Conventions have led us astray

[McQueen]

Conventions !

The experiments on the interaction of a conductor carrying a
current and a magnetic field conducted by Oersted more than
two hundred years ago , have resulted in conventions that
unfortunately are still colouring our perceptions of how
exactly the electromagnetic field around a wire carrying
a current is configured. Even when we have the means of
verifying the truth or falsity of these perceptions we have
failed to put right many of the previously drawn hypotheses ,
which a cursory examination show to be false. For instance to take one of the most damaging hypotheses on which practically the whole foundation of electromagnetism rests. Let us take the field due to a flow of current in a straight conductor. We have been told that in
such a case the magnetic field , exists at right angle
to the conductor , this is patently false. An examination of
Fig1. Shows the experiment which was conducted to show that the magnetic field exists at right angles to the conductor. Fig 1.http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/id3.html Even a little bit of thought shows that this must be wrong , these concentric circles exist at every point along the length of the conductor ,
they would obviously taper off towards the positive and
negative poles , thus the electromagnetic field around a
conductor; must in fact resemble the field around a bar
magnet. As shown in Fig 2http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/id3.html It can easily be proven , by a simple experiment that a
compass placed in this field would undergo not the tangential deflection seen in Fig 1.but would align with the lines of force in a north south direction.Thus it can be rationalized , even without resource to practical experiments , that the electromagnetic
field around a straight conductor carrying a current is a
solenoidal field. An argument might be made that the field
seen in Fig 2, describes the electrical field around the conductor and not the magnetic field but this is superfluous , since the field around the conductor is seen to be indistinguishable from that generated around a permanent bar magnet. Therefore the theory put
forward by New Field Theory or "Aumic" theory that the "lines
of force " observed around a conductor carrying an electrical
current are in fact lines of linked photons which originate at
the negative pole , flow through the conductor , leave the
conductor at the positive pole , travel through the space
surrounding the conductor and re-enter the conductor at the
negative end , resulting in a continuous loop of energy, in
and around the conductor , is substantiated. It is also
conclusively proved that the electromagnetic field around the
conductor is not as has hitherto been believed emanating at
right angles to the conductor . Fig 3http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/id3.html
Fig 3. According to the theory proposed by Oersted and the convention still followed today if we were to view the lines of force
around an electrical conductor laid flat on the page , then
the lines of force would be represented by the dots shown in
Fig 3. i.e they would be coming vertically through the paper. A simple experiment shows that this is not true , if iron filings are sprinkled around a conductor positioned as shown in, the iron filings should stand on end (b) be localised around the points indicated . What we see in fact is neither of these two phenomena , what we see is the type of formation indicated in Fig 2.

 

[HeavensWarFire]

Hello, i am Mr Insanity, how are you?



Now you see, this whole world is primarly one big salid bowl of competing philosophys. Just as you may struggle with a specific convention, i struggle with many of them.

Take for instance the whole notion of relativity, and time. We are told that Time, and thus the vary foundations of reality are all relative, in the since that one object of time is objectively speaking taller, or shorter in relation to another object of time. Theres a problem though, in the fragmentation of all time, into relative spots: it nullifies the vary idea of time itself.

I do not know why, but it seems like people confuse speed with time, and distance. To me, a measure of a certain lengh should technically remain mathematically speaking the same regardless of the speed you travel. A hundred yards should remain a hundred yards regardless of how fast you travel the distance. In like manner, time, should really be the same, even though you could be travaling at different speeds. But i am told, that clocks from different vantage points are altered. This just sounds plainly absurd.

Take for example the vary differences of the planets circling the sun. In relation to the earth, it takes this ball like 365 days to make one whole trip around the sun. What this means is, that a year, is only relative to the speed with which the Earth travels the sun. But does it follow, that there should not be a standard idea of a year that is universally applicable to all orbiting objects?

To me, to say that "2 + 2 is 4" only true if we are on planet B, but if we were to be on planet C, then then 2 + 2 is not 4. Is there not an absolute value of any given measure?

 

[McQueen]

What you say is true in the sense that everything we experience is based on our conceptions of how we decide to interpret those experiences , if our interpretations are wrong then obviously the interpretation of our experiences would also be false. The existing theories on current electricity have an adequate explanation for what happens during the inductive process but have no explanation of why the process takes place. So , we can accurately calculate the amount of induction that is produced due to a current but have no explanation of why the induction takes place. Further the electromagnetic field is at present thought to have a fixed value , which is equal to its radiative value i.e ch/w , which even if you had a high field intensity would not fit the actual values of power delivered by a current flowing through a conductor . According to present theory the electromagnetic field is a consequence of the charge moving through the conductor but has nothing to do with the current which is flowing in the conductor . Yet the induction process shows us that this in fact is exactly what happens , in the presence of an alternating current the value of the current induced in the secondary is almost 98% of that in the primary , yet the radiative field if calculated using present theories cannot account for this amount of current. The New Field Theory as suggested in the original posting , not only offers an explanation which fits in with all observed phenomenon but also unifies many issues which are given disparate explanations.

 

[McQueen]

Sorry! The post seems to have been duplicated.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
But i am told, that clocks from different vantage points are altered. This just sounds plainly absurd.

Though it may sound absurd, it seems to be the truth. If you spend the time learning special relativity theory, you'll eventually recognize that it's just as elegant and just as natural as Galilean relativity. In fact, it's even more elegant.

But does it follow, that there should not be a standard idea of a year that is universally applicable to all orbiting objects?

You can speak of Earth years, or Jovian years, or what have you. It doesn't matter.

Is there not an absolute value of any given measure?

Yes, there are approximately 20 fundamental physical constants, which we assume (with good reason) are the same everywhere in the universe.

- Warren

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
To me, a measure of a certain lengh should technically remain mathematically speaking the same regardless of the speed you travel. A hundred yards should remain a hundred yards regardless of how fast you travel the distance. In like manner, time, should really be the same, even though you could be travaling at different speeds. But i am told, that clocks from different vantage points are altered. This just sounds plainly absurd.

This explains a whole lot about where you are coming from. Either you do not understand or you simply do not accept Einstein's Special Relativity. I recommend you get a good grasp of it before venturing further into the concpets of "time," "length," "speed," etc.

 

[HeavensWarFire]

yes



I am working on my paper on the theory of Relativity. I have not finished it, but yes, i will agree that i do not totally accept Eistiens theory to be correct. But there's more than one project in my life that i am working on, and some times, well, certain things get put in the back burner. I haven't even finished Mr. Hawkins book called a "Brief History of Time."

Now that was impressive.

 

[russ_watters]

I've read A Brief History of Time about 10 times. Its a great book, but tough for a lay person (myself included) to understand. Every time I read it I get a little more out of it. Its best read in chunks of 10 pages or so to give time to digest it.

In any case, SR is a concept that is not too tough to understand (what it says is actually pretty simple) but generally very difficult to accept. It is however, supported by a veritable mountain of evidence including far reaching predictions and implications that have been verfied by much later observation. If its wrong, its not wrong by much (its conflict with QM for example).

 

[jcsd]

Special relativity isn't in conflict with QM (depsite what Doctor Dick says a few pages below mine) for example all of the quantum physics in the standard model is relativistic.

The Schroedinger equation, as time and the other dimensions are of different orders, obiously can't be made relativistic, so you just have to formulate a new wave equation and the Dirac equation and the Klein-Gordon equation are examples of these.

I read A Brief History of Time when I was about 13, it's okay but it does tend to create the odd misconception.

 

[chroot]

Maybe I'm one of the few people who actually thinks the book blows chunks. It isn't useful for anything, and doesn't really teach anything other than concepts that aren't even very well accepted in the physical community. It was really just a pulpit for Hawking to describe his own beliefs as if they were facts.

I'm not a big fan of Hawking in general, however. He's, well, just too overrated.

- Warren

 

[jcsd]

I agree with you *mostly*, I know after reading the book that it gave me more than one misconceptions that were only cleared up from reading and being taught more technical stuff and his claim that the book has no equations is laughable when you see sentences like "Force equals mass times accelration". there are much, much better pop-sci books on the market. I am however quite a big fan of Stephen Hawking and at least the book does get people interested in physics.

Coincidentally, if anyone out there has a (true) first editon (published in 1988 by Bantam Books, though you have to rember there were about 20 re-prints in 1988 and this only applies to the first run) of A Brief History of Time, I'd advise you to get down you local book dealer as they're worth quite a bit of money (>£100 ?).

 

[Nacho]

jscd,

Coincidentally, if anyone out there has a (true) first editon (published in 1988 by Bantam Books, though you have to rember there were about 20 re-prints in 1988 and this only applies to the first run) of A Brief History of Time, I'd advise you to get down you local book dealer as they're worth quite a bit of money (>£100 ?).

How does a person know if they have that first true edition. Mine has on the inside A Bantam Book / April 1988, hard bound, with a blue paper cover with him in his wheelchair with a background of stars. I guess I couldn't be that lucky ..

 

[jcsd]

Originally posted by Nacho
jscd,

Coincidentally, if anyone out there has a (true) first editon (published in 1988 by Bantam Books, though you have to rember there were about 20 re-prints in 1988 and this only applies to the first run) of A Brief History of Time, I'd advise you to get down you local book dealer as they're worth quite a bit of money (>£100 ?).

How does a person know if they have that first true edition. Mine has on the inside A Bantam Book / April 1988, hard bound, with a blue paper cover with him in his wheelchair with a background of stars. I guess I couldn't be that lucky ..

If it says "1988 reprinted x times", then it's not a first edition, so look at the front page to see if it saysanything about re-prints. also if it's got lots of spelling mistakes it's probably the first edition. It could be the second issue (blue dustjacket) of the first edition, which is being sold by one dealer on bookfinder for $85.

 

[Nacho]

jscd,

If it says "1988 reprinted x times", then it's not a first edition, so look at the front page to see if it saysanything about re-prints. also if it's got lots of spelling mistakes it's probably the first edition. It could be the second issue (blue dustjacket) of the first edition, which is being sold by one dealer on bookfinder for $85.

Wooo-hooo! I must have a good one. It says nothing about reprint at least all the way through the intro by Carl Sagan. I saw the exact same printing of the book on EBAY, going for a pittance. Must have been a rip-off artist, or everyone waiting for the last minute to bid.

Thanks for the info.

 

[David]

Originally posted by russ_watters
This explains a whole lot about where you are coming from. Either you do not understand or you simply do not accept Einstein's Special Relativity. I recommend you get a good grasp of it before venturing further into the concpets of "time," "length," "speed," etc.

Look, instead of you constantly telling people, “You don’t understand,” why don’t you just explain it to them? You’ve been telling people all over the internet that they “don’t understand” while you “do understand”, and I’d like to see you actually explain something for a change instead of just bragging about how much you “do understand” and how much other people “don’t understand”