Forum Replies Created

  • Jan Olof

    Member
    March 4, 2024 at 9:18 pm

    Hi!

    Sorry for replying that late. In fact, the E-mail from the CNPS notifying your message was stored in the Junk Box, not in the Inbox; therefore I missed it.

    Anyhow, let me reply now!

    I find your answer both interesting and informative.

    I think that the decrease of the thickness of an object approaching velocity c, is a well-proved mathematical consequence of the basics of the Special Relativity Theory (SRT). As far as I have been studying the basics of the SRT, also the increase of the mass of the object takes place, as the velocity increase. How Einstein arrived at these points is of less relevance.

    What I discovered, when simultaneously studying the SRT and Quantum Theory , was the very possibility for an object to jump the infinite energy peak.

    A subsequent question to be raised is, whether it is physically possible to achieve a velocity greater than c.

    If for a moment making the Gedankenexperiment that it might exist physics, where velocities larger that c exist, the jump would seem agreeable.

    On the other side, why is then light moving with the velocity c?

    Sincerely yours,

    J.O. Jonson

  • Jan Olof

    Member
    July 29, 2023 at 10:40 pm

    July 29th, 2023


    Hi!

    Sorry for replying that late. However, I am eager to satisfy your curiosity.

    Most simply: Sir Isaac Newton discovered gravity – and I explained it. That’s how science works.

    The reason why I did it was, since I had become increasingly convinced that it must be one and the same kind of effect that gives rise to the forces between bodies in vacuum (i.e. electricity, magnetism, gravity; strong and weak interaction, however, are far beyond my expertise).

    You are asking, if “there is any sort of wave theory behind the coulomb force?”

    Commonplace textbooks defines the Coulomb force as obeying the inverse square law, thereby multiplying the two charges being involved. If the charges are constant, the force will obey this inverse square law, depending only on the distance between the charges.

    My result is derived using the Special Relativity Theory (SRT), i.e. my result concerning gravity requires that the SRT is true. If not, one must search for another explanation to gravity.

    With best regards,

    Mr. Jan Olof Jonson

    MSEE

  • Jan Olof

    Member
    August 16, 2022 at 11:11 pm

    Dear Harvey:

    - According to my university literature on basic SRT (the so-called Special Relativity Theory), a sender of light flushes, directed upwards in the y direction, is assumed to move with velocity v long the x axis, according to the Standard Configuration, sending the light flushes in the y direction, to be reflected by a mirror at the top of the carriage, subsequently sending the light flush back to the sending point.

    - However, you claim: ‘the source signal does not travel with the source’. As far, as I can see, it does, according to the SRT.

    - Using the Standard Configuration, the moving carriage is associated with a coordinate system K’, according to which the carriage is at rest. In K’, the speed of light is defining time, thus defining a “light clock” of that system, the speed of light defined to be c. The coordinate system K (using thereby the Standard Configuration), according to which the carriage is moving with the velocity v along the x axis, also uses a time clock, based on the assumption that the speed of light is c.

    - The principle of relativity just implies that any observational system assumes the speed of light being c. On that assumption time is defined. A comparison between observations in two different coordinate systems (being simultaneously inertial systems), is, according to the SRT, based on the assumption that any coordinate system does regard the speed of light being c.

    - Frankly spoken, this is the kernel of the SRT model, however, not implying that it represents the truth.

    - After this exposé, I would prefer to know more about the papers that you indicate have been written by Dr. Henry Dowdye Jr. I’d like to analyse his arguments closer.

    - Your comments concerning the change of frequency of light when changing the coordinate system, however, seems o me to be commonplace physics.

    - Here I stop my comments, awaiting your view on my arguments.

    With best regards,

    Jan Olof

  • Jan Olof

    Member
    May 23, 2022 at 10:27 pm

    Thank you for your tip!

    However, I do not believe in neither Maxwell nor Faraday, since I have succeeded in reducing electromagnetism to Coulomb’s Law, beginning with a paper in 1997, please see http://db.naturalphilosophy.org/member/?memberid=304&subpage=abstracts

    (first paper published by CHINESE JOURNAL OF PHYSICS VOL. 35, NO. 2 APRIL 1997, pp. 139-149; to be requested by me, E-mail joj8088@bahnhof.se)

  • Jan Olof

    Member
    May 11, 2022 at 1:32 pm

    Hi, Jerry!

    I found that it was almost impossible to read my recent reply on April 30, 2022 at 10:47 pm, due to intruding “computer system information”.

    I therefore repeat the message (marginally edited) here:

    “Excuse me, Jerry, I omitted the comment to your question “Why does the electrical current appear when magnet is in motion, while the conductor is “stationary”, yet doesn’t appear when the conductor is in motion, while the magnet is “stationary”?

    -But

    isn’t it so that in a generator, consisting of a rotating conductor a current

    is generated due to the magnet surrounding it?’

    I will return to your remaining questions, if I am able to give any relevant comments.

    With best regards,

    Jan Olof Jonson

  • Jan Olof

    Member
    April 30, 2022 at 10:47 pm

    Excuse me, Jerry, I omitted the comment to your question “Why does the electrical current appear when the <i style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>magnet is in motion, while the<i style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”> conductor is “stationary”, yet <i style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>doesn’t appear when the <i style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>conductor is in motion, while the<i style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”> magnet is “stationary”?

    -But
    isn’t it so that in a generator, consisting of a rotating conductor a current
    is generated due to the magnet which surrounds it?’ Here it follows:

  • Jan Olof

    Member
    April 30, 2022 at 10:39 pm

    Hi Jerry:

    I must confess that I am not to the extent specialized on magnets that I can give you complete answers to all your questions.

    Anyhow, I remember that Ampère writes that a magnet can be regarded as consisting of infinitely many microscopic circular currents, thus equalling a single electric current going through a circular conductor along the borders of a circularly shaped magnet *). Inside the magnet, all the magnetic effects of infinitesimally small currents close to a neighboring orbiting current cancel, except for the sum of those aligned to the circular border.

    To conclude, a magnet causes the same effect as an electric current.

    The law that I claim does induce an electric current, is ‘the so-called Continuity Equation of Electricity’, mentioned as Eq. (1) in my paper available on https://www.naturalphilosophy.org//pdf//abstracts/abstracts_189.pdf

    Apparently, there’s needed a changing time function of the electric field due to the magnet (or equivalent electric current) generating the electric field. Due to the inverse square law, if the position of the magnet (or the electric current, corresponding to a primary circuit) changes with time, this condition is fulfilled, and, accordingly, a current will be induced in the adjacent conductor).

    *) Please see: Reference [4] in my recent paper available in http://researchopinion.in/index.php/jro/article/view/152/278

    However, I am not able to define the exact position of this statement attributed by me to Ampère.

    I look forwards to give you further answers to your questions, as far as my knowledge of the subject suffices.

    With best regards

  • Jan Olof

    Member
    April 27, 2022 at 2:41 pm

    Hi!

    I have not explicitly written about magnets inducing currents, but I have analyzed the very phenomenon induction thoroughly. Maybe you might benefit from my two papers on the subject:

    2003 The Law of Electromagnetic Induction Proved to be False Using Classical Electrostatics

    https://www.naturalphilosophy.org//pdf//abstracts/abstracts_189.pdf

    2014 The Claim that Neumann’s Induction Law Is Consistent with Ampère’s Law Rejected DOI: 10.7763/IJMO.2014.V4.394 (IJMO)

    With best regards

    Jan Olof Jonson

  • Jan Olof

    Member
    March 24, 2022 at 10:19 pm

    Dear colleague:

    I do not have the knowledge or insights that would make me able to judge in the question. However, I encountered a paper (please see the reference list in my paper), in which the authors proposed what the Lorentz Transformation would look like, provided there were to exist velocities exceeding the velocity of light, c. I wrote a short article on that theme, indicating how it would be possible to explain a jump over c. Please see my CNPS contribution http://www.naturalphilosophy.org//pdf//abstracts/abstracts_paperlink_7399.pdf

    https://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/member/?memberid=304&subpage=abstracts

    With best regards,

    Jan Olof Jonson

    CNPS member

  • Jan Olof

    Member
    November 22, 2022 at 6:41 pm

    Dear Marco:

    I will give short comments upon your statements within citation marks:

    “I read your paper and I think it is right: magnetism derive from charge motion, but mathematics calculus is much complicated without using magnetic law.”

    My comment: Coulomb’s Law is simple, but mathematics are complicated. I recall my own undergraduate studies. Just take a look at Abramowitz and Stegun HMF. Nonetheless it is an excellent means to prove physical relations.

    “There are integrals made on retarded time, every variable we use must be writed with a long complex formula….”

    My comment: Yes, indeed. If intending to solve an integral for six-seven variables, including time, it demands some tedious work. Furtheron, the definition of retarded time must be correct, too. In fact, the commonplace formulation like that in Feynman’s Lectures, appeared to be fallacious, please see my paper ‘Refutation of Feynman’s Derivation of the Lienard-Wiechert Potentials’, Journal of New Energy, Volume 7, No. 3, pp. 42-44 2003, 10th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Storrs, CT, United States, https://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/event/?eventid=22

    https://www.naturalphilosophy.org//pdf//abstracts/abstracts_paperlink_1681.pdf

    “For me is an important theorical concept but it is not practically usable.”

    Well, I think that it will not cause any fundamental problem for those familiar with programming (not me!) to insert the correct formulae in a good mathematic program.

    With best regards

    Jan Olof Jonson

    CNPS member

  • Jan Olof

    Member
    September 1, 2022 at 9:14 pm

    Harvey

    Thank you for your answer!

    My E-mail address is: joj8088@bahnhof.se

    With best regards,

    Jan Olof