Without knowing anything about the specifics of the experiment, I would think that if "other influences" were significant, you'd just see the capacitor twirling all over the place. Unless the "other influences" conspired to exactly cancel out the torque from the ether. Seems a bit unlikely, no?
Physicist wrote:Which is [for the benefit of Aristarchus] to use his equation (5) for the energy without transforming it properly into the boosted frame.
Physicist wrote:If you don't do it correctly, you end up with what's called the "Trouton - Noble paradox" - which asserts that a parallel plate capacitor has a torque on it that depends on your frame of reference.
The parallel-plate capacitor formula isn’t adequate for the pads, so we have to do a few measurements of the actual capacitance, and we find that it’s 0.2 pF per pad. By (16.4), the two bits of trace look like 8.0 nH of inductance and 0.95 pF of capacitance. This model is only valid far below resonance, so to leading order it doesn’t matter where we put them in the model; since the circuit is symmetrical, we’ll add them symmetrically, so our final low frequency model is as shown in Figure 16.3.
engineer wrote:is a derivation in it where it is shown that for the parallel moving capacitor it is necessary to also consider the currents that the moving plates generate. When this is correctly done, the same formula is obtained. The force of current effect cannot be neglected. Please read again carefully what I am saying. It is hard to repeat the same thing now for the third time.
Mechanical and electromagnetic relations involved in the Trouton–Noble paradox are analysed on the basis of special relativity theory as well as on the basis of Maxwellian electrodynamics. It is shown that the paradox only arises when not all dynamical effects associated with the moving capacitor used by Trouton and Noble are considered. Crucial for the resolution of the paradox is the fact that the forces and torques in an electromagnetic system involving moving charge distributions are associated with both the mechanical momentum and electromagnetic momentum of the system. Once the electromagnetic momentum of the moving capacitor is properly taken into account, the paradox disappears.
At least Hynecek's papers are simple to follow without any nul vectors and boosts obfuscations. Again, no relativity is necessary, just Maxwell's equations and one reference frame, but including thje Lorentz length contraction.
By the way forces are the same as fields, since the field is the force divided by charge (as far as I know). Again a strange comment from a physicist.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests