• =?UTF-8?Q?From_Coulomb=E2=80=99s_force_to_magnetic_force?=

    From PengKuan Em@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 28 10:11:14 2023
    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law. This seemingly harmless flaw had never been corrected. In
    physical sciences a discrepancy often hides in it new understanding or unexpected breakthrough. For solving this problem, we give a purely theoretical derivation of magnetic force which respects the Newton's third law in the case of current elements and
    is identical to the Lorentz force in the case of coils. This new law reveals how electric force is transformed into magnetic force by velocity and is supported by experimental evidences that we will explain and compute with the new law.

    1. Introduction
    The Figure 1 shows a case where dFa is perpendicular to dFb , so, dFa + dFb  0. This problem was known for longtime. People justify that the Lorentz forces that two closed loop currents act on each other do satisfy the Newton's third law. Nevertheless,
    breaking the Newton's third law does not fit scientific standard, even for the Lorentz forces law which is fundamental.

    We will try to solve this problem with a new magnetic force law that we have derived with pure theory. The new law is derived from the Coulomb’s law which defines the Coulomb’s force for fixed charges. For moving electrons, the Coulomb’s force
    undergoes relativistic effects and varies with velocity.

    2. Consequences
    • The relationmu0 eps0 c2 = 1
    Historically, the values of mu0, eps0 and the speed of light c were measured experimentally. It was James Clerk Maxwell who noticed that mu0eps0c2 = 1 . So, it was an empirical law. In our derivation this relation emerged naturally from both
    relativistic dynamic effect and changing distance effect. So, we have theoretically proven this relation and in consequence, the relation mu0eps0c2 = 1 is now a theoretical law.

    • Biot–Savart law
    The equation (58) is identical to the Biot–Savart law (59) but is derived with pure theory. So, the Biot–Savart law becomes a theoretical law too.

    • Lorentz force law
    (61) is the Lorentz force that one dIb exerts on dIa . So, we have derived the Lorentz force law from the Coulomb’s law.

    • Magnetic force vs. Newton's third law
    The sum of the magnetic force (49) and its back force is zero. So, the magnetic force law (49) satisfies the Newton's third law for current elements . Being an experimental law, the Lorentz force law does not describe a force that does not exist and thus,
    lacks this term. So, it cannot satisfy Newton's third law. Thanks to the fully theoretical derivation, the magnetic force law (49) contains the missing last term and consequently, satisfies Newton's third law.

    3. Experimental evidences
    • My experiments
    The first experiment is «Continuous rotation of a circular coil experiment» . The video of this experiment is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9162Qw-wNow . In this video we see a round coil that rotates in its plane. Because the coil is round the
    driving force must be parallel to the wire, that is, the driving force is parallel to the current. This force cannot be Lorentz force which is perpendicular to the current. A detailed technical explanation is in the paper «Showing tangential magnetic
    force by experiment» .

    I have also made a « Circular motor driven by tangential magnetic force » . The video of this experiment is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkGUaJqa6nU&list=UUuJXMstqPh8VY4UYqDgwcvQ . The technical details of this experiment is: « Detail of my
    circular motor using tangential force and the equivalence with homopolar motor » .

    • Experiment of wire fragmentation
    In 1961, Jan Nasilowski in Poland has carried out an experiment which consisted of passing a huge current in a thin wire. The wire exploded into small pieces. The interesting thing is that the wires were not melted but teared apart by mechanical force.

    4. Conclusion
    Because the new law gives the same prediction as the Lorentz force law for closed loop currents, it works for electromagnetism as the Lorentz force law. However, the component of magnetic force parallel to the current is new and shown to be rather
    significant. So, it could be used as the driving force for new devices.

    Since the Biot–Savart law, the Lorentz force law and the relation mu0 eps0 c2 = 1are derived with pure theory, the deep mechanism that transforms electric force into magnetic force is revealed to be the two relativistic effects, electromagnetism is
    much better understood.


    For more detail of this study please read the complete paper here:
    « From Coulomb’s force to magnetic force and experiments that show magnetic force parallel to current»
    https://www.academia.edu/106863205/From_Coulombs_force_to_magnetic_force_and_experiments_that_show_magnetic_force_parallel_to_current

    Kuan Peng

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to PengKuan Em on Thu Sep 28 11:44:45 2023
    On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:11:16 AM UTC-7, PengKuan Em wrote:
    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law. This seemingly harmless flaw had never been corrected. In
    physical sciences a discrepancy often hides in it new understanding or unexpected breakthrough. For solving this problem, we give a purely theoretical derivation of magnetic force which respects the Newton's third law in the case of current elements and
    is identical to the Lorentz force in the case of coils. This new law reveals how electric force is transformed into magnetic force by velocity and is supported by experimental evidences that we will explain and compute with the new law.

    1. Introduction
    The Figure 1 shows a case where dFa is perpendicular to dFb , so, dFa + dFb  0. This problem was known for longtime. People justify that the Lorentz forces that two closed loop currents act on each other do satisfy the Newton's third law.
    Nevertheless, breaking the Newton's third law does not fit scientific standard, even for the Lorentz forces law which is fundamental.

    We will try to solve this problem with a new magnetic force law that we have derived with pure theory. The new law is derived from the Coulomb’s law which defines the Coulomb’s force for fixed charges. For moving electrons, the Coulomb’s force
    undergoes relativistic effects and varies with velocity.

    2. Consequences
    • The relationmu0 eps0 c2 = 1
    Historically, the values of mu0, eps0 and the speed of light c were measured experimentally. It was James Clerk Maxwell who noticed that mu0eps0c2 = 1 . So, it was an empirical law. In our derivation this relation emerged naturally from both
    relativistic dynamic effect and changing distance effect. So, we have theoretically proven this relation and in consequence, the relation mu0eps0c2 = 1 is now a theoretical law.

    • Biot–Savart law
    The equation (58) is identical to the Biot–Savart law (59) but is derived with pure theory. So, the Biot–Savart law becomes a theoretical law too.

    • Lorentz force law
    (61) is the Lorentz force that one dIb exerts on dIa . So, we have derived the Lorentz force law from the Coulomb’s law.

    • Magnetic force vs. Newton's third law
    The sum of the magnetic force (49) and its back force is zero. So, the magnetic force law (49) satisfies the Newton's third law for current elements . Being an experimental law, the Lorentz force law does not describe a force that does not exist and
    thus, lacks this term. So, it cannot satisfy Newton's third law. Thanks to the fully theoretical derivation, the magnetic force law (49) contains the missing last term and consequently, satisfies Newton's third law.

    3. Experimental evidences
    • My experiments
    The first experiment is «Continuous rotation of a circular coil experiment» . The video of this experiment is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9162Qw-wNow . In this video we see a round coil that rotates in its plane. Because the coil is round the
    driving force must be parallel to the wire, that is, the driving force is parallel to the current. This force cannot be Lorentz force which is perpendicular to the current. A detailed technical explanation is in the paper «Showing tangential magnetic
    force by experiment» .

    I have also made a « Circular motor driven by tangential magnetic force » . The video of this experiment is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkGUaJqa6nU&list=UUuJXMstqPh8VY4UYqDgwcvQ . The technical details of this experiment is: « Detail of my
    circular motor using tangential force and the equivalence with homopolar motor » .

    • Experiment of wire fragmentation
    In 1961, Jan Nasilowski in Poland has carried out an experiment which consisted of passing a huge current in a thin wire. The wire exploded into small pieces. The interesting thing is that the wires were not melted but teared apart by mechanical force.

    4. Conclusion
    Because the new law gives the same prediction as the Lorentz force law for closed loop currents, it works for electromagnetism as the Lorentz force law. However, the component of magnetic force parallel to the current is new and shown to be rather
    significant. So, it could be used as the driving force for new devices.

    Since the Biot–Savart law, the Lorentz force law and the relation mu0 eps0 c2 = 1are derived with pure theory, the deep mechanism that transforms electric force into magnetic force is revealed to be the two relativistic effects, electromagnetism is
    much better understood.


    For more detail of this study please read the complete paper here:
    « From Coulomb’s force to magnetic force and experiments that show magnetic force parallel to current»
    https://www.academia.edu/106863205/From_Coulombs_force_to_magnetic_force_and_experiments_that_show_magnetic_force_parallel_to_current

    Kuan Peng

    Man's work is F=ma but is not from the four fundamental forces.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to PengKuan Em on Fri Sep 29 11:41:59 2023
    PengKuan Em <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:

    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism.
    However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law.
    [first error, snip]

    What is the Lagrangian for your theory?

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Sep 30 09:21:24 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:

    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law.
    [first error, snip]

    What is the Lagrangian for your theory?

    Jan

    There's draw, ....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Sat Sep 30 09:27:29 2023
    On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 11:44:48 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:11:16 AM UTC-7, PengKuan Em wrote:
    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law. This seemingly harmless flaw had never been corrected. In
    physical sciences a discrepancy often hides in it new understanding or unexpected breakthrough. For solving this problem, we give a purely theoretical derivation of magnetic force which respects the Newton's third law in the case of current elements and
    is identical to the Lorentz force in the case of coils. This new law reveals how electric force is transformed into magnetic force by velocity and is supported by experimental evidences that we will explain and compute with the new law.

    1. Introduction
    The Figure 1 shows a case where dFa is perpendicular to dFb , so, dFa + dFb  0. This problem was known for longtime. People justify that the Lorentz forces that two closed loop currents act on each other do satisfy the Newton's third law.
    Nevertheless, breaking the Newton's third law does not fit scientific standard, even for the Lorentz forces law which is fundamental.

    We will try to solve this problem with a new magnetic force law that we have derived with pure theory. The new law is derived from the Coulomb’s law which defines the Coulomb’s force for fixed charges. For moving electrons, the Coulomb’s force
    undergoes relativistic effects and varies with velocity.

    2. Consequences
    • The relationmu0 eps0 c2 = 1
    Historically, the values of mu0, eps0 and the speed of light c were measured experimentally. It was James Clerk Maxwell who noticed that mu0eps0c2 = 1 . So, it was an empirical law. In our derivation this relation emerged naturally from both
    relativistic dynamic effect and changing distance effect. So, we have theoretically proven this relation and in consequence, the relation mu0eps0c2 = 1 is now a theoretical law.

    • Biot–Savart law
    The equation (58) is identical to the Biot–Savart law (59) but is derived with pure theory. So, the Biot–Savart law becomes a theoretical law too.

    • Lorentz force law
    (61) is the Lorentz force that one dIb exerts on dIa . So, we have derived the Lorentz force law from the Coulomb’s law.

    • Magnetic force vs. Newton's third law
    The sum of the magnetic force (49) and its back force is zero. So, the magnetic force law (49) satisfies the Newton's third law for current elements . Being an experimental law, the Lorentz force law does not describe a force that does not exist and
    thus, lacks this term. So, it cannot satisfy Newton's third law. Thanks to the fully theoretical derivation, the magnetic force law (49) contains the missing last term and consequently, satisfies Newton's third law.

    3. Experimental evidences
    • My experiments
    The first experiment is «Continuous rotation of a circular coil experiment» . The video of this experiment is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9162Qw-wNow . In this video we see a round coil that rotates in its plane. Because the coil is round the
    driving force must be parallel to the wire, that is, the driving force is parallel to the current. This force cannot be Lorentz force which is perpendicular to the current. A detailed technical explanation is in the paper «Showing tangential magnetic
    force by experiment» .

    I have also made a « Circular motor driven by tangential magnetic force » . The video of this experiment is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkGUaJqa6nU&list=UUuJXMstqPh8VY4UYqDgwcvQ . The technical details of this experiment is: « Detail of my
    circular motor using tangential force and the equivalence with homopolar motor » .

    • Experiment of wire fragmentation
    In 1961, Jan Nasilowski in Poland has carried out an experiment which consisted of passing a huge current in a thin wire. The wire exploded into small pieces. The interesting thing is that the wires were not melted but teared apart by mechanical
    force.

    4. Conclusion
    Because the new law gives the same prediction as the Lorentz force law for closed loop currents, it works for electromagnetism as the Lorentz force law. However, the component of magnetic force parallel to the current is new and shown to be rather
    significant. So, it could be used as the driving force for new devices.

    Since the Biot–Savart law, the Lorentz force law and the relation mu0 eps0 c2 = 1are derived with pure theory, the deep mechanism that transforms electric force into magnetic force is revealed to be the two relativistic effects, electromagnetism is
    much better understood.


    For more detail of this study please read the complete paper here:
    « From Coulomb’s force to magnetic force and experiments that show magnetic force parallel to current»
    https://www.academia.edu/106863205/From_Coulombs_force_to_magnetic_force_and_experiments_that_show_magnetic_force_parallel_to_current

    Kuan Peng
    Man's work is F=ma but is not from the four fundamental forces.

    Inverse square?

    There are kinds of acceleration and potential, for example with slip and draw, fine usually one way all the way to the end.

    Slip and lock in magnetic systems, it's mechanical, magnet connection.

    Phase is signal, where signal is usually "zero energy", "signal not state".

    "Extra-Maxwell, Super-Maxwell", all the adiabatic nonadiabatic is given to Biot law,
    so or not so.

    Yes then "Lagrangians" are any "governed same time".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to PengKuan Em on Sat Sep 30 09:17:39 2023
    On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:11:16 AM UTC-7, PengKuan Em wrote:
    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law. This seemingly harmless flaw had never been corrected. In
    physical sciences a discrepancy often hides in it new understanding or unexpected breakthrough. For solving this problem, we give a purely theoretical derivation of magnetic force which respects the Newton's third law in the case of current elements and
    is identical to the Lorentz force in the case of coils. This new law reveals how electric force is transformed into magnetic force by velocity and is supported by experimental evidences that we will explain and compute with the new law.

    1. Introduction
    The Figure 1 shows a case where dFa is perpendicular to dFb , so, dFa + dFb  0. This problem was known for longtime. People justify that the Lorentz forces that two closed loop currents act on each other do satisfy the Newton's third law.
    Nevertheless, breaking the Newton's third law does not fit scientific standard, even for the Lorentz forces law which is fundamental.

    We will try to solve this problem with a new magnetic force law that we have derived with pure theory. The new law is derived from the Coulomb’s law which defines the Coulomb’s force for fixed charges. For moving electrons, the Coulomb’s force
    undergoes relativistic effects and varies with velocity.

    2. Consequences
    • The relationmu0 eps0 c2 = 1
    Historically, the values of mu0, eps0 and the speed of light c were measured experimentally. It was James Clerk Maxwell who noticed that mu0eps0c2 = 1 . So, it was an empirical law. In our derivation this relation emerged naturally from both
    relativistic dynamic effect and changing distance effect. So, we have theoretically proven this relation and in consequence, the relation mu0eps0c2 = 1 is now a theoretical law.

    • Biot–Savart law
    The equation (58) is identical to the Biot–Savart law (59) but is derived with pure theory. So, the Biot–Savart law becomes a theoretical law too.

    • Lorentz force law
    (61) is the Lorentz force that one dIb exerts on dIa . So, we have derived the Lorentz force law from the Coulomb’s law.

    • Magnetic force vs. Newton's third law
    The sum of the magnetic force (49) and its back force is zero. So, the magnetic force law (49) satisfies the Newton's third law for current elements . Being an experimental law, the Lorentz force law does not describe a force that does not exist and
    thus, lacks this term. So, it cannot satisfy Newton's third law. Thanks to the fully theoretical derivation, the magnetic force law (49) contains the missing last term and consequently, satisfies Newton's third law.

    3. Experimental evidences
    • My experiments
    The first experiment is «Continuous rotation of a circular coil experiment» . The video of this experiment is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9162Qw-wNow . In this video we see a round coil that rotates in its plane. Because the coil is round the
    driving force must be parallel to the wire, that is, the driving force is parallel to the current. This force cannot be Lorentz force which is perpendicular to the current. A detailed technical explanation is in the paper «Showing tangential magnetic
    force by experiment» .

    I have also made a « Circular motor driven by tangential magnetic force » . The video of this experiment is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkGUaJqa6nU&list=UUuJXMstqPh8VY4UYqDgwcvQ . The technical details of this experiment is: « Detail of my
    circular motor using tangential force and the equivalence with homopolar motor » .

    • Experiment of wire fragmentation
    In 1961, Jan Nasilowski in Poland has carried out an experiment which consisted of passing a huge current in a thin wire. The wire exploded into small pieces. The interesting thing is that the wires were not melted but teared apart by mechanical force.

    4. Conclusion
    Because the new law gives the same prediction as the Lorentz force law for closed loop currents, it works for electromagnetism as the Lorentz force law. However, the component of magnetic force parallel to the current is new and shown to be rather
    significant. So, it could be used as the driving force for new devices.

    Since the Biot–Savart law, the Lorentz force law and the relation mu0 eps0 c2 = 1are derived with pure theory, the deep mechanism that transforms electric force into magnetic force is revealed to be the two relativistic effects, electromagnetism is
    much better understood.


    For more detail of this study please read the complete paper here:
    « From Coulomb’s force to magnetic force and experiments that show magnetic force parallel to current»
    https://www.academia.edu/106863205/From_Coulombs_force_to_magnetic_force_and_experiments_that_show_magnetic_force_parallel_to_current

    Kuan Peng


    Let's see, where am I here, ....

    Ahem, ahem. Ahem: is a brief term, to introduce introduction.

    Usually followed by an address, I sit in full respect that indeed, indeed, mathematics for mathematical physics, one of the best parts of mathematics, for mathematical physics, is that mathematics is not a science.

    There is a science, of mathematics, this is just certainly to allow that
    all so follows, already is one, a "what there is of it, mathematics".

    So, what I have done is put GR and QM together with my theory in
    the middle, "none", or "fall gravity under potential, the field's fall's force",
    putting GR and QM together, usually the force of gravity.


    I research who had already written that way, just writing how it's written, besides where it went where it goes, Fitzgerald, for Einstein and Lorentz,
    and Maxwell, and, put all space contraction into fall also "Lorentz-Fitzgerald",
    and "Hamilton-Lagrangians", again, adding nothing to "theory", just pointing out what there is of it.

    So, thusly, I had a giant and huge advantage of an entirety of people who
    just want to "know" science "to be right where others are wrong, science",
    to show off, all in the "theory", of course, all, in, the theory.

    Then what I've done with it is Einstein's Newton's, into classical motion, which are Galilean and Lorentzian, that develop in time Galilean,
    classically Fitzgerald is zero then where Lagrangians result, non-zero.

    Involved and included is mathematical foundations along the line,
    Cantor's, reworked with Aristotle's and now with Nyquist, about
    three terms of definition, each right in radius. So, continuity laws,
    in time and in Hamilton's Lagrangians, conservation laws, are open conservation laws, in continuity laws, defining systems that are open
    and closed, with closed only following from high pressure.

    So, of course all the formulas and semantics of "ordinary set theory" including all "uncountable ordinals", are true, and "all of the formulas
    are the same", "axiomatic set theory into descriptive set theory really defines things", besides "law: rule".

    Then, time, as a usual regular continuous course, is entirely regulating Langrangians, whatever is a science or a model of a system, "closed by open".

    So, Ross Finlayson claims his "A" Theory brings, all this, same? Sure, doesn't say anything about it at all.

    Thusly what was called supergravity and shadow gravity and fall gravity,
    for gravity and pull and push gravity and magnetism or short-range forces,
    I theorize it out underneath as "fall gravity", in terms of that gravity in its
    range, of course makes things stay in their default open range,
    again, to add range into forces, what are inertial systems themselves.

    So, if you've heard of shadow gravity and supergravity, only the "outside" forces of gravity besides "gravity proportional inverse square, see also acceleration",
    the space of gravity in mass terms.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sun Oct 1 09:26:53 2023
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:

    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law.
    [first error, snip]

    What is the Lagrangian for your theory?

    Jan

    There's draw, ....

    Not really. If there isn't one, it is out,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Oct 4 21:59:57 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:26:56 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:

    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current
    elements do not respect the Newton's third law.
    [first error, snip]

    What is the Lagrangian for your theory?

    Jan

    There's draw, ....
    Not really. If there isn't one, it is out,

    Jan


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inrush_current

    I imagine you're familiar with Gibbs' phenomenon, or ringing or hysteresis, then "draw"
    also includes how that's also a sort of model of "acceleration of the current", then for,
    just like mechanics, "all the higher order derivatives of acceleration", and, then for
    thusly, a "stop-derivative of draw".

    Yeah these modern notions of "pesudomomentum" in "resonance theories"
    really do start to help explain and also compute with "theories of sum potentials".

    I.e. they're more fundamental, potential theories, for the Mach-ian and such.

    Three-body problem: three two-body problems.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Wed Oct 4 22:24:53 2023
    On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 9:59:59 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:26:56 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:

    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current
    elements do not respect the Newton's third law.
    [first error, snip]

    What is the Lagrangian for your theory?

    Jan

    There's draw, ....
    Not really. If there isn't one, it is out,

    Jan
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inrush_current

    I imagine you're familiar with Gibbs' phenomenon, or ringing or hysteresis, then "draw"
    also includes how that's also a sort of model of "acceleration of the current", then for,
    just like mechanics, "all the higher order derivatives of acceleration", and, then for
    thusly, a "stop-derivative of draw".

    Yeah these modern notions of "pesudomomentum" in "resonance theories"
    really do start to help explain and also compute with "theories of sum potentials".

    I.e. they're more fundamental, potential theories, for the Mach-ian and such.

    Three-body problem: three two-body problems.


    Of course Ohm and Kirchhoff are classical laws, to show they arise in these systems
    of potentials, where it's the potential fields that are real and the classical the emergent.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_laws

    It's sort of like looking at the space of real functions or duBois-Reymond's, and showing the integers arise from it, properties of superclassical continuity.

    It's a continuum mechanics, ....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Thu Oct 5 11:56:27 2023
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:26:56?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:

    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for
    electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's
    third law.
    [first error, snip]

    What is the Lagrangian for your theory?

    Jan

    There's draw, ....
    Not really. If there isn't one, it is out,

    Jan


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inrush_current

    I imagine you're familiar with Gibbs' phenomenon,

    Yes, but you are moving goalposts.
    The point was that it isn't hard to write down expressions for forces,
    and next conclude that your 'forces' do strange things,
    like violating momentum conservation.

    You really need to show how it all hangs together,
    and giving a Lagrangian for the theory is the way to do that.

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Oct 5 08:41:15 2023
    On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:56:30 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:26:56?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:

    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law.
    [first error, snip]

    What is the Lagrangian for your theory?

    Jan

    There's draw, ....
    Not really. If there isn't one, it is out,

    Jan


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inrush_current

    I imagine you're familiar with Gibbs' phenomenon,
    Yes, but you are moving goalposts.
    The point was that it isn't hard to write down expressions for forces,
    and next conclude that your 'forces' do strange things,
    like violating momentum conservation.

    You really need to show how it all hangs together,
    and giving a Lagrangian for the theory is the way to do that.

    Jan

    Consider for example Born's "Restless Universe":
    the goalposts are always moving.

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Born

    "Somewhere in our doctrine is hidden a concept,
    unjustified by experience, which we must eliminate
    to open up the road." -- Max Born

    "I am now convinced that theoretical physics is actually philosophy." -- Max Born


    Kant advises that the "sublime" really is real, and only accessible to
    an "object-sense", i.e. reason, so "it really is a continuum mechanics",
    maybe even logic.

    This is only so much different from a usual reasonable empirical and sense-limited approach, of course for reproducibility and falsifiability
    being our science instead of only the empirical.

    Over time, "intuition" and "formalism" have traded meanings as each
    next major development in analysis, algebra, arithmetic, dot dot dot,
    found itself "primary", first-order.

    Then, here "mathematics _owes_ physics" and these days the current
    trends call this "pseudomomentum" and "resonance theory", and of
    course for a long time "theory of potentials", about "continuity laws" before-and-after "conservation laws".

    I.e., "the natural law includes Kant's sublime, which is only accessible
    via a mental object-sense".

    Then Lagrangians as a matter of definition suffice to say "whatever
    time according to a clock hypothesis has parameterized", as about Hamilton-Jacobi and out into Lagrangians. These are to satisfy
    Einstein's model physicist and model philosopher, and Einstein's
    attack on classical motion and altogether a "differential system".

    Poincare's great intuitionism is not so much about "can't know
    all the fields" as "it's still one field".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Thu Oct 5 19:09:17 2023
    On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:41:18 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:56:30 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:26:56?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:

    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law.
    [first error, snip]

    What is the Lagrangian for your theory?

    Jan

    There's draw, ....
    Not really. If there isn't one, it is out,

    Jan


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inrush_current

    I imagine you're familiar with Gibbs' phenomenon,
    Yes, but you are moving goalposts.
    The point was that it isn't hard to write down expressions for forces,
    and next conclude that your 'forces' do strange things,
    like violating momentum conservation.

    You really need to show how it all hangs together,
    and giving a Lagrangian for the theory is the way to do that.

    Jan
    Consider for example Born's "Restless Universe":
    the goalposts are always moving.

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Born

    "Somewhere in our doctrine is hidden a concept,
    unjustified by experience, which we must eliminate
    to open up the road." -- Max Born

    "I am now convinced that theoretical physics is actually philosophy." -- Max Born


    Kant advises that the "sublime" really is real, and only accessible to
    an "object-sense", i.e. reason, so "it really is a continuum mechanics", maybe even logic.

    This is only so much different from a usual reasonable empirical and sense-limited approach, of course for reproducibility and falsifiability being our science instead of only the empirical.

    Over time, "intuition" and "formalism" have traded meanings as each
    next major development in analysis, algebra, arithmetic, dot dot dot,
    found itself "primary", first-order.

    Then, here "mathematics _owes_ physics" and these days the current
    trends call this "pseudomomentum" and "resonance theory", and of
    course for a long time "theory of potentials", about "continuity laws" before-and-after "conservation laws".

    I.e., "the natural law includes Kant's sublime, which is only accessible
    via a mental object-sense".

    Then Lagrangians as a matter of definition suffice to say "whatever
    time according to a clock hypothesis has parameterized", as about Hamilton-Jacobi and out into Lagrangians. These are to satisfy
    Einstein's model physicist and model philosopher, and Einstein's
    attack on classical motion and altogether a "differential system".

    Poincare's great intuitionism is not so much about "can't know
    all the fields" as "it's still one field".

    The numerical methods what result area-averaging and these kinds of things, basically reflect on Clausius and Hooke. Most people are unawares such numerical
    conceits are embedded so deeply in most sorts usual derivations eventually following.

    It's kind of like a paraphrase of Poincare, "most are quite blissfully unawares".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sat Oct 7 09:10:03 2023
    On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:09:20 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:41:18 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:56:30 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:26:56?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:

    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz
    forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's
    third law.
    [first error, snip]

    What is the Lagrangian for your theory?

    Jan

    There's draw, ....
    Not really. If there isn't one, it is out,

    Jan


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inrush_current

    I imagine you're familiar with Gibbs' phenomenon,
    Yes, but you are moving goalposts.
    The point was that it isn't hard to write down expressions for forces, and next conclude that your 'forces' do strange things,
    like violating momentum conservation.

    You really need to show how it all hangs together,
    and giving a Lagrangian for the theory is the way to do that.

    Jan
    Consider for example Born's "Restless Universe":
    the goalposts are always moving.

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Born

    "Somewhere in our doctrine is hidden a concept,
    unjustified by experience, which we must eliminate
    to open up the road." -- Max Born

    "I am now convinced that theoretical physics is actually philosophy." -- Max Born


    Kant advises that the "sublime" really is real, and only accessible to
    an "object-sense", i.e. reason, so "it really is a continuum mechanics", maybe even logic.

    This is only so much different from a usual reasonable empirical and sense-limited approach, of course for reproducibility and falsifiability being our science instead of only the empirical.

    Over time, "intuition" and "formalism" have traded meanings as each
    next major development in analysis, algebra, arithmetic, dot dot dot, found itself "primary", first-order.

    Then, here "mathematics _owes_ physics" and these days the current
    trends call this "pseudomomentum" and "resonance theory", and of
    course for a long time "theory of potentials", about "continuity laws" before-and-after "conservation laws".

    I.e., "the natural law includes Kant's sublime, which is only accessible via a mental object-sense".

    Then Lagrangians as a matter of definition suffice to say "whatever
    time according to a clock hypothesis has parameterized", as about Hamilton-Jacobi and out into Lagrangians. These are to satisfy
    Einstein's model physicist and model philosopher, and Einstein's
    attack on classical motion and altogether a "differential system".

    Poincare's great intuitionism is not so much about "can't know
    all the fields" as "it's still one field".
    The numerical methods what result area-averaging and these kinds of things, basically reflect on Clausius and Hooke. Most people are unawares such numerical
    conceits are embedded so deeply in most sorts usual derivations eventually following.

    It's kind of like a paraphrase of Poincare, "most are quite blissfully unawares".

    Yeah if you search arxiv for "pseudomomentum" that really seems to be
    the current concept for what explains "conservation of momentum isn't what
    it once was".

    It's an exciting time, I feel lucky, mostly for being right.

    Of course that's balanced with a general malaise, can't win them all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to PengKuan Em on Mon Oct 9 12:29:31 2023
    On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:11:16 AM UTC-7, PengKuan Em wrote:
    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law. This seemingly harmless flaw had never been corrected.

    Yes, it had. That's why fields are needed in E&M (unlike Newtonian mechanics in which
    the momentum and energy accounting can be done by only considering the particles).

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Mon Oct 9 12:31:08 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:

    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law.
    [first error, snip]

    What is the Lagrangian for your theory?

    The suspense is killing me.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From PengKuan Em@21:1/5 to All on Mon Oct 9 13:45:46 2023
    Le vendredi 29 septembre 2023 à 11:42:02 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder a écrit :
    PengKuan Em wrote:

    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law.
    [first error, snip]

    What is the Lagrangian for your theory?

    Jan

    Sorry for replying so late.

    In fact, I'm not familiar with Lagrangian and I have no idea about "What is the Lagrangian for my theory"

    PK

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From PengKuan Em@21:1/5 to All on Mon Oct 9 13:47:44 2023
    Le lundi 9 octobre 2023 à 21:29:33 UTC+2, JanPB a écrit :
    On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:11:16 AM UTC-7, PengKuan Em wrote:
    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law. This seemingly harmless flaw had never been corrected.
    Yes, it had. That's why fields are needed in E&M (unlike Newtonian mechanics in which
    the momentum and energy accounting can be done by only considering the particles).

    --
    Jan

    Do you mean that fields are free of the problem of third Newton's law?

    PK

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From PengKuan Em@21:1/5 to All on Mon Oct 9 13:49:05 2023
    Le lundi 9 octobre 2023 à 21:31:10 UTC+2, JanPB a écrit :
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    PengKuan Em:

    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current
    elements do not respect the Newton's third law.
    [first error, snip]

    What is the Lagrangian for your theory?
    The suspense is killing me.

    --
    Jan

    I have no idea about the Lagrangian.

    PK

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to PengKuan Em on Mon Oct 9 19:29:36 2023
    On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 1:49:07 PM UTC-7, PengKuan Em wrote:
    Le lundi 9 octobre 2023 à 21:31:10 UTC+2, JanPB a écrit :
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    PengKuan Em:

    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current
    elements do not respect the Newton's third law.
    [first error, snip]

    What is the Lagrangian for your theory?
    The suspense is killing me.

    --
    Jan
    I have no idea about the Lagrangian.

    PK

    It's a particular setup of a functional system as entirely
    parameterized by a single variable in _time_.

    So, for something like Einstein's vision of a total field theory,
    it's his notion that all the contents of space-time is a single
    if arbitrarily complex "differential equation in _time_".

    Then, whether solving for x or solving for t, i.e. "whether
    meters per second or seconds per meter", first gets into
    the notions as Einstein has, for example, of how to make
    for the laws of motion, how the angular and linear go together
    again, as what are the kinematic in the kinetic what's altogether
    kinematic and only kinetic, it's a thing.

    In Einstein's later theory that he calls Relativity, Einstein associates
    a particular and unique "the time" to the entirety.

    Then, whether objects "tip" or "topple", for example, or meet and part, reflects basically for _moments_ what results systems of _moments_,
    in "moments, means, and metrics", moving.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to PengKuan Em on Mon Oct 9 22:27:31 2023
    On 10/9/23 3:45 PM, PengKuan Em wrote:
    I'm not familiar with Lagrangian and I have no idea about "What is the Lagrangian for my theory"

    Today that is tantamount to not having a theory.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Tue Oct 10 01:25:44 2023
    On Tuesday, 10 October 2023 at 04:27:42 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 10/9/23 3:45 PM, PengKuan Em wrote:
    I'm not familiar with Lagrangian and I have no idea about "What is the Lagrangian for my theory"
    Today that is tantamount to not having a theory.


    You mean needing a Lagrangian is tantamount to not having a
    theory
    Who knows what Peng’s theory is, but if a theory needs a ‘Lagrangian’ its a worthless theory.
    Reference shows QT relies on them.
    I can well imagine it does. Because pretending that simple states
    of polarisation arriving at various detectors is proof of Quantum magic,
    wave particle duality and spooky action at a distance...definitely needs
    a book full of Lagrangians to pull of this fakery.
    The many bogus quantum eraser experiments are evidence of this.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Lou on Tue Oct 10 11:08:06 2023
    Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> wrote:

    On Tuesday, 10 October 2023 at 04:27:42 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 10/9/23 3:45 PM, PengKuan Em wrote:
    I'm not familiar with Lagrangian and I have no idea about "What is the Lagrangian for my theory"

    Today that is tantamount to not having a theory.

    You mean needing a Lagrangian is tantamount to not having a
    theory
    Who knows what Peng's theory is, but if a theory needs a 'Lagrangian' its
    a worthless theory.

    Peng only knows. It is up to him to explain it.
    However, it should be obvious
    that merely writing down some expressions for forces
    is not enough to create a physical theory.

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to PengKuan Em on Tue Oct 10 10:23:33 2023
    PengKuan Em <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:

    Le vendredi 29 septembre 2023 11:42:02 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder a crit :
    PengKuan Em wrote:

    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law.
    [first error, snip]

    What is the Lagrangian for your theory?

    Jan

    Sorry for replying so late.

    In fact, I'm not familiar with Lagrangian and I have no idea about "What
    is the Lagrangian for my theory"

    OK, I'll simplify. Are your postulated forces related to fields?
    If so, can those fields be derived from potentials?
    (a scalar and/or vector potential)

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Lou on Tue Oct 10 06:59:31 2023
    On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:25:46 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

    Reference shows QT relies on them.
    I can well imagine it does. Because pretending that simple states
    of polarisation arriving at various detectors is proof of Quantum magic, wave particle duality and spooky action at a distance...definitely needs
    a book full of Lagrangians to pull of this fakery.
    The many bogus quantum eraser experiments are evidence of this.


    It is refreshing to see that your crankiness extends to QM, it is not restricted to relativity.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Tue Oct 10 08:24:36 2023
    On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:23:36 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:

    Le vendredi 29 septembre 2023 à 11:42:02 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder a écrit :
    PengKuan Em wrote:

    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current
    elements do not respect the Newton's third law.
    [first error, snip]

    What is the Lagrangian for your theory?

    Jan

    Sorry for replying so late.

    In fact, I'm not familiar with Lagrangian and I have no idea about "What is the Lagrangian for my theory"
    OK, I'll simplify. Are your postulated forces related to fields?
    If so, can those fields be derived from potentials?
    (a scalar and/or vector potential)

    Jan

    (And well potentials, as was described recently enough "vectors and darts", where darts are vectors one way and wells the other, vis-a-vis "multipole", about relating impulse to the infinitely many orders of acceleration,
    as for starting and also stopping, then that some "stop-derivative" is a new contrivance in differential systems, helping explain, "cube wall", linear on one side, inverse cube and dot dot dot the other, happens to result inverse square, "the darting of the cube wall".)

    It must be a field theory, ... must be a gauge theory (which is a field theory with
    torsions and magmas), ..., must be a continuum mechanics.

    It's a continuum mechanics, ....

    Kant illustrates that though the sublime or sense of the real infinite is not available to finger-counting, that it _is_ available to reason, if only.
    (For what's a continuum mechanics.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From PengKuan Em@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 10 15:08:12 2023
    Le mardi 10 octobre 2023 à 05:27:42 UTC+2, Tom Roberts a écrit :
    On 10/9/23 3:45 PM, PengKuan Em wrote:
    I'm not familiar with Lagrangian and I have no idea about "What is the Lagrangian for my theory"
    Today that is tantamount to not having a theory.

    Tom Roberts

    ??

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From PengKuan Em@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 10 15:07:09 2023
    Le mardi 10 octobre 2023 à 04:29:39 UTC+2, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
    On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 1:49:07 PM UTC-7, PengKuan Em wrote:
    Le lundi 9 octobre 2023 à 21:31:10 UTC+2, JanPB a écrit :
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    PengKuan Em:

    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current
    elements do not respect the Newton's third law.
    [first error, snip]

    What is the Lagrangian for your theory?
    The suspense is killing me.

    --
    Jan
    I have no idea about the Lagrangian.

    PK
    It's a particular setup of a functional system as entirely
    parameterized by a single variable in _time_.

    So, for something like Einstein's vision of a total field theory,
    it's his notion that all the contents of space-time is a single
    if arbitrarily complex "differential equation in _time_".

    Then, whether solving for x or solving for t, i.e. "whether
    meters per second or seconds per meter", first gets into
    the notions as Einstein has, for example, of how to make
    for the laws of motion, how the angular and linear go together
    again, as what are the kinematic in the kinetic what's altogether
    kinematic and only kinetic, it's a thing.

    In Einstein's later theory that he calls Relativity, Einstein associates
    a particular and unique "the time" to the entirety.

    Then, whether objects "tip" or "topple", for example, or meet and part, reflects basically for _moments_ what results systems of _moments_,
    in "moments, means, and metrics", moving.

    Thanks. What I have understood is that the space-time in General relativity is created with a Lagrangian.

    PK

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From PengKuan Em@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 10 15:10:01 2023
    Le mardi 10 octobre 2023 à 10:23:36 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder a écrit :
    PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:

    Le vendredi 29 septembre 2023 à 11:42:02 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder a écrit : Sorry for replying so late.

    In fact, I'm not familiar with Lagrangian and I have no idea about "What is the Lagrangian for my theory"
    OK, I'll simplify. Are your postulated forces related to fields?

    Yes, Coulomb's field.

    If so, can those fields be derived from potentials?

    Yes, Coulomb's field is a gradian.

    (a scalar and/or vector potential)

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to PengKuan Em on Tue Oct 10 19:03:38 2023
    On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:07:11 PM UTC-7, PengKuan Em wrote:
    Le mardi 10 octobre 2023 à 04:29:39 UTC+2, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
    On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 1:49:07 PM UTC-7, PengKuan Em wrote:
    Le lundi 9 octobre 2023 à 21:31:10 UTC+2, JanPB a écrit :
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    PengKuan Em:

    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism.
    However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current
    elements do not respect the Newton's third law.
    [first error, snip]

    What is the Lagrangian for your theory?
    The suspense is killing me.

    --
    Jan
    I have no idea about the Lagrangian.

    PK
    It's a particular setup of a functional system as entirely
    parameterized by a single variable in _time_.

    So, for something like Einstein's vision of a total field theory,
    it's his notion that all the contents of space-time is a single
    if arbitrarily complex "differential equation in _time_".

    Then, whether solving for x or solving for t, i.e. "whether
    meters per second or seconds per meter", first gets into
    the notions as Einstein has, for example, of how to make
    for the laws of motion, how the angular and linear go together
    again, as what are the kinematic in the kinetic what's altogether kinematic and only kinetic, it's a thing.

    In Einstein's later theory that he calls Relativity, Einstein associates
    a particular and unique "the time" to the entirety.

    Then, whether objects "tip" or "topple", for example, or meet and part, reflects basically for _moments_ what results systems of _moments_,
    in "moments, means, and metrics", moving.
    Thanks. What I have understood is that the space-time in General relativity is created with a Lagrangian.

    PK


    Euh, space-time in relativity is just a continuous manifold and often let be "Minkowski space", then "Space-Time in Relativity" is the contents and according to that every object that can be considered a massy body dimplies Space-Time and thus establishes a Riemannian metric of its potential well while overall the Space-Time lattice has a Euclidean metric of common distances.

    Then, the idea is that according to such dimples or the curvature, everything goes in straight lines in that what results being the "geodesy", their "world-lines".

    Then, kind of like "Lagrangians are any system parameterized by time", being that
    Lagrangians are pretty general and have one parameter t for time, besides Lagrangians
    in usual setups that are also sort of neatly compatible with Hamilton and Hamilton-Jacobi
    _linear_ setups that have well knows means of solution, then the point of Einstein's
    field equations (or, I only care about General Relativity), is that "whatever results is whatever
    is down". This is the old "Einstein, is gravity down?" "Yeah, gravity is straight down."

    Then, what Einstein and all of us call inertial-systems is any of these collections
    of massy bodies considered as an observable, again I mostly care only about General Relativity,
    because as Einstein's final theory that he gifted us has for Special Relativity, while the
    geodesy is constantly updated, for massy bodies, and massless bodies, that the objects
    governed by Special Relativity, or the light-like, only flow in their flux, massy bodies
    move according to their inertia.

    So, that something like "geometry is motion" or "the only constant is change or
    as Heraclitus put it _panta rei_", I suppose you could imagine "wow the very existence
    of a space-time is structured because it arises naturally as from a mathematical resources
    of a continuum", that it's "created with a Lagrangian", most people would not necessarily
    think so, though.

    (Any errors of mine are my own, any errors of mine of others are, also.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to PengKuan Em on Tue Oct 10 19:06:22 2023
    On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:10:03 PM UTC-7, PengKuan Em wrote:
    Le mardi 10 octobre 2023 à 10:23:36 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder a écrit :
    PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:

    Le vendredi 29 septembre 2023 à 11:42:02 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder a écrit : Sorry for replying so late.

    In fact, I'm not familiar with Lagrangian and I have no idea about "What is the Lagrangian for my theory"
    OK, I'll simplify. Are your postulated forces related to fields?
    Yes, Coulomb's field.
    If so, can those fields be derived from potentials?
    Yes, Coulomb's field is a gradian.
    (a scalar and/or vector potential)

    Jan

    I think you mean "has a gradient", i.e. there's a particular path through
    it that maximizes flow, but they aren't necessarily distinct, gradients.

    The gradient is usually associated with the notion of steepest descent.
    It's like Einstein is on the top of a ski hill, surveying it in his goggles. It's like "Einstein, where are you going with this" and he says "straight down".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From PengKuan Em@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 12 10:51:47 2023
    Le mercredi 11 octobre 2023 à 04:06:25 UTC+2, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
    I think you mean "has a gradient", i.e. there's a particular path through
    it that maximizes flow, but they aren't necessarily distinct, gradients.

    The gradient is usually associated with the notion of steepest descent.
    It's like Einstein is on the top of a ski hill, surveying it in his goggles. It's like "Einstein, where are you going with this" and he says "straight down".

    Yes, it is gradient.

    Coulomb's field has gradient, but magnetic field does not have gradient, or does it?.

    PK

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From PengKuan Em@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 12 10:53:08 2023
    Le mercredi 11 octobre 2023 à 04:03:41 UTC+2, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
    Euh, space-time in relativity is just a continuous manifold and often let be "Minkowski space", then "Space-Time in Relativity" is the contents and according to that every object that can be considered a massy body dimplies Space-Time and thus establishes a Riemannian metric of its potential well while overall the Space-Time lattice has a Euclidean metric of common distances.

    Then, the idea is that according to such dimples or the curvature, everything
    goes in straight lines in that what results being the "geodesy", their "world-lines".

    Then, kind of like "Lagrangians are any system parameterized by time", being that
    Lagrangians are pretty general and have one parameter t for time, besides Lagrangians
    in usual setups that are also sort of neatly compatible with Hamilton and Hamilton-Jacobi
    _linear_ setups that have well knows means of solution, then the point of Einstein's
    field equations (or, I only care about General Relativity), is that "whatever results is whatever
    is down". This is the old "Einstein, is gravity down?" "Yeah, gravity is straight down."

    Then, what Einstein and all of us call inertial-systems is any of these collections
    of massy bodies considered as an observable, again I mostly care only about General Relativity,
    because as Einstein's final theory that he gifted us has for Special Relativity, while the
    geodesy is constantly updated, for massy bodies, and massless bodies, that the objects
    governed by Special Relativity, or the light-like, only flow in their flux, massy bodies
    move according to their inertia.

    So, that something like "geometry is motion" or "the only constant is change or
    as Heraclitus put it _panta rei_", I suppose you could imagine "wow the very existence
    of a space-time is structured because it arises naturally as from a mathematical resources
    of a continuum", that it's "created with a Lagrangian", most people would not necessarily
    think so, though.

    (Any errors of mine are my own, any errors of mine of others are, also.)

    I think space-time is not a good description of gravitation field.

    PK

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to PengKuan Em on Thu Oct 12 19:08:34 2023
    On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 10:53:10 AM UTC-7, PengKuan Em wrote:
    Le mercredi 11 octobre 2023 à 04:03:41 UTC+2, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
    Euh, space-time in relativity is just a continuous manifold and often let be
    "Minkowski space", then "Space-Time in Relativity" is the contents and according to that every object that can be considered a massy body dimplies
    Space-Time and thus establishes a Riemannian metric of its potential well while overall the Space-Time lattice has a Euclidean metric of common distances.

    Then, the idea is that according to such dimples or the curvature, everything
    goes in straight lines in that what results being the "geodesy", their "world-lines".

    Then, kind of like "Lagrangians are any system parameterized by time", being that
    Lagrangians are pretty general and have one parameter t for time, besides Lagrangians
    in usual setups that are also sort of neatly compatible with Hamilton and Hamilton-Jacobi
    _linear_ setups that have well knows means of solution, then the point of Einstein's
    field equations (or, I only care about General Relativity), is that "whatever results is whatever
    is down". This is the old "Einstein, is gravity down?" "Yeah, gravity is straight down."

    Then, what Einstein and all of us call inertial-systems is any of these collections
    of massy bodies considered as an observable, again I mostly care only about General Relativity,
    because as Einstein's final theory that he gifted us has for Special Relativity, while the
    geodesy is constantly updated, for massy bodies, and massless bodies, that the objects
    governed by Special Relativity, or the light-like, only flow in their flux, massy bodies
    move according to their inertia.

    So, that something like "geometry is motion" or "the only constant is change or
    as Heraclitus put it _panta rei_", I suppose you could imagine "wow the very existence
    of a space-time is structured because it arises naturally as from a mathematical resources
    of a continuum", that it's "created with a Lagrangian", most people would not necessarily
    think so, though.

    (Any errors of mine are my own, any errors of mine of others are, also.)
    I think space-time is not a good description of gravitation field.

    PK

    Well, you see, the Quantum Field Theory's field is the same space, it's a continuous manifold, and it's the same time, then the contents is what's called "field occupation numbers" of a "field number formalism", that anywhere there's a particle, or wave, or everywhere, there exists the field occupation numbers, so that QM's space-time is about the same as GR's space-time,
    then that GR's Space-Time has gradients everywhere what are the metrics indicating the geodesy's bodies' world-lines, and QM's field content, is for the scattering/tunneling theory, and parallel transport, then that all together
    the theories together are parameterized by time, for what's a combined view
    of the premier theories GR and QM, them being a field theory and a gauge theory,
    toward what makes a "unified field theory".

    It's a continuum mechanics.


    It's like the other day some dude was like "we're living in a matrix" and
    it's like "why don't you test it by jumping in the lava". Then the idea is that real space contraction is real and a very usual sort of magmas,
    the transport and parallel transport of the instanton and soliton.
    (In a theory with a fall gravity where matter's atom is the real graviton.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Mon Oct 16 23:10:23 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:17:42 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:11:16 AM UTC-7, PengKuan Em wrote:
    Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law. This seemingly harmless flaw had never been corrected. In
    physical sciences a discrepancy often hides in it new understanding or unexpected breakthrough. For solving this problem, we give a purely theoretical derivation of magnetic force which respects the Newton's third law in the case of current elements and
    is identical to the Lorentz force in the case of coils. This new law reveals how electric force is transformed into magnetic force by velocity and is supported by experimental evidences that we will explain and compute with the new law.

    1. Introduction
    The Figure 1 shows a case where dFa is perpendicular to dFb , so, dFa + dFb  0. This problem was known for longtime. People justify that the Lorentz forces that two closed loop currents act on each other do satisfy the Newton's third law.
    Nevertheless, breaking the Newton's third law does not fit scientific standard, even for the Lorentz forces law which is fundamental.

    We will try to solve this problem with a new magnetic force law that we have derived with pure theory. The new law is derived from the Coulomb’s law which defines the Coulomb’s force for fixed charges. For moving electrons, the Coulomb’s force
    undergoes relativistic effects and varies with velocity.

    2. Consequences
    • The relationmu0 eps0 c2 = 1
    Historically, the values of mu0, eps0 and the speed of light c were measured experimentally. It was James Clerk Maxwell who noticed that mu0eps0c2 = 1 . So, it was an empirical law. In our derivation this relation emerged naturally from both
    relativistic dynamic effect and changing distance effect. So, we have theoretically proven this relation and in consequence, the relation mu0eps0c2 = 1 is now a theoretical law.

    • Biot–Savart law
    The equation (58) is identical to the Biot–Savart law (59) but is derived with pure theory. So, the Biot–Savart law becomes a theoretical law too.

    • Lorentz force law
    (61) is the Lorentz force that one dIb exerts on dIa . So, we have derived the Lorentz force law from the Coulomb’s law.

    • Magnetic force vs. Newton's third law
    The sum of the magnetic force (49) and its back force is zero. So, the magnetic force law (49) satisfies the Newton's third law for current elements . Being an experimental law, the Lorentz force law does not describe a force that does not exist and
    thus, lacks this term. So, it cannot satisfy Newton's third law. Thanks to the fully theoretical derivation, the magnetic force law (49) contains the missing last term and consequently, satisfies Newton's third law.

    3. Experimental evidences
    • My experiments
    The first experiment is «Continuous rotation of a circular coil experiment» . The video of this experiment is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9162Qw-wNow . In this video we see a round coil that rotates in its plane. Because the coil is round the
    driving force must be parallel to the wire, that is, the driving force is parallel to the current. This force cannot be Lorentz force which is perpendicular to the current. A detailed technical explanation is in the paper «Showing tangential magnetic
    force by experiment» .

    I have also made a « Circular motor driven by tangential magnetic force » . The video of this experiment is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkGUaJqa6nU&list=UUuJXMstqPh8VY4UYqDgwcvQ . The technical details of this experiment is: « Detail of my
    circular motor using tangential force and the equivalence with homopolar motor » .

    • Experiment of wire fragmentation
    In 1961, Jan Nasilowski in Poland has carried out an experiment which consisted of passing a huge current in a thin wire. The wire exploded into small pieces. The interesting thing is that the wires were not melted but teared apart by mechanical
    force.

    4. Conclusion
    Because the new law gives the same prediction as the Lorentz force law for closed loop currents, it works for electromagnetism as the Lorentz force law. However, the component of magnetic force parallel to the current is new and shown to be rather
    significant. So, it could be used as the driving force for new devices.

    Since the Biot–Savart law, the Lorentz force law and the relation mu0 eps0 c2 = 1are derived with pure theory, the deep mechanism that transforms electric force into magnetic force is revealed to be the two relativistic effects, electromagnetism is
    much better understood.


    For more detail of this study please read the complete paper here:
    « From Coulomb’s force to magnetic force and experiments that show magnetic force parallel to current»
    https://www.academia.edu/106863205/From_Coulombs_force_to_magnetic_force_and_experiments_that_show_magnetic_force_parallel_to_current

    Kuan Peng
    Let's see, where am I here, ....

    Ahem, ahem. Ahem: is a brief term, to introduce introduction.

    Usually followed by an address, I sit in full respect that indeed, indeed, mathematics for mathematical physics, one of the best parts of mathematics, for mathematical physics, is that mathematics is not a science.

    There is a science, of mathematics, this is just certainly to allow that
    all so follows, already is one, a "what there is of it, mathematics".

    So, what I have done is put GR and QM together with my theory in
    the middle, "none", or "fall gravity under potential, the field's fall's force",
    putting GR and QM together, usually the force of gravity.


    I research who had already written that way, just writing how it's written, besides where it went where it goes, Fitzgerald, for Einstein and Lorentz, and Maxwell, and, put all space contraction into fall also "Lorentz-Fitzgerald",
    and "Hamilton-Lagrangians", again, adding nothing to "theory", just pointing out what there is of it.

    So, thusly, I had a giant and huge advantage of an entirety of people who just want to "know" science "to be right where others are wrong, science", to show off, all in the "theory", of course, all, in, the theory.

    Then what I've done with it is Einstein's Newton's, into classical motion, which are Galilean and Lorentzian, that develop in time Galilean, classically Fitzgerald is zero then where Lagrangians result, non-zero.

    Involved and included is mathematical foundations along the line,
    Cantor's, reworked with Aristotle's and now with Nyquist, about
    three terms of definition, each right in radius. So, continuity laws,
    in time and in Hamilton's Lagrangians, conservation laws, are open conservation laws, in continuity laws, defining systems that are open
    and closed, with closed only following from high pressure.

    So, of course all the formulas and semantics of "ordinary set theory" including all "uncountable ordinals", are true, and "all of the formulas
    are the same", "axiomatic set theory into descriptive set theory really defines things", besides "law: rule".

    Then, time, as a usual regular continuous course, is entirely regulating Langrangians, whatever is a science or a model of a system, "closed by open".

    So, Ross Finlayson claims his "A" Theory brings, all this, same? Sure, doesn't say anything about it at all.

    Thusly what was called supergravity and shadow gravity and fall gravity,
    for gravity and pull and push gravity and magnetism or short-range forces,
    I theorize it out underneath as "fall gravity", in terms of that gravity in its
    range, of course makes things stay in their default open range,
    again, to add range into forces, what are inertial systems themselves.

    So, if you've heard of shadow gravity and supergravity, only the "outside" forces of gravity besides "gravity proportional inverse square, see also acceleration",
    the space of gravity in mass terms.

    Reading this Kepler he has some pretty discursive notions
    put into the either way of the planets their motions, talking
    about the rotating frames, half-way in and out the ether,
    helping explain the static moment and the vanishing static moment,
    Kepler starts with this discourse on platonic ideals and then up against Bode's law, discussses the center and the approximate dimensions
    of the system (1/3 sun, 1/3 planets, 1/3 fixed stars), then getting
    into it, he explains quite a variety of observed effects, or common states, mostly about the common rotational orientation, and about the ecliptic, accommodating both central and repulsive forces, according to
    the center of mass of the sun and whether it's a point like object
    or that it's not, so far Kepler's introduction to "the motions of the spheres" then is for getting into the harmonic models or Harmonies,
    as for "harmonies: Kepler's spectral analysis".

    This Lindsay's on energy, or R.B. Lindsay on energy,
    it helps a lot explaining the classical and the quantified.

    That "orbits _are_ actually circles, ...".

    There's not much electrical in it but Kepler describes the behavior
    of the magnetic lodestone, or loadstone, with respect to fields in gravity, about the poles, and spin.

    Then "Modified Newtonian Dynamics" also is for "Modified Keplerian Dynamics".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)