Electromagnetism and Relativity

[SDG]

It's not worth my time and effort to find your error. But far smarter people than both of us have examined relativity for a century now from angles you haven't even conceived of, and there are no inconsistencies. You aren't going to find any now. As I said, if you think you have, then you screwed up. And I don't really care about the details of how.

Fair enough, thanks for your time and comments.
All the best.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The bold part, did you use c=299792458 in the calculation?

No, I used c=3e8. My calculation was rough and ready, involving a couple of operations that weren't ideal with regard to roundoff error. That's why I wasn't at all bothered by small discrepancies. I left all of the calculated digits in the results because I was lazy.

I have no idea of what you think you mean by dx, but that's for you to figure out. I've seen enough of this thread.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It's not worth my time and effort to find your error. But far smarter people than both of us have examined relativity for a century now from angles you haven't even conceived of, and there are no inconsistencies. You aren't going to find any now. As I said, if you think you have, then you screwed up. And I don't really care about the details of how.

SDG has either made a rookie error, or is destined for a Nobel Prize in physics and scientific fame achieved previously by a small handful of people in the history physics.


I found this video to be a helpful illustration of why time dilation, length contraction, and gravity exist as explained by general relativity.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZccTTUX-dBc&

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, there's now a horizontal component to the force. But so what? Do you think this means that there's going to be a horizontal deflection, leading to an inconsistency? Nope. There isn't. As I said, force isn't always parallel to acceleration. The acceleration remains vertical.

 

[SDG]

Yes, there's now a horizontal component to the force. But so what? Do you think this means that there's going to be a horizontal deflection, leading to an inconsistency? Nope. There isn't. As I said, force isn't always parallel to acceleration. The acceleration remains vertical.

So you are saying q(v'_y x B') does nothing.
The electromagnetism does not work.
Your claim goes against experiments.

 

[Ziggurat]

So you are saying q(v'_y x B') does nothing.

No, I did not say that at all. Pay closer attention. I'm saying acceleration isn't parallel to force. You're assuming that it is, but this assumption is wrong.

 

[SDG]

No, I did not say that at all. Pay closer attention. I'm saying acceleration isn't parallel to force. You're assuming that it is, but this assumption is wrong.

Why would Lorentz force not change the electron trajectory?
What prevents that?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why would Lorentz force not change the electron trajectory?
What prevents that?

The Lorentz force affects the trajectory. "Change" is too vague a word to be useful here, because change has to be relative to something and you haven't specified what.

You've made one error already, assuming that the acceleration is always parallel to the force when it's not. I suspect you may have made an additional error as well. Did you know that the Coulomb force is not invariant between reference frames? It's larger in the frame where the charged plates are moving. If you only look at the addition of the Lorentz force and don't account for the change in the Coulomb force, you're going to get the wrong answer.

Again: if you think you found an inconsistency, you didn't. You screwed up somewhere. Sometimes finding where can be a challenge, but it's a guarantee.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is easy to show that the magnetic vxB x component does not cancel out with the x component of v(v.E)/c².
If x components do not cancel out there is some dx change.

If that's easy to show, then show it.

 

[SDG]

If that's easy to show, then show it.

The electron is a spin particle. Spin particles have torques related to spin and orbit.
The orbital torque is frame dependent, the spin torque is independent/absolute.
The interaction between the spin and orbital torques breaks the symmetry between x components.

The known observations prove the spin-orbit interaction.
The hydrogen Lamb shift, hydrogen 21cm line, ...

 

[Ziggurat]

You changed the scenario you are examining. Torque played no role in your first scenario. You claimed an inconsistency but could not show it. Now you are claiming another separate inconsistency and still can't demonstrate it. I'm sure you are messing this one up too.

 

[jimbob]

I have removed a lot of posts for violation of Rule 4

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jimbob