- Thank you received: 0
Nonneta's Challenge
17 years 8 months ago #19557
by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
In what sense is the electric field in an accelerator stationary? In one type the nodes don't move but the particles "surf" an a.c. electric field, which must move.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
17 years 8 months ago #16788
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
(see my changes to nonneta's last post)
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 years 8 months ago #19559
by nonneta
Replied by nonneta on topic Reply from
Since the site has chosen to censor my comments (which, by the way, contained absolutely nothing of a personal insulting nature, and were totally on topic), unable to tolerate having the truth exposed, I am departing from the site. The point has been made. Meta Science is a sham.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
17 years 8 months ago #16789
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
That's too bad. I was looking forward to your demonstration.
Should you ever figure out how to actually do what you said you could do, we will be here.
LB
Should you ever figure out how to actually do what you said you could do, we will be here.
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
17 years 8 months ago #19560
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
[Stoat] "In what sense is the electric field in an accelerator stationary? In one type the nodes don't move but the particles "surf" an a.c. electric field, which must move."
The design of some accelerators is such that the particles being accelerated are inside a part referred to as a "drift tube" during the period of time when the polarity of the accelerating voltage is changing. There are many such tubes in the typical accelerator, and at any given instant the accelerating voltage is applied to them in an alternating pattern. Tubes 1, 3, 5, etc are positive and tubes 2, 4, 6, etc are negative. But these voltages also alternate at high frequency, so that half a cycle later tubes 1, 3, 5, etc become negative and 2, 4, 6, etc become positive. And so on.
Since the particle is inside of this conducting tube while the voltage changes from one polarity to the other, it does not "see" the change of voltage. When it emerges from the other side of the drift tube, into the gap between tubes, it "sees" another field that is (approximately) stationary and pointing in the right direction to continue its acceleration.
Despite noneta's irritating presentation and his unwillingness to show me how a mathematical object is the same as a physical object, he brought up some interesting questions that I was hoping to explore. Some of them have to do with this question of accelerators.
Perhaps we should explore these questions anyway? It might help to resolve the issue Tom and I are working on: is elysium entrainment dynamic or static? And once that issue is "resolved" (in some sort of theoretical way since we still can't observe elysons) we might be in a better position to look at the issue of propagation speeds for the electric force. And thus to explain these things to others.
I don't see any serious problems with the present physical explanation for gravitational force, but I'm not yet comfortable with the physical explanation for electrical force.
LB
The design of some accelerators is such that the particles being accelerated are inside a part referred to as a "drift tube" during the period of time when the polarity of the accelerating voltage is changing. There are many such tubes in the typical accelerator, and at any given instant the accelerating voltage is applied to them in an alternating pattern. Tubes 1, 3, 5, etc are positive and tubes 2, 4, 6, etc are negative. But these voltages also alternate at high frequency, so that half a cycle later tubes 1, 3, 5, etc become negative and 2, 4, 6, etc become positive. And so on.
Since the particle is inside of this conducting tube while the voltage changes from one polarity to the other, it does not "see" the change of voltage. When it emerges from the other side of the drift tube, into the gap between tubes, it "sees" another field that is (approximately) stationary and pointing in the right direction to continue its acceleration.
Despite noneta's irritating presentation and his unwillingness to show me how a mathematical object is the same as a physical object, he brought up some interesting questions that I was hoping to explore. Some of them have to do with this question of accelerators.
Perhaps we should explore these questions anyway? It might help to resolve the issue Tom and I are working on: is elysium entrainment dynamic or static? And once that issue is "resolved" (in some sort of theoretical way since we still can't observe elysons) we might be in a better position to look at the issue of propagation speeds for the electric force. And thus to explain these things to others.
I don't see any serious problems with the present physical explanation for gravitational force, but I'm not yet comfortable with the physical explanation for electrical force.
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
17 years 8 months ago #16790
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
An important difference in the physical explanation of gravitational force and the physical explanation of electrical force:
<ul><li> Gravitational force is caused by small particles that travel at very high speeds relative to normal matter. They are rarely in direct contact with each other.
</li><li>Electrical force is caused by compressed or rarified regions of much larger (but still very small) particles that are either stationary wrt a charged particle (static entrainment), or that travel at slow speeds wrt a charged particle (dynamic entrainment). They are frequently or continuously in direct contact with each other.
The compression / rarefaction of the particles that create the electrical force is driven by the particles that create the gravitationl force.
</li></ul>
As you can see, the two mechanisms are quite different, and this means that the explanation for the <u>observed</u> lack of abberraton in each case might not be the same. We need a better understanding of the physical nature of the electrical force before we can say <u>for sure</u> that someone like nonneta is positively right or wrong.
At least about that issue.
Obviously he was wrong about mathematical and physical objects. But if anyone else would like to try to argue his side of that one, please do. It is good exercise for the brain, and if done with intent to teach/learn instead of ( ... well, I can't actually know why he presented himself that way) it can be fun.
LB
<ul><li> Gravitational force is caused by small particles that travel at very high speeds relative to normal matter. They are rarely in direct contact with each other.
</li><li>Electrical force is caused by compressed or rarified regions of much larger (but still very small) particles that are either stationary wrt a charged particle (static entrainment), or that travel at slow speeds wrt a charged particle (dynamic entrainment). They are frequently or continuously in direct contact with each other.
The compression / rarefaction of the particles that create the electrical force is driven by the particles that create the gravitationl force.
</li></ul>
As you can see, the two mechanisms are quite different, and this means that the explanation for the <u>observed</u> lack of abberraton in each case might not be the same. We need a better understanding of the physical nature of the electrical force before we can say <u>for sure</u> that someone like nonneta is positively right or wrong.
At least about that issue.
Obviously he was wrong about mathematical and physical objects. But if anyone else would like to try to argue his side of that one, please do. It is good exercise for the brain, and if done with intent to teach/learn instead of ( ... well, I can't actually know why he presented himself that way) it can be fun.
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.447 seconds