sally

I do not exactly agree with you. Governments spend billions of dollars just to look for gravity waves or Higg’s bosons. Just understanding physics is also important.My formula is not the only formula not agreeing exactly with Maxwell’s equations . See Assis over here http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/wpapers.htm (paper number 55) who brings a different formula from Weber.On the whole if we consider the whole circuit they all give about the same results. On each current element Maxwell’s equation does not obey Newton’s second law of to each action there is an equal and opposite reaction.The others do. I think that it is important to find out which is the right formula or at least which is the most accurate. It seems that this is not as easy as it seems. For my formula it would be fairly simple to test if it is right. In most applications the magnetic forces should be about the same . In all common applications we have coils and so if my simple formula is right the forces are due to the part of the currents running parallel to each other. All motors and generators have the parallel currents and so the differences should not be any big deal. Probably all the real life parasite forces would be much bigger than any differences. There are two cases though that there would be a radical difference. 1.Rail guns. 2.Two perpendicular wires. In these two cases there should be no force on stable currents and the forces should be due to the accelerations involved. This should be fairly easy to verify. If we have a look at the sites talking about rail-guns they claim that the projectile has to be moving for their guns to work. If the projectile starts off at rest it will not move and will end up melted on the rails.It would be a simple matter of one of them to test if the projectile moves at least a little bit with a lower current. They would also have to verify that all the wires leading to the rails would not be parallel to the current running in the projectile. For the two perpendicular wires we would just have to wait for a few seconds and then straighten the wires and see if the wires still bend.It could be that since a lot of current is needed that straight after the big current surge it is switched off to save electricity and stop the wires heating up . The bending of the wires would be due to the change in the current and not the force of stable currents in the wire. These two cases should be easy to verify . If they prove my equation is wrong I would have to add a directional term to it . This would make my whole theory a lot less interesting. If my formula is right ( even if we add on the direction term) it would save some money on research ; Looking for magnetic monopoles would still make no sense. Calculations of very fast moving charges would be simpler and more direct. The calculation of forces on magnets would be a lot more accurate. I am sure that if we could find out which formula is the right one it would help engineers and scientists a lot in all their research . New effects could be found opening new avenues .

Yes it should hold for all scales .

In order to understand how two parallel wires attract or repell you will just have to "break your head over it" untill you actually see how simple it is.Keep in mind the tremendous Coulomb force between the 1 conducting electron per atom of even a tiny wire and also calculate carefully the imbalance of the 4 forces . The positive and negative in one wire to the positive and negative of the other wire. It is very difficult and confusing the first time as we are so used to electricity flowing the other way around. Faraday's Law turns out quite nicely.(I am sorry I can not add a jpeg diagram on the page I have already used up my quota.If you want some jpeg diagrams send me a private mail with your e-mail address and I will send it directly to you.) Faradays law becomes extremely logical , clear and straight forward. We will take a case of a wire moving between the poles of two magnets. A north pole above it and a south pole below it . S >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direction of electron >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flow. N -------------------------------------------- <--- Wire moving in the field S >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direction of electron >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flow. N From the top !-------------------<----e----<----------------! ! ........+..................................... ! !.........!.......................................! !.........!.......................................! !.........!.......................................! !.........!.......................................! ! ........! ..--->v..............................! !.........!.......................................! !.........!.......................................! !.........!.......................................! !.........!.......................................! !.........-........................................! !--------------------->--e->-------------------! I have replaced the magnet with a square virtual magnet for simplicity. The electrons go right around the circuit. Ie up on the right hand side and down on the left hand side as well.The dots are there as space keepers. Both the top and bottom magnet have the electrons going around the same way !!!!! I have used the electron flow as there are certain cases where assuming a positive charge flow gives the wrong answer.In order to get the poles , either reverse the flow and use the right hand law or directly use the left-hand law. I am sorry about this confusion of the flow going the "wrong" way but certain cases are too complicated the other way around. Now imgaine an electron in the wire.It is moving parallel to the top and bottom wire.For the top wire it is going in the opposite direction and is so repelled , while for the bottom it is attracted . We thus have our induced emf. The positive charges in the wire cannot move and so do not interfere with our current.

Reality is not relative.You could call it a dream or virtual but occording to Einstein it it is certainly not relative . The relative effect of magnetism is mentioned in Einstein and Purcell.I am taking what they said on absolute face value.I have gone a little further and changed Purcell's approach a little. When we consider all the "moving" parts of an electric circuit with respect to each other we get a change of charge.The charge increases as the velocity squared of the relative motion.This causes a slight imbalance of the enormous Coulomb charges and has for effect what we call magnetism. Over here the observers are not us but the all charges in the wires themselves.We have to consider the velocities of the charges w.r.t. the other charges. You will have to carefully go through the four charges in two wires to see this. (Each wire has two charges one positive and the other negative thus 2+2=4). The four charges cause a slight imbalance which is called magnetism. If the current is in the same direction for example the positive and negative charges move with respect to each other and are thus slightly stronger. The two negative are stationary as they move with the same speed. The result is that the wires are attracted. Just like the increase of mass with velocity is still considered mass I claim the increase of charge should still be called charge.For my theory static magnetism is a clumsy way of looking at these imbalances. The right-hand rule and Lorentz's Law are round about ways of looking at how charges act directly on other charges.

I have not yet worked out cases like this .In general this formula only applies to non-accelerating frames . The real test would be with ordinary magnets . If I am right it would open up a whole new area of magnetism where we could calculate much more exactly magnetic forces and dessign new kinds of motors and generators. We could also use it to create micro-tools for micro-operations etc. If the test is negative this theory is just another useless theory of the thousand that already exist on internet . To start of take two cylindrical magnets and mark the virtual electron flow on them . Move the one around the other from all the angles . It seems to me the that the torques do not correspond exactly to the poles . The case that I feal was the most obvious is the two magnets stuck together as n-s s-n.It seemed to me that the magnets were pulled one towards the other without any pull towards the poles.Also with a small magnet along a large, it did not seem that the pull towards the poles was what I expected. I did all this just by feal so it could all be psychological bias.

Ok for the force ; The first wire has the current . positive - positive no imbalance positive - negative no imbalance negative-positive .01 negative-negative -.01 As the free current electrons move at the same speed w.r.t. both the positive and negative in the mass we have no resultant force . Now there should be be a slight one time movement of electrons out of the mass but this will be covered up by Lenz's Law which was caused by the changing current. By the time the current is stable the electrons have already left just as they would near a common electrostatic charge . If my theory is right we might still be able to test this.We would have to send exactly the same current down the active wire in both direction and then carefully measure the current in the mass.There might be a small difference. It could also be that this is one of the reasons that near high tension currents there is ionisation.

Over here is an example of magnetic attraction. You do not even need my formula but just Ampere's current law.For repulsion just inverse one of the currents.Note .I am not implying any atomic structure, what I am showing over here is the resultant equivalent current. Also note I have shown the electron flow.To check the north poles etc. either use the left-hand rule or change the direction of flow to the traditional way first. Over here there is probably a nuance between the classical approach and this one. There are no dipoles. The whole of one magnet attracts the whole of the other magnet. The virtual current is along the whole length of the magnet. Now ,lets explain simply the magnetism between two parallel wires Let p be the positive charges and n the negative. Now you must have a look at the *** relative *** velocities between the charges. It is not the velocity w.r.t. us but one charge w.r.t. the other. For a stationary charge there is no resultant charge or force !!!!! We have 4 charge-forces that we have to consider.There are 2 in each wire thus 2*2. Due to the .5*v^2 factor 2*v is 4 times as big. You will have to go through the example carefully to see how simple it is. The values are simplified to make the example clearer. Current in the same direction Charges RelativeVelocities ForceDueToCharges pp 0 -1 pn 1 +1.01 np 1 +1.01 nn 0 -1 (No relative velocity both moving with same direction and speed) Sum +.02 Current in the opposite directions Charges relative velocities Force pp 0 -1 pn 1 +1.01 np 1 +1.01 nn 2 -1.04 !!!!!!!!!! Sum -.02

Could you please give me the reasons why the two spin electron theory was abandoned. ie. What experiment(s) led to its abandon? Is there an actual experiment that outright contradicts the two spin electron theory? Even if you give me an excellent set of reasons I will still try to support my theory.In any case nobody really knows what electron spin is to give it magnetism.I would just include it in my theory. Quote: Originally Posted by Tom Mattson In both cases you've got the electron spinning like a top, but this view of spin was abandoned long ago for some very good reasons. For one thing there is the behavior of spin 1/2 particles under 2\pi rotations: the wavefunction picks up a negative sign. You have to rotate an electron through 4\pi radians to get back to the initial state. That's clearly not ordinary rotation! Perhaps my azimuthal light field can be looked at as a laser ring gyro. What do you get when you give those one rotation?

The results are exacltly the same.

Einstein And Magnetism ****************************** Einstein already found that magnetism is just a "relativistic" effect of charge.This only applies to stable or variable magnetic forces such as those desribed in Ampere's Law.Faraday's or Lenz's magnetism is different and requires another fascinating approach. This was already a big step but Einstein did not go all the way to show us that it could actually be used and that it is actually much simpler than Ampere's law to apply and use. No longer do we need abstract fields and "Kabalistic" right hand laws.We can now actually understand what we are doing,why we are doing it and work in a simple,direct way.Charges act directly on other charges. Ampere's law can be stated as [math] q=\frac{q0}{\left({1-v^2/c^2}\right)^{.5}} [/math] q0 is the rest charge v the relative velocity between the charges conscerned q the resultant charge. or if v<<c (All normal electricity) this becomes [math] q = q0+\frac{1}{2} {q0} {v} ^2 [/math] With this simple equation we can ; Calculate and derive the force between two or more electric wires Calculate and clearly see how motors work Derive the Lorentz charge equation or calculate simply and directly the forces on a moving charge in a "magnetic field" Calculate the forces between magnets Calculate the forces of electromagnets Derive the forces between magnets and currents Derive the Hall effect and see clearly why positive holes yeilds opposite voltages. And the cherry on the cake... The Lorentz transformation becomes a piece of pie !!!! All this was stuck on the moustache right under the nose of a certain absent minded professor called .... But now instead of philosophizing the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It really is simpler and easier.

Are you sure that two plasma streams have a magnetic effect ? A simple calculation of the forces involved would show that the Coulomb forces are in the order of c/v times as strong as any magnetic forces .For plasma it would be extremely difficult measure it . Just to get you a bit giddy with the forces involved ; Let us take my two wires of cross section 1mm and length 1m at 1cm from each other We will let 1 amp of current flow through it . Volume of Wire mm^3 1000 Volume of Wire m^3 1e-6 Number of free electrons in copper /m^3 8E+28 Total free electrons in sample in 1 wire 8E+22 Charge of an electron Coulombs 1,6e-19 Total charge 1,4E+10 Coulombs Constant N.m^2/C^2 9,8E+9 Total Force at 1cm in Newtons 1,8E+34 For 1 amp flowing in these two wires the magnetic force is 100 N (Ampere's Law) Thus the Electrostatic force between only the free electrons in the wire is 2E+32 times the magnetic force . Magnetism is just a tiny , tiny dishamony between the enormous forces in the wire .

Thanks I never thought is was so easy .

Sorry about the way I write the equations but I have not worked out how to display the \math. The main equation I use is q=q0/(1-v^2/c^2)^.5 This equation is exactly the same as the relativistic mass equation with the mass replaced by the charge. Please take carefully note !!!!! The velocity over here is the velocity between the two sets of charges and not the charges w.r.t. us. At low velocities this simplifies to q=q0+.5*q0*v^2 See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/miccur.html for the velocities involved . For electricity we only need this equation as v<<<<<c . Purcell uses a slightly different approach based on length etc.You can have a look at http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/MRRtalk.html for more details. I am not too sure that all the details would work . If we assume that charge increases with velocity it becomes much simpler. To start of in a wire we have the positive charges the protons and the negative the electrons.We have to calculate the sum of all the forces between all the charges in two wires. ie positive_1 to positive_2 positive_1 to negative_2 negative_1 to positive_2 negative_1 to negative_2 If we take carefull note there is no electrostatic charge . If the there is no current in one of the wires there is absolutely no force between them . "Magnetism" is the unbalance of the charges. The forces involved are so extreme that even a tiny unbalance is a giant force . In order to see that this is true you really have to "break your head" and work out all the gory details. Its really difficult after centuries of using the inverse-backward positive-current-magnetic approach. With this Ampere's Law becomes much clearer . Magnets , electromagnets , motors and the hall effect all become clear . The Hall effect !!!!! Yes .... Don't tell me that with the classical approach you really understand why positive charges or holes give an inverse current to electrons :D :D

Everyone who knows a little about magnetism knows Einstein's explication that magnetism changes with velocity and can be "considered" a relativistic effect . I go a further and say magnetism is only a relativistic effect of relative charge movement . Einstein seems to hold that even so magnetism really exists but could change with relative frames. I claim magnetism does not exist . What we call magnetism is just a calculation aid . There is no such thing as magnetism or a magnetic field . The relativistic charge effect is or at least can be considered as an increase in charge defined by q=q0/(1-v^2/c^2)^.5 in exactly the same way as Einstein explained mass increases. This effect can be used to calculate the direction of the forces of magnetism. It can be used in a way that is more direct and simpler than fields and the right hand rule . Why use a complex indirect system when you can use one that is direct. Magnetic fields do not exist . They are only a means to describe certain effects . What is really happening is the forces between charges . Magnetic fields and magnetism are just an historical anomaly from before Einstein.We do not really need them in our theories or calculations.

Ampere's Law is Just a "Relativistic Charge Effect" **************************************************** Magnetism is not a real force and does not really exist. Magnetism is just as Einstein had stated a "relativistic effect " of common charge.Magnetism is the result of the movement of charges. If we assume that Charges increases with velocity ************************************** we can explain all static magnetic effects . Instead of using field with right-hand rules we can directly have a look at the forces that charges have on each other. A simple equation q=q0+1/2*q0*v^2/c^2 (1) with Coulomb's Law is enough to describe Ampere's law. Thus magnetism is just a charge effect. This equation is the equivalent of Einsteins relativistic mass equation m=m0/(1-(v/c)^2)^.5 (2) Equation 1 is just the approximation of Eq.3 when v<<c . Gettting Ampere's Law from "Relativistic Effects" ************************************************* q=q0+1/2*q0*v^2/c^2 (1) The second term over here is what we call magnetism.The imballance of positive-negative charges caused by the moving current create a force which we call magnetism (ie. the magnetism as defined by Amperes Law. There are a few types of magnetism which are not all the same.). We can now derive Ampere's law which is one half of Maxwell's equations dealing with magnetism. We have our two parallel wires with the current moving in the same direction . We will now calculate the forces between the wires. In a way similar to Purcell we calculate the four sets of charges the positive-positive , positive-negative, negative-positive and negative-negative. F_total=F_pp+F_pn+F_np+F_nn In order to calculate the "relativistic charge" we just need to note the relative speeds between the charges . The positive charges do not move w.r.t. each other and so the velocity is 0. We will not have a "relativistic effect". Likewise the negative charges move at the same speeds and have no "relativistic charge effect". The two sets of negative-positive charges move and so increase. The ballance of the forces is thus attractive. The calculations are as follows ; *********************************** F_pp=-K*q1*q2/r^2 F_pn=K*q1*q2/r^2+K*q1*1/2*q2*v2^2/r^2/c^2 F_pn=K*q1*q2/r^2+K*q1*1/2*q2*v2^2/r^2/c^2 F_pn=K*q1*q2/r^2+K*1/2*q1*v2^2*q2/r^2/c^2 F_nn=-K*q1*q2/r^2-K*1/2*q1*q2*(v1-v2)^2/r^2/c^2 Thus if the two currents are in the same direction we finally get F_total=K*q1*1/2*q2*v2^2/r^2/c^2+ K*q1*1/2*q2*v2^2/r^2/c^2-K*1/2*q1*q2*(v1-v2)^2/r^2/c^2 or F_total=K/2/c^2*q1*q2/r^2*A where A=v1^2+v2^2-(v1-v2)^2 or A=2*v1*v2 Thus F_total=Km*q1*q2/r^2*v1*v2 where Km=K/c^2 the magnetic constant as I1=v1*q1 and I2=v2*q2 F_total=Km*I1*I2/r^2 Integrating etc. to get the total force between the two wires we get F_total=Km*I1*I2/r where positive is towards the other wire. *************** Similarly if the currents go in opposite directions we will find the two wires will repell one another . Over here the two negative charges move at double the speed w.r.t. each other compared to the negative-positive charge flow. The unbalanced force between them is four times that of each of the positive-negative charge flows.The result is the wires will move appart. F_total=-Km*I1*I2/r See http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/DynamicFT/ *******************

Gravitational Redshift *************************** Could it be that the gravitational redshift is an obvious fact and can in no ways be used to prove GR. If we only use the following facts we can derive the gravitational redshift ; 1.The conservation of energy-matter. 2.The potential energy on earth PE=m*g*h (or that of a star G*M/r ) 3.The energy of a photon E=h*f. 4.E=mc^2. There are no other theories or facts that we need to prove the gravitational redshift. To show this we make a thought experiment with Alice and Bob. Alice and Bill have decided to do something unhonest. They want to break the first law of physics that prohibits perpetual motion machines.Alice goes to the bottom of a mountain and Bill to the top. Alice will then convert 1kg of water to a laser light and flash it up to Bill .Bill will then convert this laser light back to water and let it flow down the mountain.They will then sell the energy of the flowing water on the black market . This is obviously wrong. The reason is that the potential energy of the water must be subtracted from the energy Bill can get from the light rays. The energy before must be equals the energy afterwards. Thus ; The energy received must equal the energy emitted minus the energy due to the potential energy of the water. h*fo=h*fe-(h*fe/c/c)*g*h This reduces to fo=fe*(1-g*h/c/c) This is Einstein's result and his derivation was probably equivalent. The only difference is that over here I stress that all electromagnetic radiation is by definition a conservation of energy-momentum that could be deplaced in space. see ; http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/DynamicFT/ ***************