# Kramer

Senior Members

330

1. ## Two controversial observations.

Swansont I don't know what you mean by that. ------I said: 1 – Two electric charges, moving parallel each other, with relativistic velocity, have a limited electromagnetic interaction between 0 and double, via FE +,-- FB. a) Two electric charges with the same sign, moving parallel each other in opposite senses, both with relativistic velocity the limit of which is ”C” have a repelling electromagnetic interaction equal FE + FB = 2FE = 2FB that’s mean double. b) Two electric charges with the same sign, moving parallel each other in same senses, both with relativistic velocity the limit of which is ”C” have an attractive electromagnetic interaction equal FE -- FB = 0. c) Two electric charges with different signs, moving parallel each other in same senses, both with relativistic velocity the limit of which is ”C” have an attractive electromagnetic interaction equal FE -- FB = 0. d) Two electric charges with different signs, moving parallel each other in opposite senses, both with relativistic velocity the limit of which is ”C” have an attractive electromagnetic interaction equal FE + FB = 2FE =2FB. I will continue. Please correct reasons of Kramer II. If we have a bunch of electrons or protons in accelerator, this is the case b) If we have in accelerator, let say a gold ion and I suppose is not stripped by all electrons, this case is much more complicated, because particles in gold ion will continue to move in their own movement plus will take place in common movement of ion, from accelerator. In the case of golden ion , inside it , we’ll have the fore kind of combinations and I think exist possibility that he will blow up or will collapse in mini black hole. I suppose that this may happens even if “V” <”C”.
2. ## Two controversial observations.

Swansont Neither one is necessarily wrong, as you have not said what the net force is in the Kramer II case. There is an attractive force, and a repulsive force. The repulsion is bigger, so there is no contradiction. --------Thanks. It was very helpful. But---- ( Don’t mind superficiality and curiosity of Kramer II –they are annoying like horse fly) But… may I hasten two conclusion - question ?: 1 – Two electric charges, moving parallel each other, with relativistic velocity, have a limited electromagnetic interaction between 0 and double, via FE +,-- FB. 2 – Isn’t this phenomena troublesome in accelerators, and hasn’t it been observed as a fact? Pugwen Am I missing something, or is there no sketch? Sorry. I tried …but drawing was so ugly that my computer was embarrassed and refused to send and paste over there. Again -- sorry for my computer…
3. ## Two controversial observations.

Two controversial observations. (A lay man confused in elementary physics knowledge) In this ugly sketch are two frames: first in movement with V velocity in X direction. , the second frame is in rest. In the moving frame are two electric charges with the same sign, and the observer (Kramer I). They don’t feel the movement. For the Kramer I-- the charges are not moving, He used Coulomb law and determine that charges which have the same sign create a force that repels each other. In the rest frame is another observer --- Kramer II. He observe a different phenomena: there are two electric charges, which have the same sign and are moving parallel in X direction with V velocity. The moving charges create electromagnetic fields, which interacting with each other, create an attractive force between charges. Question: How can coexist two different reality? Which Kramer is wrong?

6. ## Relativity with gravity (Split from is relativity wrong)

Swansont No derivation or discussion, just that it has the right units? It's hard to get more arbitrary than that, unless you're willing to drop any pretense of science. ------ Right! Without derivations, without high math there is not science. I have never pretended to make science, how can a layman?. But they that make science didn’t gave me a convincing answer about: How reflected in Lorentz formula the fact of “what” is forced to move by “ outside cause” (a mini black hole, an electron, one gold ion, one neutrino – a star) ? How velocity influence on the object that it forced to move, what kind of changes velocity cause on the object and how? Which character of object forced to move is linked with velocity and how? Which not? There were a couple of untested models, not part of relativity or the standard model, that predicted mini black holes. Few people thought there was any chance at all that they were going to make black holes. ------- Sure. In both of them is out-casted the hated “mass”==== that base concept of reality. Because kinetic energy depends on mass, as well as speed. KE = ------- So KE = ( gamma – 1 ) * me*C^2 . Why not KE = (gamma –1)*Mu.p.*C*Vge? At least will have a relation only between “V” and “Vg”. It is the same result. Here Mu.p. is extrapolated Mplank, for real value of electric charge. By the way in your formula for KE we have on the right side: gamma is a dimension-less number, C^2 is a constant, the only which change is “m “ that is m is the only proportional with KE. Why then modern physic has discarded Einstein formula : Mup = m *gamma? If mass goes up, speed goes down for a given kinetic energy. Right! We have probably hundreds if not thousands of experiments that confirm that relativity is right the way it is, which falsifies any modifications unless they are really, really small; haw small is given by the experimental error of the experiments. -----? ACG\$2 It's not that they tried, it's that there was a lot of speculation about it in the popular press, and the statement was made to put the doom-sayers to rest. --- Maybe you are right. Then i am the only crackpot to believe that unique particle: Mu.p. = (e / (4*pi*epsilon0 *G)^0.5) is the ultimate reliable thing of reality.
7. ## Relativity with gravity (Split from is relativity wrong)

Swansont What reasoning? Why you would arbitrarily place a gravitational potential term in the equation hasn't been justified. What is re in your equation? ------ I made a question: Why it is irrelevant in Lorens formula the mass of particle that is moving? I made this question because the “ gravitational potential term” has dimensions of velocity. So I think this is a kind of velocity “Vge” that oppose the out caused velocity “V”. So I think is not arbitrarily. ------ You say that experimentally is proved validity of formula. As I have listen in T.V. the scientist in CERN made a statement that they have not detected any tiny black hole. Why needed this statement? They tried in this direction? Why they tried if they were sure about the negative result? I think that is not jet proved experimentally for an absolute statement. ------ I see that scientist of CERN try to use heavier ions to achieve results with lower velocity. This is an indirect link between velocity and the mass of ions. May be this has nothing to do with my reasoning. But even if I might be wrong, I will go further in my reasoning. The out caused velocity over the mass particles influence changes in structure of particle: in its radius and with this cause change of the mass of particle that is will change (augment) “Vge” (as I intend electron particle). So in fact the revised formula above will take this form: S = C / (( C^2 –V^2) – Vge * S) Solved this formula ( With fingers as teach us Mr. ACG50) step by step we’ll find that S achieve a maximum value “ before “ V= C , and further go faster down toward S=1 for V=C That means that particle has reached the Plank area. This “before” V = C I think is important.
8. ## Can antimatter exist peacefully with matter?

I think mater and anti mater hate each other via gravity opposition! This is only a thought.
9. ## Keep the good bit of quantum mechanics

Mr. Eugen My suggestion was in support of your idea that if change position of detector.....etc..Only my idea is not for one point but for all point of detector giving him an adequate configuration.. Sorry if i attracted from your dispute with mr. Popcorn. I too don't believe in "weirdness of quantum", but i am not sure about the wave of particle disconected with particle. I think that particle, let it be a mass particle or a photon, posses field which don't go further than 3.48181868*10^7 cm for unity charge. Again if you see my interference a nuisance, disregard it. .
10. ## Relativity with gravity (Split from is relativity wrong)

Swansont The Lorentz formula doesn't "go weird", though, as you can't actually travel at c. And it has the bonus of being experimentally confirmed, many, many times. ----- when i asked what or who is moving with "v" velocity, i wanted to understand if there is any difference between the object that is moving is a black hole or an electron. In the Lorens formula i didn't see any difference. I think that experimentally confirmed not infinity as in Lorens formula but same-thing very big. If we take in consideration gravity velocity for example that of electron: " Vge = (G*me / re)^0.5 = 1.4687201*10^-11 cm/sec" and rewrite Lorens formula: S = C / (( C^2 - V^2 ) + Vge ) The result will be (for V=C) = 2.011812*10^22 but not zero. This is exact the rate between Mplank (extrapolated toward real electric charge) and mass of electron, or with all other characters of electron particle. Has been this kind of reasoning confirmed or discarded?
11. ## Relativity with gravity (Split from is relativity wrong)

When we speak about relativity we intend Lorens formula S = C / (C^2 - V^2) ^ 0.5. As a lay man i don't understand about velocity "V" of what is the issue? If it is about velocity of mass particles, then how this fact is reflected in the above formula? The special relativity was discovered in 1905. In general relativity there is another kind of velocity Vg = ( G*M / R) * 0.5. I think Special relativity is wrong because it does not take in consideration this fact. And naturally as everything in physic, go weird so in the Lorens formula go weird when divide by zero..
12. ## Keep the good bit of quantum mechanics

What will happen if we put instead of a flat detector, one wave form - half circle detector? Sure, after have calculated the wave length we'll have only black or white but not waves display. Am i wrong?
13. ## Planck scale question

When Swansont say that “ dimensions of electron particle are zero “ I see here something illogical. But as quantum mechanic theory has eroded too many concepts of reality, and with sophisticated method of high math has sold them as a new reality I think that here needed many than an explanation. If electron is particle it must have dimensions, it can’t be a point, which mean zero dimensions. If electron is a point zero dimensional, it can’t be a particle. Call it, if you want, a center of a wave, but not a particle. A question without answer: How much is the density of mass of electron?.
14. ## Planck scale question

If theory is going against logic , the theory is wrong.
15. ## Controversial : Photon --- the place of its birth -- in the sun. Where is the place of its death?

ACG50 Yes. You are very bright to distinguish the inside….of the box.

18. ## Why does motion exist in this universe?

That exactly: Convergence of WHAT? In math. doesn't exist that question. In physic you tell me.
19. ## Controversial : Photon --- the place of its birth -- in the sun. Where is the place of its death?

SAMBRIDGE A photon is different than pure energy itself. Energy in the macroscopic scale is always conserved within any closed system. On extremely small scales, it may be possible for it to be created or destroyed through improbability and uncertainty of its existence such as with virtual matter/anti-matter pairs. -------- So the fate of photon is in the “hand of improbability or uncertainty” if I grasped right your meaning. This mean that photon may be “ annihilated “ even without arriving in earth or be moving in eternity with out any change in frequency. Or it may change in frequency via expansion of space, as assume modern cosmology. May be: change of frequency of visible light photon in microwaves may have at all different cause! I don’t believe in” uncertainty “or in “virtual’s”. Whatever be the phenomena it must have a cause to happen, each change must have a law, every participant in change must be real.
20. ## Why does motion exist in this universe?

AJB mathematics and science are rather intertwined. ------They must be divided in interpretation of limits: In math convergence has the limit zero. In physics there is something, very very small but nevertheless something.

23. ## Controversial : Photon --- the place of its birth -- in the sun. Where is the place of its death?

Swanson "Let ther e be light" is Biblical, not scientific. ----- It is taken by a popular masterpiece of a star phys. math. ist When photons are absorbed, the material absorbing the photon gains the energy. That material can emit more photons. Photon number is not a conserved quantity. ----- The question was about the photons that are wasted in open space. The emitted photons re-emitted----- aren’t they of microwaves frequency? “Non conserved quantity of photons” it is interesting issue for me to think about it. Plank graphic? The sun emits photons of many wavelengths. -----Forget for while the ignorance of a L.M. Let say Plank diagram of dependence of intensity energy by frequency. In fact it seems that in space predominate the energy of micro-waves as they are most numerous. Seems like Plank diagram is inversed when the suns emit 70% visible light and in space exist only low frequency waves. This is in fact this thread about. Where is visible light emitted by suns-- in eons? Which micro particles? -----I do no. You tell me. Maybe those that create “after glow”? Value of what? The microwave background radiation? It's a prediction of the Big Bang. ----- Exact. For this is the thread. Big Bang can’t predict, it is predicted by people that create theory, hypothesis, myths. ( Like predecessor physicist of the author, the name of which is mentioned in that masterpiece) ACG53 You lack humor in physic!
24. ## Controversial : Photon --- the place of its birth -- in the sun. Where is the place of its death?

Swanson About first your short rebut I have nothing to debate: opinion issues. I only may assure you that if we put in overall voting our opinions, my will bit yours with near three-git. About second your explanation: ”If these were "aged" photons, you should be able to measure a spectrum depending on their age and source, instead of a value that's predicted by the expansion of the universe.” here please I need some explanations to disperse my doubts: 1- Where are now photons of “ let it be light” and what had happen with their energy ? 2- Where have ended photons of all suns of all their times, and is any method to calculate their approximate energy? Where is it gone that energy? 3- Aren’t microwaves part in Plank graphic and doesn’t they coexist in the packet of photons together with other “high frequency waves” emitted by “let it be light - Sun “ . or in the light of normal suns afterwards? 4- Why ruled out any possibility that the photons may have loosed waves with high frequency as more vulnerable to be swallowed by micro particles that fill the space and degrade them in low frequency ? 5-What is this “value predicted by the expansion of universe? Who from?. Ou –ou .I forget about Mr Agostine. In the moment of creation of universy , was created time and space . Nevertheless that this was a sound authority in physic, I again want to ask: Where is the place that photons created by suns have been “annihilated”?