[lyner]

sorin

you are passing from a impotent to stupid.

And YOU are passing from ignorant to really offensive. Just stop it and learn to behave properly.

[Bored chemist]

I think he's trying to get himself banned so he doesn't have to face up to being wrong. It doesn't worry me that he chooses to be wrong about my medical history- it's not as if anyone is taking him seriously.

Anyway Sorin, could you please show me any of these thousands of books etc?
All the books I have say that
1 the Lorenz force is a force
2 the particles have mass
Newton said that the acceleration is the force divided by the mass.

So, when you say "In the simplest case, when a particle enter into a uniform magnetic field with speed v, only the trajectory of particle is curved, but the particle escape from this uniform magnetic field with the same speed. "
I agree that's exactly what happens.
And the curvature of the path is due to the acceleration of the particle towards the centre of the circle that the curved path is part of.

You really need to understand that changing the direction of a particle means accelarating it even if the speed stays the same.

In English it's possible to distinguish between 2 ideas; speed and velocity by using those 2 different words.
In general use they mean the same thing, but in physics they have distinct meanings.
If I drive a car round a corner the spedometer will read (rougly)the same speed throughout. The passengers in the car will notice that they experience a force which is due to the change in velocity from (for example) North to East.
There's an acceleration (which is why the people feel a force) and the velocity changes  but the speed stays the same.


BTW, I'm a chemist; I use mass spectrometers (not very often, I'm a UV/Vis spectroscopist) I know how they work, but I wouldn't take lessons (even for free) from someone who doesn't understand acceleration.

"If you are able to point something useful at my theory, please do it. "
I will, but don't hold your breath.

"In other case, your stupid comments without any scientific fundamental, does not interest me."
I think that pointing out that you are overlooking Newton's laws of motion is pretty fundamental.

"I want to see the face of  professors from Cambridge physics department ( it must be reminded that Cambridge is the 2nd or 3rd ranked university in world) when this theory will be accepted, and they had this theory under their eyes."
I want to sleep with Kylie Minogue, and frankly, I think I have a better chance.

I'm sorry but I don't know what "More than that, one of them (it is not important the name) as referent refuted the publication of articles from this theory. "

"If I will be banned, I will make a complain to the forum administrator to find his opinion."
It will probably be because you are calling people rude names and ignoring repeated requests that you pay some attention to the laws of physics.


"From the people involved in physics, it is possible to separate at least 3 categories:
1. those who learn;
2. those who teach;
3. those who modify a theory of physics.
"
No, it is not possible to do that. How can anyone teach without learning?
It's also very hard to see how someone can learn without teaching. If the teacher tells me something and I misunderstand then , by that act, I show the teacher that they need to change the way they explain things.
Those who modify a theory must learn it first and, as such they are (as I said above) almost certainly teachers too.
All 3 groups are the same.

"We are not in the XIX century when a brilliant mind like Faraday, without any scientific background, can change something in science. "
True, and in this century you need both a brilliant mind and an understanding of science.
You have not shown any evidence that you posess either so I don't see how you can hope to change anything in science.

"I have fullfiled for decades both 1 and 2 conditions. Now I have conditions to change the fundamentals of physics."
You have not shown the ability to learn. You keep making the same silly mistakes- errors that a school student would be embarrased about- even after they have been pointed out.


"You are at the stage 1 or 2 and you are not able to judge a new theory. "
As I have said the categories are meaningless, but here's something you seem to have overlooked. It doesn't need a person with a degree or a doctorate to kill a new "theory". Anyone can do it. All they need to do is point out that it doesn't work.

I don't need to understand your new "theory" to show that, whereas you insist that the Lorenz force doesn't cause an accelaration, a mass spectrometer shows that it does.

Your "theory" doesn't agree with reallity and it's not reallity's fault.

"Therefore avoid to make at my posts, unscientific comments. If something is not clear, if you have any doubt, remember that you are in the 1 or 2 category and the author is in other category and you should respect him at least for his work."

Acvtually, you are not yet in the first category. Untill you learn to learn you will be in the zeroth category. Even a baby who cannot even frame a word, not yet able to understand the world round them, is better placed than you. The baby will learn but you will not.
The only people who get my respect are those who have earned it. You are a long way from that category.


"Of course, it is possible from my part to propose a completely wrong theory, but in this case, before making me idiot, you should demonstrate the absurdity of proposed materials."

How many times do I have to do this?
Your strange idea that requires a force, but no acceleration, is not only at odds with Newton's laws but it is directly observably false, in the mass spec experiment I showed earlier and in any CRT television or computer screen.
You are being absurd.

[sorincosofret (OP)]

OK, let's make a last trial to turn the forum in a scientific discussion.
An experiment with magnetic field - charged particle interaction and another simplified experiment with electromagnetic induction are provided. Every comment must be related to scientific discusion and of course a demonstration of the absurdity of presented experiments is welcome.


charged particle in magnetic field

As reference a good text describing the actual interpretation is provided at: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node73.html
For simplicity, let's consider a particle with speed v entering into a portion of magnetic field, and the same particle go out from magnetic field after a semi period, having the orientation of speed antiparalel to the original one, like in fig. 1.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 1.

As is described in the link and written in every low or advanced physic book, a particle of mass m, moving in a circular orbit of radius r, with constant speed v, is acted by an acceleration expressed as mv exp(2)/r. This acceleration is always directed to the centre of the orbit so the acceleration is always perpendicular to the particle's instantaneous direction of motion.
In the same time a principle of electrodynamics admits that any charged particle when accelerate emits electromagnetic waves.
If a particle in a magnetic field is accelerated, it should emit electromagnetic waves. In the same time, at this level, the emission of electromagnetic waves is not continuous, but discrete according to Planck law. 
If the charge emits electromagnetic wave how is possible to have ,,exactly” the same speed as initial one? When is the photon emitted? Does the emission take place at the entering into magnetic field, at the maximum curvature of the trajectory, at the escape from magnetic field?
 Considering some usual data for v, B, it is possible to calculate the acceleration of particle and the frequency of emitted electromagnetic radiation. The specialists in the physics able to judge my theory should be able to make this calculation. I want to see this demonstration.

After performing this demonstration by actual adepts of orthodox physics interpretation, a second experiment must be performed.
A simple conductor with a current of intensity I (preferable of decades of amperes) is curved to 180 º as in fig. 2. The curvature of the conductor is supposed to be high enough in order to avoid the interaction between magnetic fields generated by the change of electric current direction.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 2.

The curvature of conductor is made using mechanical action and as result of this action, acceleration over the electron moving into conductor is performed. As result of this mechanical action, two ammeter connected in the point 1 and 2 of the conductor should register for a time period a difference in the intensity of counted electric current. This is the prediction of actual orthodox physics, taking into consideration the movement of the electrons (with speed of mm/second) and the mechanical action suffered by conductor (greater then mm/second). Beside this, the change of charged particle direction of moving should lead to electromagnetic waves emission. I ask to have a complete demonstration of frequency of this emission in order to be performed an experiment to evidence it.


Electromagnetic induction simplified experiment

For the proposed experiment a circuit similar to one presented in a university course is necessary - http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node88.html.
At this stage the experiments is hypothetical (even is very simple to be performed).

The circuit is composed from a conducting rod PM, moving along a U-shaped conducting frame, in the presence of a uniform magnetic field with magnetic induction B as in fig.1 . The magnetic field is directed into the page in the fig 1., perpendicular on the shape and the rod has a uniform motion to the right with constant velocity v.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 1.
In the link a detailed discussion is provided, but we are interested only by origin of electric current in the shape.
Quote from site: ,,The magnetic field exerts a negligibly small force on the charge when it is traversing the non-moving part of the circuit (since the charge is moving very slowly). However, when the charge is traversing the moving rod it experiences an upward (in the figure) magnetic force of magnitude f =qvB (assuming that q>0).” In real case, the electrons are moving, so the force is downward and the electric current (according to accepted direction) is upwards.
In a previous message it was highlighted that according to actual electromagnetism there is a connection between n electromagnetism and geometry.
For the proposed experiment, only the shape of the rod PM is changed, more precisely from linear to angular. In order to have a simpler interpretation, the modified rod forms a rectangular isosceles triangle with PNM angle of 90º  as in fig. 2
Let's see what the predictions of actual electromagnetism are when such rod is moving to the right with the same constant velocity v.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 2. Modified rod experiment


Applying the Lorenz force in both side of the rod, it can be observed that Lorenz force is directed in both cases toward exterior of the frame. In both MN and NP sides of the rod, the Lorenz force is equal as value and opposite as direction. In this condition a ,,common sense “ interpretation should admit the non generation of an electric current in this particular case.
If, on the other side, experimentally, a current is counted in the circuit, actual physics should determine in what direction are the electrons moving: upward or downward.
In the fig. 2 a downward movement is supposed. Can be accepted as real such charge movement and it is possible to be accepted these simultaneously charge movement from two region of a circuit toward another region of circuit?
Maybe is necessary to redefine the electric current.
I wait especially from bikeman  to correct my low level demonstration and after that he can express his philosophy and considerations about what is wrong and what is right.

In proposed theory, the electric current is not represented by a charge movement.
In proposed theory, a beam of charge does not emit electromagnetic radiation in an electric or magnetic field, at least for common B and E values. A beam of particle emits electromagnetic radiation when are interacting into an electric or magnetic field (see the Klystron principle as example). The case of high energy particle into accelerating field is treated separately in the future Elementary particle and nuclear physics book.

I will not tolerate further unscientific comments from those who are learning physics or from impotent intellectuals. Any demonstration of the absurdity of proposed experiment is welcomed.

[Bored chemist]

Sorin,
First you said there was no acceleration, now you say there are two. The one that makes the paths circular and the one caused by energy lost to "synchrotron radiation".
Why the change of heart? Did you realise you were wrong?

[sorincosofret (OP)]

BC, if you want to pass over the category of intellectual impotent, demonstrate your talents, make picture and math in my comments.
I had specified that experiment is performed with common B, v, etc values. I had specified that for high energy particle there will be a further treatment.
In the link specified http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node73.html, (and in any book of low level physics) a particle entering into a magnetic field does not emits electromagnetic waves.
So you should demonstrate how a magnetic fields operate. It curved the actual trajectory (according to a classical mechanic is accelerated, according to a general relativity the curvature is a illusion because there are no ,,force", only the space around particle is modified), but in the same time it does not modify the absolute value of particle velocity, only its direction.
Does the magnetic interaction respect the third Newton law too? Why actual demonstration does not make any reference of ,,reaction" of magnetic field"? Of course is a small reaction, but it should implemented in the demonstration.
Long time ago lived a great man called Newton, who besides a huge and correct work in physics domain, made some mistakes. Two are more visible: the centrifugal-centripetal force related to absolute space  and second the deviation of photons as result of mass attraction.
The next generations of physicists fought and still fight for the interpretation of this two errors.
The nature of the centripetal force and a entire new perspective of this problem is formulated in Gravitation theory, Relativity theory and in a further text called ,,Cinematic of motion".
The problem of photon deviation is solved in a book related to corpuscular nature of light.
First you demonstrate me and to other readers that you are able to write few math and to demonstrate the absurdity of upward experiments and after that maybe I will loose my time to explain you the centripetal acceleration.

[lyner]

Sorin, you are one rude young man!

[BenV]

Dear Sorin,

I'm sorry to say the time has come that I, and the other moderators, feel that the forum would be better off without your presence.  There are a number of reasons, but I will highlight the 2 prime ones:

1.  You are continually rude.  This is a forum for science discussion - you have posted your ideas, and people are welcome to discuss the science in them.  Often, people point out mistakes or misunderstandings on your part - these are not personal slights, but comments on the science in your posts.  Your responses are frequently rude and you fail or refuse to adapt your ideas, or explain yourself.  On occasion, others have been rude in response, and they have resultantly been asked to stick to the science.  Accusing people of "intellectual impotence" whilst being unable to take on criticism is both offensive and hypocritical.

2.  Our forum is not a place for people to put unpublished work in the hope that the association with Cambridge University will offer some credence to your ideas.  Furthermore we will not be used to intentionally embarrass anyone from Cambridge, as is your intention stated here:

I want to see the face of  professors from Cambridge physics department ( it must be reminded that Cambridge is the 2nd or 3rd ranked university in world) when this theory will be accepted, and they had this theory under their eyes. More than that, one of them (it is not important the name) as referent refuted the publication of articles from this theory.
If I will be banned, I will make a complain to the forum administrator to find his opinion.

You may complain to the forum administrator - he will agree with the moderators, who have discussed what action is appropriate.

As such, we will be banning you from the forum and deleting the majority of your posts.  I wish you good luck with your research and hope you find the humility to accept the comments and advice of others.  I'm sorry you were not able to engage with the forum in a mutually beneficial way as so many others have.

Ben