Val

168 reputation

bio	website
	location
	age
visits	member for	6 months
	seen	May 18 at 15:43
stats	profile views	49

	168 reputation	bio	website		visits	member for	6 months
9 badges		location			seen	May 18 at 15:43

summary answers questions tags badges favorites bounties reputation activity

81 Comments

suggestions reviews revisions comments badges posts accepts all

May 13	comment	Is there anything physically infinite? BTW, how can anybody, who can simply look into infinity, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_focus, say that it does not exist?
May 13	comment	Is there anything physically infinite? It is our physical theory. How do you test it?
May 12	comment	Is there anything physically infinite? It is extremely antiscientific to say what this answer says, namely, to tell to the nature how should it be, how discrete it should be, how finite it must be, especially after we know that Universe and fields are infinite. Thank you for deleting this argument. It is indicative that these dictators, denying modern theories, send us to the philosophy area.
May 12	comment	Is there anything physically infinite? @michielm, Here are 4 points claimed to be infinite. There is no surface length among them. Stop arguing by straw man argument.
May 12	comment	Upward force on a object at rest You should add why, we people get tired keeping a lifted weight in our hands but tables don't! :)))
May 12	comment	Upward force on a object at rest I do not think that crystals are sorta fluid, even at the microscopic level. And, I do not think that it is appropriate to ground the repulsion on the liquidness.
May 11	comment	Relativistic charge density contraction in a closed loop I have drawn them after studying that boosted bodies contract. Nobody told me that electrons accelerate differently from boosting and the contracted train. Eventhough they teach the result of electron contraction in the loop, they do not explain how it was produced. And, as I say, studying the boosting between frames does not give you this infromation. It just makes to think that the picture presented for educational purposes, with electrons expanded, is wrong. That is why the questions I have asked here are important.
May 11	comment	Relativistic charge density contraction in a closed loop I know that simultaneity can resolve the ladder paradox. But, as this problem of electron acceleration demonstrates, it is insufficient to analyze the worldlines to draw them. Before analyzing, I had to draw them in the first place. And wikipedia nor feynman nor anybody do explain why they draw them that way. Quite the contrary. Looking at the dozens of spacetime analyses I was drawn into delusion that everything boosted into another frame is seen contracted in the original frame.
May 11	comment	Relativistic charge density contraction in a closed loop 1. You are right. I am not accurate. I was not sure whether it is train that experiences contraction or these are electrons, who experience expansion. 2. You explain the electronic balance. That was another topic. Here, I wanted to know how contracted volume of electrons fits the wire (expanded) space. The fact that electric charge density is balanced by another side (btw incompletly, because we are in a moving frame), does not explain how the ladder of electrons fits into garage of the stationary nuclei.
May 11	comment	There must be free positive charges, moving oppositely to electrons for the wire with current to stay neutral You contradict to yourself. You have just explained that bodies are normally expanded when accelerated without rigidness. When you now say that this is impossible, you make a very strong ungrounded statement, which contradicts to yourself. digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/… explains the Bell's paradox without the 4-vectors. How is it possible? I see that your cryptic formulas only follow the WP, which considers steady current in different frames, whereas, I've told you, my question is about producing such current in the lab frame.
May 11	comment	Is there anything physically infinite? Aren't the models actually exist? If something actually exist in the Universe and infinities exist in this something, doesn't that imply that intinities actually exist by pure logic? Don't you add this your very profound comment about filosofy to every answer, regarding physical reality, in the world?
May 10	comment	There must be free positive charges, moving oppositely to electrons for the wire with current to stay neutral Have you seen my edit proposal? Don't you want to summarize these ideas? You may add a bit about rigidness. Why do you answer instead with in-depth reproduction of the pictures that I linked in complex tensor language but when it comes to the process of acceleration, which is what I say that these pictures "forget" to explain and ask to fill the gap, you send me to read some books and become very inconcrete. I see that it is a typical problem. People respond with what they and everybody knows instead what they asked.
May 9	comment	There must be free positive charges, moving oppositely to electrons for the wire with current to stay neutral Do you say that there is no resistance to attain equilibrium? If not, then what is the point?
May 9	comment	There must be free positive charges, moving oppositely to electrons for the wire with current to stay neutral I have supplied a collection of 5 treatments, notepad.cc/share/vF0szTUYns. Can you point exactly to the point? But, "way 2" can be an answer to my question. If you summarize, I'll accept it. But, I would like to see a proof link. BTW, if you like rigidness, electrons behave exactly like stable rigid bodies than structureless liquids. They support equidistance from each other, exactly like rigid structures. I you shift one, the whole line of electrons will shift, like solid body. Only extreme elasticity of such structure seems to confuse you. But, spring is a solid body, nevertheless.
May 9	comment	There must be free positive charges, moving oppositely to electrons for the wire with current to stay neutral I want to know exactly what happens. Which route does Nature take? There must be determinism because we always get the same electromagnetic effects for given current. This is the topic of this question. When teachers say (I have created example list notepad.cc/share/vF0szTUYns) that moving particles are contracted (whatever frame you look from, call it "lab"), they mean that way 1 is taken always. So, chain of charges accelerated wrt lab must be contracted wrt lab. This must imply that if electrons are moved then wire must get charged negatively. Why wire stays neutral?
May 9	comment	There must be free positive charges, moving oppositely to electrons for the wire with current to stay neutral Yes, but I ask to compare not different frames of reference. I ask you to do all comparisons in the lab frame. In the first case you have both +ses and -ses at rest. Then, accelerate -ses to speed v. You look from the same lab frame and compare densities before and after.
May 9	comment	There must be free positive charges, moving oppositely to electrons for the wire with current to stay neutral Why do you say that things are not contracted in one case but contracted in the other? Contracted or is a matter of what we had prviously. I may say that originally we were in a moving frame and charges contracted when we jumped into the lab frame. They are contracted in lab. Ok? We call contracted things, which are moving wrt to us. We set something into motion in our frame. How can you, in contrast to Einstein's relativity and all teachers, say that charges, moving wrt to lab frame are not contracted when lab accelerated them?
May 9	comment	There must be free positive charges, moving oppositely to electrons for the wire with current to stay neutral Ok, but in the lab frame, protons are not moving. Therefore you cannot say that lab frame is fig5 rather than 6.
May 9	comment	There must be free positive charges, moving oppositely to electrons for the wire with current to stay neutral Positive charges are contracted w.r.t negative, negatives are contracted w.r.t positives. That is the theory of relativity and the what Minkovski diagram shows us. One of the frames is a lab frame. So, something is contracted in the lab frame. Entailing arrogance (go, learn diagrams) and overcomplications with current sources and rigidness you to hide your misunderstanding of relativity and misinform us.
May 9	comment	There must be free positive charges, moving oppositely to electrons for the wire with current to stay neutral I do not know about the chat but this "bad wording" is everywhere. You is only one in the world who uses "correct wording". The problem with your "correct wording" is that it lacks the logic. Your necessity of rigidness for Lorentz-contraction is your fantasy. BTW, you do not know what relativity means. When you say that some effects are observed in one frame but never in the other, this is opposite to when relativity means. Relativity means that one frame is identical to the others. Relativity applies to electrons identically to rigid bodies. At least, there is no difference in contraction.