User talk:Hosh1313

Welcome!

Hello, Hosh1313, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Talk page guidelines

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Michelson–Morley experiment and Talk:Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Michelson–Morley experiment for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Struck last warning. I had not noticed that you had a remark about the content of the article. My apologies. DVdm (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving magnet and conductor problem

My view is that the frame of reference of a field is the particle's velocity that emitted it at that point in time. In fact, this seems both obvious and unavoidable. Byron Forbes (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand that a lot of people say something like that, and it gets repeated. It is sort of an echo chamber. But as you see, when you assume that, you quickly came up with a contradiction against special relativity. When you consider the possibility, either Einstein and a bunch of other Nobel laurates and tens of thousands really smart PhD physicists missed something simple and obvious, or there is a flaw in your conclusion. Anyway, before going to far down the rabbit hole, Let me quote Feynman, which you can read here The Vector Potential. In section 15-4, Feynman says.

"A real field is a mathematical function we use for avoiding the idea of action at a distance."

And

"A “real” field is then a set of numbers we specify in such a way that what happens at a point depends only on the numbers at that point."

The chapter is about the vector potential, but Feynman isn't limiting himself to only the vector potential. He is addressing all real fields, including the electric field.

So, this is my elaboration. The field is made of nothing but numbers. The numbers are not unique. Your numbers may be different from my numbers. Thankfully we have the theory of relativity that allows us to relate to each other's numbers. The numbers at each point in the field are useful for computing the forces on particles at that point. The field exists only because we humans find it useful. The field is not physical. It is not fundamental. It doesn't move. It doesn't do anything. It is not attached to charge particles. There is only one field of a given type, therefore the proper article is "the", as in "the electric field." A charged particle does not have "an electric field" and it doesn't emit an electric field. Electric fields do not interact because there is only one electric field. Electric fields do not propagate.

However, we do say, write, and repeat those things. We can find plenty of examples in reliable sources. It is not wrong; it is a type of jargon. It allows us to say things using fewer words. If we were writing carefully what we would say is that a charged particle influences the value of the field in its vicinity. The values of the field change dynamically over space and time in accordance with a wave equation. The electric field is such a useful and reliable artifice for computing outcomes, that we sometimes tend to think of it as a physical thing. It is not. It is nothing but imagination. The electric force is real. It does things. The electric field is a purely human construct. Once you embrace that, you can stop wasting time by asking unanswerable questions. Constant314 (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

You say fields don't move? This is a vague statement.

Do you agree that the G (LIGO), E and B fields travel at c? Obviously what I mean here is the speed of their change of magnitude at a distance.

Anyway, consider a couple of electrons accelerating away from each other. At a time t I can use as a frame of reference (FOR) the velocity of one of them and consider from there. Clearly, this FOR is moving relative to the FOR of the other electron. Are you saying that the FOR of their respective fields are one and the same?

It seems we are heading for a situation where an E field has a speed of c relative to................nothing in particular? Byron Forbes (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

1. You say fields don't move? This is a vague statement. Sorry, I mean the field is not a thing to which the notion of movement can apply. The E field is just the result of a mathematical computation: F/q. That is, it is force divided by charge. It is not physical. It is just a set of numbers. It is like imagination. Imagination doesn't move, it simply exists.

2. Do you agree that the G (LIGO), E and B fields travel at c? No, of course not. Fields don't have motion.

3. Obviously what I mean here is the speed of their change of magnitude at a distance. Yes, in your FOR, the numbers change in accordance with a wave equation that has a propagation velocity of c, but nothing physical moves.

4. Anyway, consider a couple of electrons accelerating away from each other. At a time t I can use as a frame of reference (FOR) the velocity of one of them and consider from there. Clearly, this FOR is moving relative to the FOR of the other electron. If there is an observer riding along with an electron, then that observer and the electron share a FOR. Likewise, an observer riding along with the other electron shares an FOR with that electron. An observer sitting between them and watching leave in opposite direction also has an FOR. Each of those observers determine fields, velocities, and forces in their own FOR. If the electrons are leaving the central observer at a large fraction of the speed of light, say 0.99c, then the observers will get different numbers. Relativity tells them how to relate their numbers to each other. The electrons and the observers have relative motion. I suspect that the FORs, being non-physical, like imagination and fields, are entities to which the idea of motion does not apply. The central observer sees each electron heading away at 0.99c. In his FOR, the distance between the electrons is increasing at a rate of 1.98c, but nothing in his FOR is exceeding the speed of light. Each electron sees the central observer moving away at 0.99c, but sees the other electron moving only slightly faster at about 0.995c. Your intuition may have expected 1.98c, but that intuition woud be wrong in this case.

5 Are you saying that the FOR of their respective fields are one and the same? No. Each electron has a FOR, as does the central observer. I am saying that the "respective fields" have no FOR because the "respective fields" have no existence. There is only one field, and it fills the universe, and it does not move. The values determined for the field will be different for observers in different FORs. Each FOR is equally valid, but you cannot combine values determined in one FOR with values determined in another FOR unless you transform the values according to the rules of relativity. This is not intuitive.

6. It seems we are heading for a situation where an E field has a speed of c relative to................nothing in particular? The E field has no speed relative to anything. Constant314 (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

So you are saying that the speed of the G, E and B fields is infinity?

You don't accept LIGO's measurement for the speed of gravity as c, or understand that the speed of electricity (transmission speed) is c? Not sure if anyone's measured the B field speed but it is no doubt c also! Byron Forbes (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I am saying that G, E, and B do not have a speed. I accept that the speed of changes in G, E, and B propagate at the speed of c. Like this, when you see the image of an airplane fly across your computer screen, nothing physical is moving. It is just the intensity values of the pixels are changing. It is like that with fields. Constant314 (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

So if we have 2 electrons moving away from each other at 1/2 c, you disagree that the relative velocity of the fields (field change) is 1.0c? (since the relative v to each other is 1/2 c)

Or if 2 electrons are in the same FOR, you disagree that the rate at which their fields transmit to one another is 2c? Byron Forbes (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

So, there are three potential observers. There is one on each electron and GIM, the guy in the middle. To avoid the edge case, let's say that, as seen by GIM, the electrons are moving away from him at 0.99c. He computes that the distance between them is increasing at a rate of 1.98c. Nothing physical in his FOR is exceeding the speed of light. The observer on the left electron looks back. He sees GIM receding at 0.99c. He sees that the other electron is receding somewhat faster than GIM. It is still less than 1.0c. Let's say that it is 0.997c. I didn't actually do the calculation, but it is in the right ballpark. So, to summarize, GIM sees the electrons separating at 1.98c. Each electron sees the other electron separating at a speed greater than 0.99c and less than 1.0c. It is not intuitive, but that is the way relativity works. Constant314 (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Luminiferous Aether

I have found it. But nobody imagined it in its real form, yet very simple. Just need to escape current paradigm.

Would you accept private discussions about this? I am also free from the religions that relativity and quantum physics have become. Malypaet (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

FYI Einstein: Ether and Relativity [1] Constant314 (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

1/ Why is c constant?

2/ The explanations for wavelength and frequency are flimsy at best

3/ How do you explain diffraction?

4/ Doppler does not work in Relativity

5/ Cosmological Redshift is in violation of CoE

6/ Photons with magical fields in "outer" space (distant from charged particles)

7) Photons/EM waves with in phase fields that are simply not in phase Byron Forbes (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure Byron Forbes (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion of new ideas

You seem to have ideas about physics that are at odds with mainstream science. Please stop debating them on talk pages, that is not their purpose (you were told so already at User talk:Hosh1313#Talk page guidelines, but I grant you that was twelve years ago.) Wikipedia's purpose is to document the current scientific consensus, not challenge it.

The Ref Desk might have more relaxed rules about general discussion (that’s debatable), but even so, it’s for asking questions. Questions are things where you don’t know the answer. If you know what you want to hear, and you’re going to debate endlessly dissenting voices, it’s not a (genuine) question. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I need to accept answers even if they are obviously wrong? Byron Forbes (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

You do not have to accept any answers, but Wikipedia is not a debate site. However, you can do what you want on your talk page, as long as it doesn't violate certain policies (copyright violation, libel, vicious personal attacks, WP:BLP policies, hate, and things like that). There is an easy work around. Create a section on your user page and invite the other respondents to reply there. Constant314 (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that is good advice. See Wikipedia:User pages § What may I not have in my user pages? User pages that do not conform may be (and usually are) deleted.  --Lambiam 18:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Good advice there. If you are here only to talk about fringe theories, then you may be blocked because you are not here to build an encyclopedia. But if you are otherwise a consistent contributor, you will be allowed a lot of latitude. Constant314 (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

If Relativity is not a "fringe" theory -

1/ Why is c constant?

2/ The explanations for wavelength and frequency are flimsy at best

3/ How do you explain diffraction?

4/ Doppler does not work in Relativity

5/ Cosmological Redshift is in violation of CoE

6/ Photons with magical fields in "outer" space (distant from charged particles)

7) Photons/EM waves with in phase fields that are simply not in phase

I have been blocked from editing because I am not part of the "lunatic" (Relativity) fringe!

If Wikipedia wants to continue lying to its children like the rest of the world then good luck to you all!

Relativity is a mere "Theory", not a Law - it is thus "fringe". Byron Forbes (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

ANI thread

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Courcelles (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)