How electricity and magnetism are (dis)connected from relativity

  • 34 Replies
  • 13099 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 204
    • View Profile
How electricity and magnetism are (dis)connected from relativity

Background of experiment
Ampere experiments show that magnetic force between two parallel conductors has the form:

  [attachment=4122](2.1)
where: I1, I2 are the currents in the two wires, r the distance between conductors, and l represent  the length of  conductor participating to the magnetic interaction.
On experimental basis Ampere makes the following observations:
•   Parallel conductors carrying currents in the same direction attract each other;
•   Parallel conductors carrying current in opposite directions repel each other.
Classical electrodynamics it’s not able to give an explanation for this experimental reality. The theory of special relativity considers magnetism as an effect of moving charge.

Proposed experiment

The experiment consists in two conductors with opposite and equal electric currents interacting magnetically on a small portion like in fig. 2.1. Relative to the first conductor considered fixed, the second conductor must have a possibility to be dragged mechanically, with a variable, but small velocity V– up to 10 cm/s.
For simplicity let’s consider I1=I2, and when both conductor are stationary a repelling force is observed and measured.
In the second step, the second conductor is dragged to the left with a small speed V– up to 10 cm/s.
At this speed, experimentally is observed, that the repelling force between conductors remain the same like in case of stationary conductors.
[attachment=4123]

Figure 2.1  Ampere modified experiment

Let’s increase a little bit the dragging speed up to m/s or hundred of m/s; strangely, the results of experiment are the same, more precisely a repelling force between conductors.

Relativistic interpretation of experiment

A cornerstone of theory of special relativity is represented by the explanation of magnetic effects of electric current. According to this, the electric current in the conductors are manifested by the flow of electrons, against a background of stationary ions. The actual effective speed of an individual electron is only about 1 mm/s. However, there are about Avogadro's number of electrons flowing per cubic centimeter of conductor. The overall relativistic effect is therefore quite large.
Without entering in mathematical treatment, the physical model for electric currents interaction according to special theory of relativity is following:
In case of two equal currents flowing in the same direction, the electrons are moving with same speeds in both conductors, in same direction (opposite to the electric current formal direction), and these electrons appear stationary relative to each other like in fig 2.2. For the purpose of proposed experiment, it is not important to describe the Lorentz contraction and how a moving electron feels the field of stationary nucleus.


[attachment=4125]

Figure 2.2 Magnetic interactions between two currents with same direction of flowing

In case of two equal and opposite currents, the electrons are moving in opposite direction like in fig. 2.3

[attachment=4127]

Figure 2.3 Magnetic interactions between two currents with opposite direction

What should happened in our experiment with two opposite currents, when the secondary conductor is dragged manually with a speed up to 10 cm/s (in reality after relativistic formulas, the effect should appear at a speed of dragging of 2 mm/s)?
When dragging speed V=0 and both conductor are static, normally Ampere force is measured between conductors; in this particular case with actual orientation of electric currents a repelling force is measured.
When secondary conductor is dragged with a variable and increasing speed some particular phenomena should appear, according to actual electrodynamics.
   With v1 and v2 are indicated the velocity of electrons in the conductors and for I1=I2 there is v1= v2 as value and opposite as direction.
   In order to have an intuitive and simple to interpret image of phenomena only the case of V = 2v2 is analyzed.
   When V = 2v2 and opposite as sign like in fig 2.1, the velocity of electrons in conductor 2 becomes the same as value and sign like in conductor 1, and in this case, the electrons from both conductors become stationary.
   But if the electrons are stationary relative to each others in both conductors, this lead to a change of sign of force between conductors. So with a simple dragging of a conductor at relative low velocity (after special theory of relativity about 2 mm/s, but let’s say maximum 10 cm/s) the magnetic force must change significantly as value and sign.
In reality this effect is not observed, so the idea of electric current generated by a charge movement and also the relativistic interpretation of magnetic effects as a consequence of moving charge are false.
   The value of a theory is proportional with the cost of experiments necessary to disprove it and anyone can appreciate the cost of up proposed experiment.

Proposed explanation for experiment

   A theory of relativity has nothing to do with base ground of magnetism phenomena.
As was already presented in atomic book structure, electric current and magnetism are phenomena related to the electrons magnetic moments and not to charge movements. The secondary flux of electrons appearing in a circuit contributes to the resistivity of the conductor and other secondary effects.
   Of course two observers in different referential will see different value for the interaction between two conductors and this represent an application of relativity. But, in proposed theory both observer see the same phenomena more precisely a magnetic interaction.

If the Naked scientist (and the rules made special form me) forbids to present a new theory, but for other posts only the advertisement is possible, I have only a purpose with this posted materials:
to humiliate the actual science in principal with 10 euro experiments.
If someone looks at one recent posts (regarding a new theory of relativity) it can be seen that the same persons who prohibit me to post materials ( moving my posts, asking for removing my materials because are hidden advertisement etc), in that case are only simple commentators and probably they are waiting with excitement the final of Olympic games in order to read the new revolution in relativity theory. Please don't bother to move now the reminded post, because it will be a too striking and unjustified measure. I don't have nothing with seargenbazon or how is her name.



« Last Edit: 13/08/2008 09:29:43 by sorincosofret »

*

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2582
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
As usual sorincosofret you don't understand the physics you are critisising

You can feel the relativistic effect in magnetism because in a current the negative electrons and positive nuclei are moving at different speeds, so their charge is altered differently due to relativity so you feel a new force we call magnetism.

If you pick up a whole wire and move it then the relativistic effect on both the electrons and protons will be equal and opposite so there will be no net force on the object. The electrons will however feel a different force to the protons and if there is a complete circuit a current will flow - you have a generator!

Please learn some physics before you criticise it!

*

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 204
    • View Profile
Dave,

I was thinking that only the electrons are moving.... or my books of physics are out to date...
If you pick up a whole wire and move it, then the force between electrons cancel or change the sign, and another force can appear eventually between nuclei (which appear now in movement according to actual relativity).
I don't think the sign of the force between 2 electrons and 2 nuclei is the same as sign ...
In any case there is necessary a new treatment.. of entire process.
« Last Edit: 13/08/2008 10:14:39 by sorincosofret »

*

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2582
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Not when you drag a conductor like you are proposing...

*

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 204
    • View Profile
Dave,
If your talent in physics is so great, make a demonstration of your abilities and presents a complete mathematical treatment of up presented  experiment (taking in consideration both electron and proton apparent or real movements).

Of course I expect to be banned... on other puerile reasons ...
« Last Edit: 13/08/2008 10:31:23 by sorincosofret »

*

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2582
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
I am just pointing out that you haven't noticed that if you drag a lump of conductor you are moving both the protons and the electrons. This means that although the electrons will be feeling a repulsive force the protons will feel an extra strong attractive force. The difference between the two will be the same as when the object wasn't moving, which is what you measure.

Look, scientists are actually really quite bright, there is no conspiracy of physicists to hide the problems with physics (if you had actually met any physicists the concept of a conspiracy of them would be quite a good joke) and if physics didn't work in a way which was this simple someone would have noticed, shouted very loudly and got a nobel prize for it. Apart from anything else for most of the last century most physicists desperately wanted to prove relativity wrong as they didn't like it, and I am sure this experiment has been done and that it works as predicted (if predicted correctly).

*

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 204
    • View Profile
Dave,
The Oxford and Cambridge laboratory are not far from you.
Consider that I'm the little and poor physicist, without any knowledge in this field and I posted a stupid experiment. Ask for them to indicate where the experiment was done. Ask for them to apply the magical formula of relativity and let's see what are the results.
Let's ask for  the other forum participants to give us a mathematical treatment of this experiment.
 

*

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2582
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Having worked at the Cavendish, I know that they have far better things to do than run experiments whose results are predicted to be the same by both you and relativity.
« Last Edit: 13/08/2008 11:40:49 by daveshorts »

*

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 204
    • View Profile
Everything is getting along, but the deep grounds remain unclear".(Sommerfeld)

Of course some physicists are preoccupied to go along, others are preoccupied to write the same ideas with new sentences. But who is interested to make clear the deep grounds ????



*

lyner

  • Guest
Quote
But who is interested to make clear the deep grounds ????
And what are you contributing to make things clear?
All you are doing is claiming that certain thought experiments will produce certain results which you say will disprove conventional Science. What you don't seem to appreciate is that either these experiments have actually been done or there exists plenty of equivalent evidence.
Anyone who designs a motor, a generator or a CRT is using conventional Physics for  the Technology which is used. Many experiments and even working pieces of equipment just wouldn't work if the presently accepted 'laws' didn't apply.
You ignore the fact that it is up to YOU to disprove these ideas which, to most people's satisfaction, are fine. Don't expect funding  for your experiments unless you can convince the 'system'.
Just stop wingeing.
Maybe you will be able to fund some research from all your book sales?
« Last Edit: 13/08/2008 13:59:06 by sophiecentaur »

*

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 204
    • View Profile
There is no more then one day from the last post, where the difference between theory ( a cell with high resistance and infinitesimal current) and practice (a cell with normal resistance and a useful current) was discussed. The practice does not follow the theory or viceversa.
I don't think that up presented experiment is a thought experiment. Maybe actual interpretation is a science fiction one. If it's necessary I can deliver photo with the conductors arranged in proposed experiment.
Don't be worry about my source of founding.... in any case I'm not interested in a official collaboration now, because this will represent for me a bad affair.
Who told you that I'm interested to convince the system?
As I said I'm interrested to humiliate the science and their representants.
When the theory will be 85 % finished, then I will be interested for convincing the system, if there will be someone to be convinced.
In any case my theory will not appear in official journals so I can't see any reason for convincing them now. For the Galilean Electrodynamic journal ( a dissident one), I have convinced already the editor and I have 4 papers in printind and another few in the line.
I'm interested to see how long will exist this concubinage between two opposite theories and to see who's the winner.
I hope you remember the song of ABBA... The winner takes it all...
« Last Edit: 13/08/2008 14:23:46 by sorincosofret »

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Quote
As I said I'm interrested to humiliate the science and their representants.
But you can't do that if they don't agree with your science - on this forum, there is the opportunity to discuss the science with others, yet you never seem to take any comments on board.  I appreciate that there is a language barrier, and so this makes discussion tricky, but the folks here are not instinctively against you.

*

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Actually, Ben, that might have been true a couple of hours ago... but anyone whose stated objective is to humiliate people?

I have sympathy for individuals who really believe in their "new science" and get frustrated  when the rest of us don't see it the same way, after all I get pretty frustrated when I try to explain why they're wrong and they won't listen to me... so it's only fair.

But someone who declares themselves to be in this not merely for their own gain but explicitly to do down other people... I'm not just instinctively against them, I think they should be beneath our notice.

I shall give sorincosofret the benefit of the doubt for the time being because perhaps that particular statement was a mistranslation of what s/he meant, but I'm not exactly optimistic from the tone of the post in general.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Quote
Who told you that I'm interested to convince the system?
As I said I'm interrested to humiliate the science and their representants.
I think we are in troll country, with attitudes like that being expressed.
You have to question those motives.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Quote
For the Galilean Electrodynamic journal ( a dissident one), I have convinced already the editor and I have 4 papers in printind and another few in the line.
Interesting . . .  I can't seem to find your name in the cumulative index of the GE Journal

*

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2208
    • View Profile
I think this question has been answered but maybe it is simpler to say that the conductors have a net charge of zero even though they may have a current flowing. Moving a net charge of zero produces no magnetic effect. There are as many positive charges as negative charges in the wire. Moving a wire in the direction of the net flow of electrons moves all the electrons by V+ve and all the positive charges (assumed fixed) by V where V is the wire velocity and ve is the electrons average velocity. The effect of the moving wire is a net velocity of electrons of ve. It is tempting to think of the wire as a neutral river with electrons floating along in it, but this is not the case. The movement of the positive fixed charges cancels the extra movement of the electrons (as a result of the movement of the wire) leaving the net current the same.

There is no real need to invoke special relativity here although I appreciate that Maxwells equations are only really consistent with relativity. We had a variant of this question a while back with what happens when two opposite charges move on a parallel course. When stationary they attract but if moving fast enough, why does the resulting magnetic field not cause them to repel. In fact the electric field always causes attraction but if viewed from a frame that is moving fast enough, the magnetic field appears to reduce the attractive force but this can really be considered an effect of time dilation. The speeds have to be very great to create a significant magnetic field from a single charge. If viewed from a frame moving in parallel there is no magnetic field and the whole calculation of how fast they accelerate towards each other is invariant with a Lorentz transformation.

*

lyner

  • Guest
That's all very well but what happened to my lines of force?
What are we to tell the kids?
I tried to explain it all in the Science Staffroom and it just brought on the pains.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8851
    • View Profile
Quote
Who told you that I'm interested to convince the system?
As I said I'm interrested to humiliate the science and their representants.
I think we are in troll country, with attitudes like that being expressed.
You have to question those motives.
It makes a change. Generally his motive seems to be to plug his book.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 204
    • View Profile
Ben V,
I think in your archive there are all discussion even those deleted by authors. Please put again on line my message(s) where I'm categorised as idiot, etc etc.
Being a moderator, if it's possible, I want to know why the post ,,The collapse of Special Relativity" was maintained on the general forum and not moved at New theories (even after its content it is  worth to be put  nowhere).
Why you, BC and SophieCentaur moved my messages at new theory category, and this pure advertisement is maintained on the forum ?
At least someone should inform the author to write the title with small letters...
By comparison, my messages contain a experimental part, a theoretical part and a new approach (stupid or not remain to be examined) and the advertisement is in background.
Of coarse being to small, I don't make the rules so I must obey for the moment.
As you mentioned, there is a possibility to discuss with other on this forum.... but is not the only one possibility for me to spread out this theory. Supplementary as you can see, few are really interested in the scientific problems and more are interested in the ,,moral"  and ethical problems. It seems that the post where I put the sentence ,,I want to humiliate the actual science" rise in commentary (and reading) in one day more then other posts in one month.

Rosy,
I'm not so frustrated like you imagine.
Any new theory and its author is at least aware that to fight again a system is not a simple thing. It was a time when a  scientist unwanted in its habitat was forced to be exiled in other place in order to disturb a little bit the sensitive hears ....
It was a time in history of science when a scientist could publish a absurd paper in a foreign journal even in his habitat this thing was impossible. After that this absurd paper (see the history of spin) become revelation. This is not a singular case, but is not the time to divagate.
Now the situation is changed.
If you don't agree with directed line of science, you are prohibited to be published everywhere in the world.
In the weekend if I will have time I will put the answer (of some eminent physicists) at my submitted papers.
An editor of a optic journal told me that he is not able to publish the new treatment about binary stars because the original article was published in a American journal and I should addres to this journal.
The American journal answered me that the original article was published more then 50 year ago and they can't publish my paper.
Can you believe this was happened in 2006-2007? These are motivated reasons for prohibite a paper to be published?
There is a referent (university professor) who told me that it is not able to publish my paper about covalent bound because I can't explain the formation of orto and para hydrogen. I've made a comment explaining him that orto and para hydrogen are caused by something from nucleus of hydrogen which has nothing to do with electrons.,... but he remained at its oppinion.

There are journals who banned me to send another articles to them. There are journal who categorised me as crazy.

In front of their comportment, I have only one chance, to humiliate them and eventually to defeat them.
Of course don't understand that I have something with a specific journal, or with the person who has the job of referee.
I have something with the system and this theory (at least as far I'm covered by copyright low) will be never published in a scientific journal.
There will be published only in Galilean relativity or in a future new journal.
I will never have the destiny of Boltzmann and who read a little bit physics history knows what I'm refereed too.

Therefore I've worked hard, I work hard to have financial independence and to sustain my experiment and editorial activity.

I don't think there is more humiliation for a entire system then seeing how another system is growing under its eyes without possibility to stop him.
I don't think that is a greater humiliation for a entire system to see how milliards of $, euro etc are spent on research and another one comes with a symbolical budget and build a more consolidated theory .
I don't think there is a greater humiliation for actual science to see how the same materials submitted and refuted to be published in official journals are searched on the internet and copied and analysed.
The lowest number of new visitors registered in one month on the site is 300, with a percent of 50% of them adding my site to favorites. In this condition I'm prepared to ignore the scientific journal and their publishing politic.



Except BC (Before Christ), I don't have aversion or other negative feeling from one of you. Of course I wished to exist at least on a science forum a dialogue of ideas. But in life, when the things can't change, it is wise to accept as there are.

So I post here (at least as long it will be possible) because as I said the foundation of physics are false and actual science worth a lesson of humiliation.

In the entire world (even at Chinese and Japanese journal) I've found two editors able to see the problem of actual physics and the novelty of submitted papers. Papers was submitted to all journals with a IF greater then 1.
One editor (it's better to not give the name) has tried to make something but was calmed down by his boss.
The second is Dr. Cynthia Whitney from Galilean Relativity.
If the theory will be widespread, part of this work was made by she. Now there are passed on the second correction two papers (one related to covalent bound and another to Stern Gerlach experiment). Other two papers are at reference desks.
« Last Edit: 13/08/2008 23:12:27 by sorincosofret »

*

Offline Flyberius

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
There are journal who categorised me as crazy.

Did you stop to think, "They might be right"?

*

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 204
    • View Profile
Every man has a dose of this. Is good for the manhood, when this dose at the leaders is small.
Of course my dose is exaggeratedly high. Because only a crazy man accept to know before a war that he is alone in front of a system (with quite infinite potentiality related to him) and to believe he is able to defeat it.
Regarding the submitted papers. I have nothing to comment when a editor proves ( in a direct or in a indirect way, or by consequences ) that ideas behind a paper are wrong and as scientist I'm aware that any theory need refinement and adjustments or is completely fiction.
In fact a second reason for my posts here are the critiques received which helped me in this process of refinement and to see where are the weekest points of the new theory and how can I fill them.
I'm not reacting violently to this kinds of critiques, and I support even ironical voice of them (and I answer in the same manner). It is in our nature to emphasize our talent or our knowledge and to have a Little piquancy in our formulation ...
But from here till the counting of out of printed book's or to formulate that another person is a idiot, etc. it is a great distance.
It is very easy to critiques; it is more complicate to use your brain in order to improve something or to change something.
Maybe I have other reasons to not sell, or to increase the price in order to become unattractive etc.

 
« Last Edit: 14/08/2008 05:00:29 by sorincosofret »

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Sorin, when your threads have been moved to New Theories, it has been because you have been proposing a New Theory. Noone has been sure what to do with the general relativity thread yet - if he's proposing a new theory, then that's where it will go.

*

Offline Flyberius

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Well, develop your "theory", then show a corporation how much money it will make them, then who gives a damn what the scientific community thinks.

Oh wait that would require a mathmatical model and some proof.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8851
    • View Profile
"I said the foundation of physics are false and actual science worth a lesson of humiliation. "
If, rather than just saying it, you gave us some real evidence that physics is wrong, the humiliation wouldn't happen.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Do you not realise, sorin, that your need to provide some detailed evidence and some experimental proof for people to take up your ideas?

How can you be surprised when we don't accept what you say when it mainly consists of baseless ranting against ideas which most of us accept. This is made worse by your highly emotional and aggressive way of 'conversing'.

*

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 204
    • View Profile
I don't understand why again the same question is posed in the front in your message. I was not the reason for ,,highly aggressive way of conversing". I have reacted after the second provocation (I consider the first time when someone makes a error is human..., but second time for me it means a intentional act).
As I have wrote yesterday on the Daniell cell posts, I made again a step backward and I have considered that it is not nice to exists a adversity in discussion here.
Why do you put again mulch on the fire?
Are you interested to maintain a climate of animosity and to show to the others ,,my instable comportment"?
I think it's better to focus your messages punctually to the scientific discussion.

I don't understand what proofs are asked from me...
Why the actual theory is accepted without proofs and I must give proofs?
Have you ever seen a electron running in a conductor?
Probably I'm a superman and I run after electrons.. sorry after electromagnetic waves because electrons are moving too slow...
I don't think that Copernicus had so much experimental proofs when he proposed a new theory. It is your problem or a individual problem of everyone if after reading these posted materials  they decide to maintain the old theory or to change to a new theory.
What I observed and can be observed by everyone is the periodicity and  the repetition of history template.
Now, as in the past, there is from one side a epicycles theory ... which is working nearly good if someone look at the apparency, but is very stinky when is entered into deep grounds.
On the other part is a new theory which is still incompletely formulated able to give a consistency to experimental reality. Of course the new theory explains better and simpler the accumulated experimental facts, but in the same time make to smell fresh the stinky regions from actual one.
Of course, besides the explanations of known phenomena, there are new prediction proposed by the new theory.
But, as far as I fight with the scientific community in order to count 4 positive and 4 negative ions from where they appear and where they disappear (if they disappear or remain uncompensated), how can I give new predictions?
I have proposed a experiment of 3 Eur regarding the simultaneous evolve of oxidation and reduction to the same electrode and to measure a predicted difference of potential at the same electrod. Who from the entire forum has manifested the intention to make the experiment? All have answered that are uninterested in repeating the experiment.
If  3 Eur experiment and half an hour time is too much for a repetition, do you believe that a experiment of 1 milion Eur is more interesting?
Maybe now there are persons interested in my theory and my proposed experiments, but as I said, for the moment, I'm not interested to convince nobody.
Every time when I posted a material it was shown what are the deficiencies of the actual theory and why I propose a new explanation.
If you believe that actual theory is so firmly established in solid foundation please make a math calculation of up proposed experiment.
But be prepared because soon a new experiment will be proposed...
« Last Edit: 15/08/2008 20:01:55 by sorincosofret »

*

lyner

  • Guest
OK We'll look forward to this experiment. You never know; it may prove you to be right(?).

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8851
    • View Profile
Could you clarify this bit "I have proposed a experiment of 3 Eur regarding the simultaneous evolve of oxidation and reduction to the same electrode and to measure a predicted difference of potential at the same electrod. Who from the entire forum has manifested the intention to make the experiment? All have answered that are uninterested in repeating the experiment.
If  3 Eur experiment and half an hour time is too much for a repetition, do you believe that a experiment of 1 milion Eur is more interesting? " please- I don't see any sugested experiment here.
Anyway Re.
"I don't think that Copernicus had so much experimental proofs when he proposed a new theory."
He did, a whole lot of astronomical observation.
Now, if you can provide us with some sort of evidence that there's anything wrong with modern physics I'm sure we will listen. Until then your writings are not going to be well received.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 204
    • View Profile
The Daniel cell II is describing these phenomena; I will make a simplified scheme in order to be more close to the experimental reality. I've put the original photo in order to avoid again accusation that I'm only speaking.

Let's start with a little bit history.

In 1543 (after other materials in 1542)  the Polish monk Nicholas Copernicus has published a book - De revolutionibus, proposing the Sun in the center of Solar System and not the Earth as accepted by official theory and formulated long time ago by Ptolemy.
The book was published few month before his death (it was still the Inquisition period), but the ideas of a heliocentric system were formulated about 30 years ago in a first paper called Comentariolus - around 1513.
In order to argument this theory, he did not have any previous and useful experimental data, and therefore he dedicate a long time for studying of old Greeks books. These books gave him more philosophical arguments instead of useful data.
The existent experimental data were few and deformed by official interpretation and therefore he tried to execute some measurements.  Copernicus succeeds to execute about 60 experimental observations up to 1541, with the same instruments like Ptolemy. These observations were too few and imprecise in comparison with observations of consecrated astronomer of that time -Regiomontanus, Walther- both adepts of geocentrism. Supplementary, Copernicus was a pale mathematician in comparison with Ptolemy.
 ,,Unable to free himself from the constraints of classical thinking, Copernicus was able to imagine only circular planetary orbits”.
Therefore, he takes as valid the system of deferents and epicycles, and tries to adapt to the heliocentric motion. In Copernican original conception, the Earth was revolving around a centre that revolved around another centre, which in turn orbited the Sun. He obtains a simplified motion with 14 less epicycles in comparison with Ptolemy’s theory. Copernicus also held to the notion of spheres, in which the planets were supposed to travel, concept removed by Tycho Brahe later.

Finally anyone can ask what stimulate Copernicus to turn back to geocentric theory, so precise elaborated and in good concordance with observed movement of the celestial bodies?
He did not have any new experimental phenomena (unexplained by official theory); his observation were rudimentary reported to the observation of entire elite of official astronomers; from mathematical point of view he does not formulated any new methods or procedures.
The answer is very simple: Copernicus has observed the incoherence of Ptolemaic system; He has observed that beyond of perfectly elaborated mathematical procedure it was hidden a very complicate edifice of not correlated hypothesis, more precisely he observed the absence of a unitary system.
In the preface of his book, dedicated to pope Paul III, known for his astrological predilection, Copernicus wrote (approximate translation from Romanian):
,,For this idea of a new system of celestial body, I was stimulate only by the observations that mathematicians themselves, in their researches about celestial bodies are in contradictions and fight one with another. “
At that time, the Copernicus book did not faced to elaborated Almageste written by Regiomontanus. The proposed system was for close to a century a simple hypothesis, even for very cultivated people at that time.
In 1610, Galileo observed the Jupiter satellites and Venus phases as first experimental arguments in favor of Copernicus idea.
The Catholic Church reacted furiously after Copernicus book publishing, and placed the book at the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, the list of forbidden books; this book was forbidden long time, late 1840 circa.
From experimental point of view the predictions of planetary position on basis of Copernicus ideas presents differences of 4º-5º in respect to the observed positions. These differences was quite large even for that period and the existent instrumentation. There were necessary more precise observations like those made by Copernicus.
These observations were made by Tycho Brahe. Tycho read the Copernicus theory, but he was not convinced by the model.
For about 20 years, Tycho having the newest and most precise instruments of that time, build a data base with observations about known celestial bodies movement. 
Based on these measurements Tycho elaborate his proper description of solar System. Now we know that this system is false even it’s corresponds with the apparent movement of celestial bodies as observed from Earth.
The fiasco of Tycho Brahe system leaves us the possibility to judge what it means the persistence of dogma in scientific research.
After Tycho Brahe death, his successor- Kepler modified the form of the orbit in the solar system from circular to elliptic one.
For those who are interested in the history of astronomy there is a nice book. I have the Romanian edition and I think the name in English is ,,Star Observer” written by Ley W. before 1968. 

On the following link (and in others): http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Copernican
The following assertion is made:
Copernicus began to make astronomical observations in 1497, although he relied mainly on data accumulated by others. Where observational facts failed he found them himself, but he was essentially a thinker rather than an observer.

How many epicycles should be necessary for having a theory at the actual precision of measuremeants?
Max Born was first to formulate (and is accepted by scientific world), that from general relativity point of view, Ptolomy and Copernic have both right, and is a question of commodity to prefere one to another.
Of course the proposed theory of relativity does not agree with general relativity point of view.

For the consequences of the posted experiment in the frame of actual relativity theory, there will be added a low level text with interpretation.
 
« Last Edit: 17/08/2008 08:31:52 by sorincosofret »

*

lyner

  • Guest
Why is it that tho loony fringe always seem to back up their views by giving us all a history lesson about stuff we already know?
Does it, somehow, prove their point if they  can show how really brilliant Scientists changed the course of Science history?

But, to quote from a famous presidential election confrontation, "You're no Jack Kennedy".

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8851
    • View Profile
I note with no great suprise that Sorin hasn't provided the data we asked for. Perhaps that's because he can't.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 204
    • View Profile
"I don't think that Copernicus had so much experimental proofs when he proposed a new theory."
He did, a whole lot of astronomical observation.

Sophie,
You must ask Bored chemist to not post simple and very well known questions. In my quality I must answer to all persons who put questions or presents doubts related to my posted message.
It is very well known that Copernicus was not a astronomer and surely not a mathematician.
In any case these things are not well known as you suppose.
If I ask you what other thinks maintained Copernicus in his original Solar System theory from the Ptolemy model, I'm sure that you will go search in a speciality book.
Of course Copernicus has his own value. But from here, up to consider him as a great astronomer is a difference.

By the way, Sophie, who was J Keneddy?

Now, if you can provide us with some sort of evidence that there's anything wrong with modern physics I'm sure we will listen. Until then your writings are not going to be well received.

Surely for a person who is considering the physics a science of circumstances I don't bother to bring some evidence. So you must consider these posts and discussions are not addressed to you.
In fact I will ask to Naked scientist operators (if it's possible)) to limitate your comments, ant to block the messages non related to scientific problem.
« Last Edit: 17/08/2008 17:47:35 by sorincosofret »

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Sorry Sorin, we wont be limiting BC's comments, and after all, he's only asking for evidence.

*

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 204
    • View Profile
Ben V,
I was thinking that it is not possible the limitations, but BC does not ask for evidence. Because any schoolboy when count up to four in one part and up to three in another observe that something is not in order.
For BC, this is only a circumstance.
It is not a fair fight. If this would happened in my theory, it is not necessary to have a lot of imagination to describe what will be happened.
Again being to small, and without any possibility to change the rules I must obey.
I'm not considering necessary to loose the time (at the moment) learning to count up to 4 the PhD persons, so for me the adventure with naked scientist forum stops here.
There is no hurry for me in convincing the actual scientific community about the exactly of my theory.
Maybe next year I will have more time..
Maybe next year my English will be improved..
Maybe...

« Last Edit: 17/08/2008 19:58:56 by sorincosofret »

*

lyner

  • Guest
Quote
By the way, Sophie, who was J Keneddy?
google J F Kennedy.
He had quite an effect on Space Technology.
He wasn 't a Scientist.
I guess that many people who read my comment will appreciate what I meant.
You may need to read around to find out.
You should read more History - not just popular Science History.