Well, I have had to think long and hard how I want to respond. I really
didn't want to get tied down as to the engineering of how one would
produce such a field. But I do get your point, something must produce
the field. If we were to take a bar magnet and rotate it at relativistic
speeds,
Ok, well if it's axial field orientation then I would say you have walked
right into the N-Machine paradox.
Which is, does the magnetic field actually rotate when you rotate a magnet on
an axial orientation?
For me I see no paradox. And yes, I have thought of the N-Machine a lot in this
From: Michael Crosiar crosia...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 2:49 AM
Ok, well
if it's axial field orientation then I would say you
have walked right into the N-Machine paradox.
Which is, does
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Michael Crosiar crosia...@yahoo.comwrote:
I'm still not convinced that you can't spin a field! You said before that
we can't grab a field, but we can in a way since fields do interact with
each other...
Actually fields don't interact (bend compress etc...)
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 2:49 AM
Ok, well
if it's axial field orientation then I would say you
have walked right into the N-Machine paradox.
Which is, does the magnetic field actually rotate when
)
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Harvey Norris harv...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Michael Crosiar crosia...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 2:49 AM
Ok, well
if it's axial field orientation
We create a torroidal magnetic field and rotate it
Whoops your gedanken just jumped the tracks. You *can't* rotate a field.
You can rotate an object. You can rotate a frame of reference. You can
rotate your head trying to follow an obscure argument. But you can't
rotate a field, nor
A thought experiment...
Is it conceivable that a relatively small PM could be encased in a
non-magnetic casing of some high-tech sort prior to spinning it up to
RPMs in the range of, oh, lets say possibly within the spectrum of low
radio.
If the high-tech encasing was balanced perfectly so it
@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 10:40:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
A thought experiment...
Is it conceivable that a relatively small PM could be encased in a
non-magnetic casing of some high-tech sort prior to spinning it up to
RPMs in the range of, oh, lets say
]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
We create a torroidal magnetic field and rotate it
Whoops your gedanken just jumped the tracks. You *can't* rotate a field.
You can rotate an object. You can rotate a frame of reference. You can
rotate your head trying to follow an obscure argument
From Michael Corsiar:
What makes you believe it would radiate any EM?
I don't. Not sure what to believe. It's why I'm askin...
The field is rotating, it is not expanding or collapsing.
I see this as a standing or scalar wave. I would expect
an E-field, but no EM radiation.
I think the
Ok, so take a magnet (it's a thought experiment so the realities of near
relativistic speeds of a spinning object interest me not), rotate it in such
a way that it's magnetic poles flip.
The field at some distance from the magnet must logically be moving greater
than C.
So we have 2
Ok, so take a
magnet (it's a thought experiment so the realities of near
relativistic speeds of a spinning object interest me not),
Thank
you!
rotate it in such a way that it's magnetic poles
flip.
Actually, I don't think this is the normal rotation, I
am more interested in the axial
Michael Crosiar wrote:
We create a torroidal magnetic field and rotate it
Whoops your gedanken just jumped the tracks. You *can't* rotate a field.
You can rotate an object. You can rotate a frame of reference. You can
rotate your head trying to follow an obscure argument. But you
Ok, well if it's axial field orientation then I would say you have walked
right into the N-Machine paradox.
Which is, does the magnetic field actually rotate when you rotate a magnet
on an axial orientation?
It is very difficult to prove since the only effect from an axially rotating
magnet is a
OrionWorks wrote:
A thought experiment...
Is it conceivable that a relatively small PM could be encased in a
non-magnetic casing of some high-tech sort prior to spinning it up to
RPMs in the range of, oh, lets say possibly within the spectrum of low
radio.
This would be EXTREMELY
BTW I might add one thing.
Even if a magnetic field can exceed the speed of light in this sense it is
not really clear how that compares to any other form of movement.
For instance a magnetic field can be made to appear to rotate by turning on
electromagnets in order as with the rotating stator
Hello John,
Glad I brought out a fellow lurker!
I'm more a lurker here too, but would you mind clarifying the geometry of your
question?
For the purposes of the thought experiment, just think of a free floating
toriodal magnetic field - don't worry yet about what is generating it - but we
Since the magnetic field is em radiation of a sort, think of it like
the classic spaceship with a flashlight scenario (which is the ONLY
thing i have EVER found in physics that i still cannot wrap my mind
against. I understand what it is saying, my brain just refuses to
accept it as accurate)
if
OK here goes. Response below is to Michael's original message and to
Leaking's response.
The reasponse to Leaking is lengthy; the response to Michael comes 'way
down at the end, after it.
leaking pen wrote:
Since the magnetic field is em radiation of a sort,
A magnetic field is a magnetic
I think the fault lay in my not realizing that time dillation would
have an effect on the observed velocity of light. Very stupid of me
not to think, and then, i wouldn't have assumed that the time
dillation perfectly slides with that difference in velocity.
thanks though!
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009
I think the fault lay in my not realizing that time dillation would
have an effect on the observed velocity of light. Very stupid of me
not to think, and then, i wouldn't have assumed that the time
dillation perfectly slides with that difference in velocity.
hmmm I still don't think that is
Hello vortexians,
Before I begin, I want to thank all of you. I have been lurking here for years.
I have seen the trolls come and go. They amuse for a while, then they get old.
But those of you who are of a true vortexian spirit always find new and
exciting food for the mind to try out. I
I'm more a lurker here too, but would you mind clarifying the geometry of
your question?
Anyway at a simplistic level I think the fields would tend to become
disconnected, they could be thrown off as radiation as fields disconnect
from the near field.
But if you are talking about a geometry such
24 matches
Mail list logo
