Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #580866

Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT'

Show all headers | View raw

Am 23.03.2022 um 11:19 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>
>
> Den 23.03.2022 09:55, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> Am 22.03.2022 um 22:40 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>>
>>>
>>> Den 21.03.2022 21:26, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>>
>>>> Pushing the breaks and stopping the car is a possible setting. The
>>>> kinetic energy gets transformed in the end to heat and the car stops.
>>>>
>>>> So far, so good.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>> So you have understood that when a car with mass m and
>>> speed v is stopped with the brakes, then the kinetic energy is
>>> transformed to heat.
>>>
>>> Generally:
>>> When you stop a moving body, the work done on whatever
>>> stops it is equal to the kinetic energy of the body before
>>> it was stopped.
>>>
>>> W = mc²(1/√(1−v²/c²)-1)      ALWAYS.
>>>
>>> Blatantly obvious, isn't it?
>>>
>>> If v << c:
>>>    1/√(1−v²/c²) ≈ (1+v²/2c²)
>>>   Ek = mc²(1/√(1−v²/c²)-1) ≈ mc²((1+v²/2c²)-1) = mv²/2
>>>
>
> So can we now consider it settled?
> You have realized that when you stop a moving body,
> the work done on whatever stops it is equal to the
> kinetic energy of the body before it was stopped.
>
> So:
> W = mc²(1/√(1−v²/c²)-1)      ALWAYS.
>
> Also when the 'body' is an electron.

You still insist on 'ballistic' electrons.

I think, there are no real electrons at all. 'Electron' denotes certain 
identifiable states, but not real things.

Therefore I think in terms of fields alone, which are not based on 
charged particles.

I use an unsual, but relatively simple assumption:

points can have features.

Now the features can build patterns, which are occasionally timelike stabel.

Such patterns are, what we call 'matter'.

I have actually written kind of book about this idea some years ago.

That can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing 


It is actually a google doc of 150 pages, easy to read and still free to 
download.

Now I'm not really keen to take electrons as real things, but think in 
terms of fields.

You in contrast think about electrons as tiny balls, which carry charge 
around.

Such balls have mass, hence should behave ballistic.

But your idea is wrong.

And if there were no electrons but fields, we cannot ascribe mass to 
electrons.

The real thing is more like the magnetic field in a coil, which behaves 
inertial.

This behaviour is now taken and regarded as a necessary feature of 
material objects, hence everything with mass is a material object. But 
also the field itself has such features and behaves inertial.




> -------------------------------------------
>
> About Einstein's equation on page 22:
>
>>>
>>> The equation on page 22 shows the work done to _accelerate_ the
>>> electron to the speed v.
>>>
>>> Einstein's equation is:
>>> W = ∫ εXdx = mc²(1/√(1−v²/c²)-1)
>>>
>>> This equation says that that the work done by the electric
>>> field to accelerate the electron to the speed v is equal to
>>> the kinetic energy of the electron when it has reached the speed v..
>>>
>>> However, when a charged particle is accelerated it will
>>> radiate EM-radiation, and the radiation will increase
>>> with the the magnitude of the acceleration.
>>> That's why Einstein said that the electron should be
>>> "slowly accelerated". He did NOT say that the electron
>>> should be slow! The speed can be anything between 0 and c.
>>>
>>> Einstein's equation on page 22 is correct!
>>> (If the acceleration is slow.)
>>>
>
> To this, you responded:
>>
>> But the kinetic energy of the electron is irrelevant, because electron
>> are usually extremely slow and the particle has almost no mass.
>
> but:
>>
>> Most of the time the drift velocity of electrons is VERY slow.
>>
> .. the drift (average) velocity of electrons in a conductor IS relevant?
>
> Your very intelligent remarks show that Einstein's equation is nonsense.
> Congratulation!


Thanks!


> Apropos of speed of electrons:
> Einstein's  way of accelerating electrons was used in many millions
> (billions?) of CRTs (TVs, Computer monitors, oscilloscopes, ...).
> The speed of the electrons in a CRT was (is) up to 0.3c.

You see something on a screen and think, that must be a stream of 
electrons, because electrons behave that way.

But electrons are actually too small to see them.

So, you assume, there are electrons flying around, while I wrote, that 
electrons are not real things, but certain states, hence cannot be, what 
you see on a screen.


> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> BTW, have you given up defending your claim that
> the equation on page 23 of:
> https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
> .. is nonsense?

No.

The equation should be a vector equation with a cross product, but is a 
scalar equation.

But if directions were omitted, then acceleration should be positive.


Also the velocity is not constant, because direction changes in the 
course of acceleration and possibly speed, too.

Therefore v cannot be a single value.

Also N (magnetic field strength in the z-direction) is not constant and 
the field inhomogenic.

> You can show it by pointing out the errors in my explanation of
> the equation:
>
>
> Let's analyse the equation on page 23.
> Please don't clutter it up with irrelevant comments.
> Answer the questions only.
>
> In the beginning of paragraph 10 Einstein defines what he means
> with 'electron'. It is a charged particle with the charge ε.
> Note that if the charge is negative, then ε is negative.


He didn't write that, but it was obviously his assumption, because 
epsilon occors in the subsequent equations.

But your assmption, that this epsilon means the charge of the electron 
today is wrong, because that was not, what Einstein had written.

Instead he wrote this

"We remark that these results as to the mass are also valid for 
ponderable material points, because a ponderable material point can be 
made into an electron (in our sense of the word) by the addition of an 
electric charge, no matter how small."

Therefore epsilon has other features than our current understanding of 
the same term.

This is especially important, as Einstein had not meant the modern 
understanding of the term 'electron', too.

Therefore epsilon has no particular value, but should be small, but is 
otherwise arbitrary.


Therefore we could take larger 'electrons' as well, like the test probe 
in a field measuring device and call that 'electron' (in Einstein's 
sense of the word).

Now we can apply the 'electrical version' of w= F * delta x and use such 
a test probe in a field as example.

Such a setting would match the description, but the work w would not 
depend on velocity.

Therefore the equation is wrong.



...


TH

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-16 08:26 +0100
  Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-16 10:28 +0100
    Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-16 21:38 +0100
      Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 21:03 +0000
        Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-17 08:07 +0100
      Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-17 14:59 +0100
        Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-18 06:24 +0100
          Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-18 03:25 -0400
            Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-19 08:05 +0100
              Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-19 00:20 -0700
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-19 09:25 +0100
              Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-19 15:35 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-19 15:28 +0000
                Cretin Richard Lengrand at work "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-19 10:13 -0700
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-20 08:41 +0100
          Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-19 14:04 +0100
            Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-19 15:14 +0100
            Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-19 21:31 +0100
              Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-20 22:38 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-20 22:23 +0000
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-21 08:56 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-21 11:52 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 04:43 -0700
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-21 21:26 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-22 22:40 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-23 09:55 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-23 11:19 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-24 08:54 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-24 15:00 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-25 08:25 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-25 15:15 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 07:39 -0700
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-26 10:51 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-26 12:30 -0700
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Takabe Matsumura <tamu@frdesn.jp> - 2022-03-24 17:35 +0000

csiph-web