Re experimental verification of electromagnetic mass [Archive]

jahn

Sep15-04, 02:28 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\n"Cecil Moore" <w5dxp@hotmail.com> wrote in message\nnews:41445f9a_5@corp.newsgroups.com...\n> Guck wrote:\n> > What bothers me is that old-fashioned idea of electricity being the\n> > flow of electrons thru a wire from a negative terminal of EMF to the\n> > positive terminal. Obviously electricity is a flow of energy, it\n> > doesn\'t seem realisitic to imagine that actual physical electrons\n> > travel thru the wire. It\'s like light-\n> > light is carried by photons, light is carried by an energy\n> > wave/particle\n> > which has no mass , so it must be the same with electricity, because\n> > electricity is supposed to be the same wave/particle composition as\n> > light, simply at a different frequency or wavelength. Light and\n> > electricty are both the same- they are both radiation energies.\n> > So therefore electrons should not be considered as leptons or\n> > fundamental particles because in electricity flow, the negative\n> > charge component of the electron must be able to disassociate into a\n> > "photon" type energy component which is what travels through the wire.\n>\n> The charge carriers are the free electrons traveling relatively slowly\n> in the surface area of the wire. The RF photons are the wave-particles\n> emitted by accelerated electrons and travel at the speed of light.\n> A cloud of photons make up the RF EM fields surrounding the wire(s).\n>\n> Consider the energy in an ocean wave Vs the water molecule carriers.\n> --\n> cheers, Cecil\n>\nIndeed! The propagation delay is not a property of the metalic wire\nbut rather is determined by the dielectric properties of the dielectric\nwhich surrounds the wire. This effect is expoloited in dielectric\nantenna and distributed delay lines.\nKind regards,\nSue...\n\n>\n> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----\n> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!\n> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----\n>\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Cecil Moore" <w5dxp@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41445f9a_5@corp.newsgroups.com...
> Guck wrote:
> > What bothers me is that old-fashioned idea of electricity being the
> > flow of electrons thru a wire from a negative terminal of EMF to the
> > positive terminal. Obviously electricity is a flow of energy, it
> > doesn't seem realisitic to imagine that actual physical electrons
> > travel thru the wire. It's like light-
> > light is carried by photons, light is carried by an energy
> > wave/particle
> > which has no mass , so it must be the same with electricity, because
> > electricity is supposed to be the same wave/particle composition as
> > light, simply at a different frequency or wavelength. Light and
> > electricty are both the same- they are both radiation energies.
> > So therefore electrons should not be considered as leptons or
> > fundamental particles because in electricity flow, the negative
> > charge component of the electron must be able to disassociate into a
> > "photon" type energy component which is what travels through the wire.
>
> The charge carriers are the free electrons traveling relatively slowly
> in the surface area of the wire. The RF photons are the wave-particles
> emitted by accelerated electrons and travel at the speed of light.
> A cloud of photons make up the RF EM fields surrounding the wire(s).
>
> Consider the energy in an ocean wave Vs the water molecule carriers.
> --
> cheers, Cecil
>
Indeed! The propagation delay is not a property of the metalic wire
but rather is determined by the dielectric properties of the dielectric
which surrounds the wire. This effect is expoloited in dielectric
antenna and distributed delay lines.
Kind regards,
Sue...

>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>

Paul Draper

Sep16-04, 07:09 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:<2qoktcF11l7ehU1@uni-berlin.de>...\n> "Cecil Moore" <w5dxp@hotmail.com> wrote in message\n> news:41445f9a_5@corp.newsgroups.com...\n> > Guck wrote:\n> > > What bothers me is that old-fashioned idea of electricity being the\n> > > flow of electrons thru a wire from a negative terminal of EMF to the\n> > > positive terminal. Obviously electricity is a flow of energy, it\n> > > doesn\'t seem realisitic to imagine that actual physical electrons\n> > > travel thru the wire. It\'s like light-\n> > > light is carried by photons, light is carried by an energy\n> > > wave/particle\n> > > which has no mass , so it must be the same with electricity, because\n> > > electricity is supposed to be the same wave/particle composition as\n> > > light, simply at a different frequency or wavelength. Light and\n> > > electricty are both the same- they are both radiation energies.\n> > > So therefore electrons should not be considered as leptons or\n> > > fundamental particles because in electricity flow, the negative\n> > > charge component of the electron must be able to disassociate into a\n> > > "photon" type energy component which is what travels through the wire.\n> >\n> > The charge carriers are the free electrons traveling relatively slowly\n> > in the surface area of the wire. The RF photons are the wave-particles\n> > emitted by accelerated electrons and travel at the speed of light.\n> > A cloud of photons make up the RF EM fields surrounding the wire(s).\n> >\n> > Consider the energy in an ocean wave Vs the water molecule carriers.\n> > --\n> > cheers, Cecil\n> >\n> Indeed! The propagation delay is not a property of the metalic wire\n> but rather is determined by the dielectric properties of the dielectric\n> which surrounds the wire. This effect is expoloited in dielectric\n> antenna and distributed delay lines.\n> Kind regards,\n> Sue...\n>\n\nIndeed, Guck has a point, whether he knows it or not. When a wire is\nconnected to an EMF source, the electron that first emerges from the\nhigh-potential end of the wire is not the same one that the EMF source\npushes out at the low-potential end. The "awareness" that there is now\na (transient) electric field stretching across the wire really has to\ndo with the string of electrons in the conductor communicating with\neach other via photon exchange. The same thing is true for a wave\ntransmitted in water or a wave transmitted in a Slinky; it\'s the\ncoupling between one inertial element in the medium and the next that\ntransmits the impulse. In a conductor, the coupling is through the\ne.m. field -- i.e. photons.\n\nYes, the propagation speed has to do with the dielectric properties\nand their interface at the boundary.\n\nNo, this doesn\'t mean that electrons are not leptons and not\nfundamental particles.\n\nPD\nA little knowledge is a dangerous thing. --- someone said this, but I\nforget who.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:<2qoktcF11l7ehU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> "Cecil Moore" <w5dxp@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:41445f9a_5@corp.newsgroups.com...
> > Guck wrote:
> > > What bothers me is that old-fashioned idea of electricity being the
> > > flow of electrons thru a wire from a negative terminal of EMF to the
> > > positive terminal. Obviously electricity is a flow of energy, it
> > > doesn't seem realisitic to imagine that actual physical electrons
> > > travel thru the wire. It's like light-
> > > light is carried by photons, light is carried by an energy
> > > wave/particle
> > > which has no mass , so it must be the same with electricity, because
> > > electricity is supposed to be the same wave/particle composition as
> > > light, simply at a different frequency or wavelength. Light and
> > > electricty are both the same- they are both radiation energies.
> > > So therefore electrons should not be considered as leptons or
> > > fundamental particles because in electricity flow, the negative
> > > charge component of the electron must be able to disassociate into a
> > > "photon" type energy component which is what travels through the wire.
> >
> > The charge carriers are the free electrons traveling relatively slowly
> > in the surface area of the wire. The RF photons are the wave-particles
> > emitted by accelerated electrons and travel at the speed of light.
> > A cloud of photons make up the RF EM fields surrounding the wire(s).
> >
> > Consider the energy in an ocean wave Vs the water molecule carriers.
> > --
> > cheers, Cecil
> >
> Indeed! The propagation delay is not a property of the metalic wire
> but rather is determined by the dielectric properties of the dielectric
> which surrounds the wire. This effect is expoloited in dielectric
> antenna and distributed delay lines.
> Kind regards,
> Sue...
>

Indeed, Guck has a point, whether he knows it or not. When a wire is
connected to an EMF source, the electron that first emerges from the
high-potential end of the wire is not the same one that the EMF source
pushes out at the low-potential end. The "awareness" that there is now
a (transient) electric field stretching across the wire really has to
do with the string of electrons in the conductor communicating with
each other via photon exchange. The same thing is true for a wave
transmitted in water or a wave transmitted in a Slinky; it's the
coupling between one inertial element in the medium and the next that
transmits the impulse. In a conductor, the coupling is through the
e.m. field -- i.e. photons.

Yes, the propagation speed has to do with the dielectric properties
and their interface at the boundary.

No, this doesn't mean that electrons are not leptons and not
fundamental particles.

PD
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. --- someone said this, but I
forget who.