Sione

LOL. Sorry if I was not clear. I meant to say that GR and the rest of physics is in disagreement with SR about the Lorentz force' date=' reference frames or both. Anyway, as for peer reviewed and actual science, here is a little bit of reality about Lorentz force and Biot-Savart law: [b']Z-pinch[/b] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch) - "The Z-pinch is an application of the Lorentz force, in which a current-carrying conductor in a magnetic field experiences a force. One example of the Lorentz force is that, if two parallel wires are carrying current in the same direction, the wires will be pulled toward each other. The Z-pinch uses this effect: the entire plasma can be thought of as many current-carrying wires, all carrying current in the same direction, and they are all pulled toward each other by the Lorentz force, thus the plasma contracts." DO YOU SEE THE ATTRACTION? Have you ever seen a lightning? That's just a warm up, ready for some more reality? - Various Z-pinch machines can be found in various institutions such as Sandia National Laboratories (USA), Ruhr University (Germany), Imperial College (United Kingdom), Ecole Polytechnique (France), and the Weizmann Institute of Science (Israel). p.s. Don't let me even start on GR, you don't wanna know.

Since I'm the only one who actually has insight about experiments, it is your theories and opinions that are speculative. Every single theory in modern and classical physics very much disagree with SR about this particular case, including GR, so what is all the fuss about?

Reality and experimental measurements. That's all what matters now and everyone should check it for themselves, it's one click away.

I don't have time for a decent search to find a good reference on this' date=' but I suspect a physics text might be the best course of action. [/quote'] It is not about me believing claims of some particular theory. I took every possible course of action regarding all the theories and conclusion I have is confirmed by practical experiments. Your conclusion will, or will not, be confirmed once you too find the time to check experiments and see what reality thinks about it. No, Electrodynamics or Classical Electromagnetism says clearly otherwise, it simply works even thought they use absolute reference frames, like Lorentz force and Biot-Savart law: F= q(v x B) B= v x q*k*d/r^2 Quantum Electrodynamics does not even have equation for this interaction, but if it had it would either agree with Classical equations or Quantum Mechanics, which confirms this via electron pairing due to spin and magnetic dipole moment. The Maxwell equations and therefore the WHOLE of electrodynamics, as those 4 equations contain all of the information, are a completely relativistic theory... 1.) Maxwell equations ARE NOT "relativistic theory", but CLASSICAL Electromagnetism, using absolute reference frame like Lorentz force and Biot-Savart law: F= q(v x B) B= v x q*k*d/r^2 Maxwell's equations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Special_relativity -"In electromagnetism, Maxwell's equations are a set of four partial differential equations... Individually, the equations are known as Gauss's law, Gauss's law for magnetism, Faraday's law of induction, and Ampère's law with Maxwell's correction. These four equations, together with the Lorentz force law are the complete set of laws of classical electromagnetism." 2.) ...therefore, four Maxwell's equations ARE NOT WHOLE of electrodynamics, especially without including spin magnetic dipole moment and induced torque. It is as if I'm high-school boy with homework and you are helping me sort out my confusion. I've been working for the last five years in this field, as a numerical modeling and analysis software engineer, so I know all about this stuff and if you too want to know about it, then it is you who should be doing some Googling and realize what I told you is not my imagination. Don't believe me, of course not! Just Google and see it for yourself, once you find the time.

Yes, that would be in agreement with SR and all I want is some experimental study that confirms it, because all I found points the other way. Maxwell's equations do not include Lorentz force. I have not heard of anyone modeling electromagnetic interaction with relativistic equations. Why would anyone do that if more simple equations can do much better job. Is there any software that uses SR equations to model free electrons? I do not know of any, while on the other hand I know some that model electrons and magnetic fields interaction with classic equations. 1.) experiment showing "Two free electrons moving parallel to each other feel NO magnetic fields due to each other." 2.) anything about modeling magnetic interaction with SR that actually works and is not superfluous next to classic equations.

Sheesh, what happened here? V for Vendetta, eh? Dear V, I see you fiddled with my beautiful definition, very good. Everything seems to be defined now and the conclusion is that people just don't like to agree, eh?

Well, my intention was to have conversation where we could try to find conclusion together, not be convincing each other of anything, but sharing information about it. You seem confident in your current opinion and you do not seem to want to research the subject further, which is fine. Anyway, this is my reference, together with the whole WWW: To me, this paradox seem very simple and obvious, easy to demonstrate, confirmed in experiments and equations in everyday life. I do not mean to claim or insist on any particular conclusion, nor to have empty argument, so I can continue to research it by myself and you are free to join and share with me how do you explain the paradox to yourself.

If you were alien indeed you would understand' date=' anyway it is nice to see humans care for each other. To answer your question, they do talk about all that in the movie, they give reference to: genetic evidence, fossils, pictures, tests... Have you seen it? You sound threatening, how sweet of you. Proof is in the pudding, evidence is in the videos, but I can not transfer that information telepathically, not to you, so you have to see it for yourself, if you care. If you prefer not to know, that's fine, don't be confused about my desire to have conversation with your disability to be friendly.

I accounted for everything and all the experiments confirm electron attraction increases due to "absolute velocity", not their relative velocity, since they attract more the faster they are going ALONG each other, in parallel, without any relative velocity. I agree, of course there is no "absolute velocity", it seems velocity is relative to "FixedStars", kind of like "Aether". Can you give any reference, experiments or links that show otherwise?

Me neither. Wrong equation? Can you give us correct one? What's worse that is exactly how real world experiments work. It is not that I want you to accept existence of absolute reference frame, I want explanation too. I mean, the mere fact that we have ELECTRON BEAMS (cathode ray in TV), means that electrons can actually travel in parallel, for some time at least. We should know from practical electronics the amount of repulsion/attraction of electrons in such beam, would that prove it? Thought, experiment with two parallel wires is actually the same, only the existence of wires makes people think the velocity is relative to wires, but equations suggest that is not the case and experiments with free electrons should make that clear. Parallel wires and magnetic fields: http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/java/parallelwires 1.) velocity relative to field ? 2.) velocity relative to wires" ? So, what do we do, any idea? I have links that talk about electron attraction. This is not unknown at all, in chemistry and QM we accept for granted electron coupling, so it is not a question of whether electrons can attract, but whether that implies the existence of some 'absolute reference' frame or not.

I was not proving anything. I was asking you for the correct definition. There is no more points I need to make, I made my point. I did not make up any meanings, the meanings are in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Your definitions seem to be wrong or you failed to understand them. Why don't you just look it up, pick your favorite encyclopedia and check it, then you may realize, or at least you might be able to copy/past what you think is the correct definition. You always have to start from somewhere, even if it is completely wrong we now know what needs to be defined. You offer no better definition, you do not point what and how to improve and what is actually wrong, your comment is emotional rather than rational, it was unpredictable. YOU SAID: -"Emotions, however, are simple. They're literally nothing more than cognitive reflexes... Adding emotions to a computer is simple - simply program it to bias its responses towards a particular form upon receiving a certain input. If I make a random number generate only spit out even numbers, I've basically given it emotion." ...you actually agree with me, you just need to realize it, again. Not to worry, because I can explain everything. My dictionary is simply wrong? At least I tried, sorry for that. No problem, and I'm sure glad that you do know the correct definitions used in the field, so can you please tell us, according to what definition my definitions are wrong, please give us correct definitions: Life = ? Memory = ? Feeling = ? Thought = ? Emotion = ? Instinct = ? Intelligence = ? Consciousness = ? --------------------- Processing System/Nervous System = ? Information = ? Information INPUT = ? Information OUTPUT = ? Until then, fully working, mathematically logical definition, like mine, is good for start. At least I know what is state, what is process and what is reaction, you have no idea what you consider "input" and what you consider "output", or do you?