Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by crazeeeeeem, Apr 29, 2007.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Yes, almost. They are 2 different implementations of the same force. Perhaps you recall that I mentioned the Photon before, which is pretty much the only thing that is relevant for information propogation via the electromagnetic force.
Arguments ad hominem
Why not have mechanical human electricity generation plants?
For an example, a HUGE region with bicycles. Hire tons of employees to ride the stationary bicycles and generate current off that. You create more employment and significantly less pollution. (There's tons of homeless people that would do this). It would create healthier generations of people as well.
Or, you can tap into all the gyms nation-wide etc.
Addressing the homeless part of the idea, there's a serious flaw in that. Most of them wouldn't even be homeless to begin with if they were willing to work at all.
Unfortunately, you would have to cycle for 8 hrs straight just to generate the electricity needed to heat the water for the shower you would need afterward.
OK. I still say the model says what it says.
A question I have. Is the magnetic field continuous?
If it is continous, can the transmission of the change in magnetic field be faster than light, much as you see the change in the surface of a pond (I realise they are different) is faster than the rate a wave is conducted in that pond.
You would be worried too if you were stabbed
Would you agree than that the velocity vector, based on the model of the change in magnetic field is FTL?
The model suggests that this is true.
The electromagnetic force does have an infinite range, however because of the inverse square fall-off (force gets weaker with the square of the distance) there is a practical boundry in which a magnetic field can no longer be detected.
Next, no even though the magnetic field is an infinite force, it does not propogate FTL, but at or less than the speed of light. My laser can also reach an infinite distance, but that doesnt mean it moves faster than light.
As for the pond: your comparing the waves frequency to its propogation rate, wich is a rather irrelevant comparison. I can have an infinite frequency, but until the wave has propgated to the shore I'm on, I won't detect it.
Yes I do agree, the crux of the problem is that this is irrelevant.
Bear with me here:
I am looking at the sky, and I can see the Andromeda galaxy.
I am now spinning around, relativity states that I can pick myself as a stationary referance frame. Thus, I am not spinning but the world is spinning, and the Andromeda galaxy, is spinning around, with a tangential velocity FTL. There are no problems with this, I have just witnessed an object with a speed FTL, and all in accordance with relativity.
Now, the thing is, I can't send information faster than light (which means a space ship, since it's atoms are information.)
The tangential velocity of an object (or a wave, magnetic fpulse, etc...) is not information.
The reason why your conductor is not FTL information is because it takes time for the photons, which will tell me it's tangential velocity, to reach me, just like it takes time for the light from Andromeda to reach me, I would be recieving the same information from it weather it were spinning FTL or not (ie If I'm spinning in circles, it doesnt affect the time it takes for Andromeda's light to reach me.)
Thanks Andrew. I will go out on a limb and say I believe my model. In other words I will be the odd one out. Cheers
Actually you could be wrong. Just finishing an argument off which should indicate that the magnetic field is continuous and and not discontinous as per your suggestion. The result is that the rate of change of the magnetic field is FTL and you still keep your light speed for a photon. Wait a moment.....
Just as a pointer, consider what happens to a magnetic field flux density vector (B) if as implied by a constant speed of light, there is a discontinuity in information transferred ie if information regarding the strength of the field is transferred only at the speed of light.
But before we continue, do you agree that the magnetic field strength reduces by 1/r^2 where r is the distance from the source of the field.
Consider a wave pulse starting at the far right of the wire, and travelling to the left of the wire.
If what you say is correct (ie. information is communicated at the speed of light) than at point C, which is exactly distance x from the surface of the wire, you will measure a magnetic field greater than 1/x^2. Note that the distance between
poing B and C is exactly x. Or putting it another way, the magnetic field measured at distance x from the wire will not be proportional to 1/x^2 (which is not true in reality - the magnetic field is proportional to 1/x^2).
Consider point A, B and C.
If a pulse travels from A to B, and the information regarding the magnetic strength of the magnetic field can only go as fast as the speed of light, than the information at point A will travel to point C in time tA.
The pulse will than travel to point B in time tB and radiate its information to point C in time tC.
There must be a relationship where
tA = tB + tC
Distance from A-C = a
Distance from A-B = b
Distance from B-C = c
Also the velocity of pulse propagation along the wire is V' and the velocity of pulse propagation off the wire is V, where V = speed of light c.
Furthermore, V' < V.
tA = tB + tC
tA = a/V
tB = b/V' = b (V'/V)
tC = c/V
This results in the following relationshi
tA = tB + tC
=> aV = b(V'/V) + c/V
=> (a-c)/b = V/V'
The meaning of all this is that if the speed of light limited the velocity of information, than at point C, the magnetic field will be a greater than 1/x^2 because it will receive information from the magnetic field at points A', A", A"' and so on at the same time it receives information of the magnetic field at A. This means that the magnetic field at point C will not be proportional to 1/x^2 but greater than 1/x^2 which is clearly not the case.
Note the above only holds true if there is a discontinuity between the propagation of magnetic field information as implied by a speed of light limit.
On the other hand if there is no discontinuity ie speed of light is not the limit, than you can get a 1/x^2 relationship.
Would you care to discuss this?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nay, the math is a red hearring; it bears no relation to the problem.
Weather the initial quanta of information at point A,A' etc... all reach C at the same time is irrelevant, since in a fraction of a second after the current is on, each point will have its information recieved by C, and the continuous flow of this information produced by it means that the results will be no different for any given propogation speed.
eg: if I have 2 factories one producing 1 red car and the other producing 1 blue car per hour, even if the blue factory employs slower car transports, they still produce cars at the same rate, no need to time it so they both have cars arriving at the dealer at the same time, after the blue cars start comming, the dealer is getting 2 cars per hour.
Ergo, C will still recieve information from A, A' A'' etc... even if the information from one takes longer to get to it. So the whole argument is thus irrelevant.
Ayyyyy! I thought this would be a rational discussion.
The maths is there to point out in simple terms (much like any language) the problem with your thoughts regarding the limits and discontinuities of a velocity constant eg. the speed of light. Simply put, what you are saying is irrational (unless of course you have a better argument than "listen to me cos I read this..."). To be honest I think you agree with me but wont say it.
Anyway, the point is still open for discussion.
What are you using to turn the laser on and off for information exchange? If your using electricty then you better redo your math because electron flow through wire is slower than the speed of light.
Opps. I think you are right. It was a red herring Cheers
Yes...turned out to be impossible to build the bloody thing. Still thinking about it. May come up with something. And Andba is right.
I've worked with the homeless and was homeless for about 9 months. Most homeless people are nuts not lazy. Me, I was lazy. (Ok, a little nuts tooPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! )
Separate names with a comma.