stay away from those who only want to prove their own delusions, but are not willing to acknowledge their mistakes and better themselves. People like you are unfortunately just a distraction, and a huge waste of time. You should really be moving on to other forums more suitable for you.
    diegocaba likes this.
     

  86. #85  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I have learned a valuable lesson myself in this thread - stay away from those who only want to prove their own delusions, but are not willing to acknowledge their mistakes and better themselves. People like you are unfortunately just a distraction, and a huge waste of time.
    Markus, I urge you to learn a different lesson from this thread. Without the efforts of yourself and diegocaba casual readers might have been taken in by khati's claims and gone away with a distorted view of science and a negative view of consensus view scientists. you have performed a valuable service, no matter how frustrating it may have been for you.
    SpeedFreek, Strange and diegocaba like this.
     

  87. #86  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I have learned a valuable lesson myself in this thread - stay away from those who only want to prove their own delusions, but are not willing to acknowledge their mistakes and better themselves. People like you are unfortunately just a distraction, and a huge waste of time.
    Markus, I urge you to learn a different lesson from this thread. Without the efforts of yourself and diegocaba casual readers might have been taken in by khati's claims and gone away with a distorted view of science and a negative view of consensus view scientists. you have performed a valuable service, no matter how frustrating it may have been for you.
    Thank you John, and you know what ? You are absolutely right. This isn't just about me and Mahesh and diegocaba, it is also about all those who view this thread without actually posting anything, and hopefully learn a thing or two from it. I did not take that into consideration at all. So it actually was worthwhile.
    Furthermore, I freely admit that when I first came across this, I wasn't too sure myself what the right answer was ( see above in the earlier posts ). These questions made me sit down and take a much closer look at Electrodynamics, which is something I hadn't studied before in any great detail. I have actually been able to advance my own knowledge through participating in this discussion, which I consider a positive outcome.
    SpeedFreek and diegocaba like this.
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Don't give it up Mahesh .. just move on to another format of discussion. Either you're right and onto something the others cannot see, or you're wrong. Either way further discussion is just wasted time here.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  89. #88  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Don't give it up Mahesh .. just move on to another format of discussion. Either you're right and onto something the others cannot see, or you're wrong. Either way further discussion is just wasted time here.
    Way to go A in E, encourage people in their delusions.
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    discussion is just wasted time here.
    The description "wasted time" could certainly be used in relation to the reading of many of your posts.
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Don't give it up Mahesh .. just move on to another format of discussion. Either you're right and onto something the others cannot see, or you're wrong. Either way further discussion is just wasted time here.
    Way to go A in E, encourage people in their delusions.
    Exactly what they said of Aristarchus, John. I can't judge either way here, I don't have the education,
    and even if I did would I simply be missing something if I agreed with you? All I know is that the weight of consensus has been totally wrong so many times I wonder why the word is still in use in science.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    discussion is just wasted time here.
    The description "wasted time" could certainly be used in relation to the reading of many of your posts.
    Thank you, Halliday, you have placed me among the most highly honoured of men, as time and confirmation of their insights and discoveries has shown. Personally, I think a Nobel is in order for my concept of anti-gravity bubbles, perhaps time will confirm my opinion.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I have learned a valuable lesson myself in this thread - stay away from those who only want to prove their own delusions, but are not willing to acknowledge their mistakes and better themselves. People like you are unfortunately just a distraction, and a huge waste of time.
    Markus, I urge you to learn a different lesson from this thread. Without the efforts of yourself and diegocaba casual readers might have been taken in by khati's claims and gone away with a distorted view of science and a negative view of consensus view scientists. you have performed a valuable service, no matter how frustrating it may have been for you.
    Thanks John - I must say that I accidentally came across this forum but I think it is a wonderful idea - I have always thought that one of the biggest problems that society faces is the overall lack of scientific knowledge, even though so much is known. If we erradicate old-fashioned ivory tower misconceptions about science and it's accomplishments, we will all be much better off.
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by diegocaba View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I have learned a valuable lesson myself in this thread - stay away from those who only want to prove their own delusions, but are not willing to acknowledge their mistakes and better themselves. People like you are unfortunately just a distraction, and a huge waste of time.
    Markus, I urge you to learn a different lesson from this thread. Without the efforts of yourself and diegocaba casual readers might have been taken in by khati's claims and gone away with a distorted view of science and a negative view of consensus view scientists. you have performed a valuable service, no matter how frustrating it may have been for you.
    Thanks John - I must say that I accidentally came across this forum but I think it is a wonderful idea - I have always thought that one of the biggest problems that society faces is the overall lack of scientific knowledge, even though so much is known. If we erradicate old-fashioned ivory tower misconceptions about science and it's accomplishments, we will all be much better off.
    Very nice mutual back slapping. I think we would be all better off if we eliminated facist control of ideas, which are right, which are wrong. Maybe then we could get on with free speech and exchange of ideas. I have to compliment the parties in this exchange though for almost all of their contributions, there was a lot of effort made out of geunuine conviction. It is unfortunate it degenerated to this, "...readers might have been taken in by khati's claims ..." Surely readers are entitled to their own opinions. ..."
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  95. #94  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    [I think we would be all better off if we eliminated facist control of ideas, which are right, which are wrong.
    But in math and science, unlike art say, some ideas are right and some are wrong. To say that "2+2 = 5" is wrong is not fascism, it is an attempt at education. And that is about the level at which Mahesh khati is plainly wrong.

    Surely readers are entitled to their own opinions. ...
    Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    [I think we would be all better off if we eliminated facist control of ideas, which are right, which are wrong.
    But in math and science, unlike art say, some ideas are right and some are wrong. To say that "2+2 = 5" is wrong is not fascism, it is an attempt at education. And that is about the level at which Mahesh khati is plainly wrong.

    Surely readers are entitled to their own opinions. ...
    Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
    In your mind, in your opinion, you are correct. In Aristarchus's mind and in fact he was correct, yet he was wrong in the minds and facts of the consensus of his day. That is my point. My time on this computer is up. Talk to you later.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by diegocaba View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I have learned a valuable lesson myself in this thread - stay away from those who only want to prove their own delusions, but are not willing to acknowledge their mistakes and better themselves. People like you are unfortunately just a distraction, and a huge waste of time.
    Markus, I urge you to learn a different lesson from this thread. Without the efforts of yourself and diegocaba casual readers might have been taken in by khati's claims and gone away with a distorted view of science and a negative view of consensus view scientists. you have performed a valuable service, no matter how frustrating it may have been for you.
    Thanks John - I must say that I accidentally came across this forum but I think it is a wonderful idea - I have always thought that one of the biggest problems that society faces is the overall lack of scientific knowledge, even though so much is known. If we erradicate old-fashioned ivory tower misconceptions about science and it's accomplishments, we will all be much better off.
    Very nice mutual back slapping. I think we would be all better off if we eliminated facist control of ideas, which are right, which are wrong. Maybe then we could get on with free speech and exchange of ideas. I have to compliment the parties in this exchange though for almost all of their contributions, there was a lot of effort made out of geunuine conviction. It is unfortunate it degenerated to this, "...readers might have been taken in by khati's claims ..." Surely readers are entitled to their own opinions. ..."
    No Aristarchus, you are mistaken. The great beauty of science - that has allowed for society to develop for the last few centuries to previously unfathomable levels - is that we are forever bound by reality. In other academic fields, conclusions are subject to subjective interpretation and people are allowed, and encouraged, to disagree as many times there is no objective measuring stick to see who is right.

    The natural world is not like that. You can have the most elaborate, beautiful, and incredible idea, but if experiments contradict you you have to throw it away since it just doesn't work, as much as you might dislike it. The objective measuring stick is thus what can be recreatable by others, with consistent results.

    Thus, people are not entitled to their own opinions in science if they are wrong. This is not fascism, it is just the law of nature.
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    [I think we would be all better off if we eliminated facist control of ideas, which are right, which are wrong.
    But in math and science, unlike art say, some ideas are right and some are wrong. To say that "2+2 = 5" is wrong is not fascism, it is an attempt at education. And that is about the level at which Mahesh khati is plainly wrong.

    Surely readers are entitled to their own opinions. ...
    Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
    In your mind, in your opinion, you are correct. In Aristarchus's mind and in fact he was correct, yet he was wrong in the minds and facts of the consensus of his day. That is my point. My time on this computer is up. Talk to you later.
    No - in the Ancient Greek School of knowledge science was not a consistently established field. The definition of "fact" as we know it was non-existant. For example, Aristotle claimed that the natural state of matter was at rest, amd there was no need to "test" this, the scientific method was logically not established. Those natural philosophers would end up in discussions about natural or mathematical laws, but they would often be intermixed with belief, mythology, or philosophy. Sometimes, they would get very profound and beautiful results, like Pythogaras' theorem, or Archimedes' laws. However, these results were held at the same level as, say, Aristotle's law of motion, which is plain wrong.

    They had collectively not reached a level of maturity that is necessary for consistent scientific progress. This is ultimately what this is about: what method allows us to learn how nature works. We can sit and philosophize about anti-gravity without even understanding what gravity is understood to be currently, or we can abide by the modern definition of the scientific method, which works.
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    Don’t be very happy, I am civil engineer & my project is just under completion & it is at very remote place. I am just coming within a day or two with your Lorentz transformation with SR.
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    101
    Discussing theoretical term is complete. Now I am giving you mathematical proof to my argument by using Lorentz transformation with using your Special theory of relativity.
    Set up: - consider similar set up given in story created in comment 41,
    Let’s consider charge balls has charge 1 Coulomb
    C/C distance between two balls D =10 cm =0.1m
    Velocity of train v = 72 km/hr =20 m/s
    Then by using Lorentz transformation with using your Special theory of relativity
    I get following result (If you require calculation, only write, I will give it to you.)
    1) For man in train, stable with related to charge balls:-
    Total repulsive force between charge ball F = 898755178736.317N (here total force is due to electric field)
    2) For Padre on platform for which train is moving with velocity 72 km/hr or 20 m/s
    Total repulsive force between charge ball F = 898755178736.313 N
    Difference in this both forces is 0.004 N ( as velocity is less so, mainly due to magnetic field)
    Conclusion:- We will get different forces in both frames. This small difference can be utilized to create any non reversible event
    Now to Intelligent persons like Mr. Diegocaba & Mr. Markus Hanke prove mathematically that I am wrong.
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Freshman Gilgamesh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    28
    This is true as long as the speed of light IS a constant and not a variable. You see light is also relative to te energy it was produced by. This is the reason for CERNs outcomes and the reason so many calculations using a light year are inaccurate. Nikola Tesla stated that cosmic rays could travel anywhere from fifty to five hundred times the maximum speed of light. For an analogy, you must understand that light from an old flashlight with weak batteries will not reach a point as quickly as, say light from a supernova. So the speed of light is variable, and everything is relative!
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Second Experimental Challenge to Quantum Theory
    By sciconoclast in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 16th, 2010, 02:45 PM
  2. Experimental Challenge To Quantum Theory
    By sciconoclast in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 28th, 2010, 07:23 PM
  3. A Quantum Theory
    By Manynames in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 15th, 2009, 02:42 PM
  4. How about 1 theory thread/forum about every popular subject?
    By LeavingQuietly in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 16th, 2007, 02:21 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 5th, 2006, 01:51 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •