On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:51 AM, H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote:
> If these presentations are logically correct than it should be possible > for an observer to increase or decrease the magnetic force between point > charges by simply choosing to move relative the charges at speeds much less > than c. Since this does not happen, these presentations of the Biot Savart > are misleading. > Yes, but what if it was correct anyway because an aether is dragged? (motion is relative to space) I have heard on an experiment with high voltage that did appear to create an electromagnetic like force with static charges. I forget the details and it is probably gone from the web. But if the aether, or frame dragging, or some other degree of movement of the medium of space as it may be allowed by various concepts, could a magnetic field be created by movement relative to space? What about gravity? Could that be considered a movement of space? Perhaps various orientations of electrostatically charged balls relative to gravity could create electromagnetic forces between them? This begs a question, if light is bent by gravity, would not electric fields also not be bent? And is not such a bend precisely what magnetism is really anyway? distortion of an electric field. So maybe such a magnetic force should be expected? In a wire a large number of electrons move slowly, with an experiment like the above a much smaller number of electrons might be involved, but the speed should be higher. Anyone have any clue what kind of force might be expected for a given sphere at an attainable voltage? Or how many gauss might occur? Has much work been done to probe for existence of tiny magnetic fields around HV charged objects under various conditions? John > > Therefore, it also seems to me that the Biot Savart law cannot provide a > logically consistent explanation of the phenomena of relativistic electron > bean confinement described by Jones. > > Harry > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:58 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> You are describing the case of zero electron motion when you use the >> observation frame that is synchronized to the electron motion. That is >> just one of an infinite series of view points. In that frame only the >> coulomb effect is seen. >> >> Time dilation is determined by what an observer believes is happening to >> objects that he measures and in this case it is the moving pair of >> electrons. In that observers world both are moving at a velocity through >> his instrumentation so he measures the field of one of them first at the >> location of the second one. The effect of that field then can be >> calculated as it modifies the movement of the other electron. >> >> This is similar to us looking at two electrons that are in motion within >> an accelerator. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Berry <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Sent: Mon, Feb 17, 2014 3:13 am >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law >> >> David, if the electrons do not see that in their world view, then the >> second one is hardly exposed to something that does not exist for it. >> >> Every electrically charged object has in other reference frames various >> magnetic fields, the axis and direction of the magnetic field is decided by >> the relative motion of the observer. >> >> Since radiation of various forms exists moving in every possible >> direction towards every charged object, that we can propose that every >> charged object has multiple magnetic fields with every possible magnitude, >> direction and axis in different reference frames that are being regularly >> observed in those frames. >> >> Of course none of this is true if SR is incorrect, and if the motion in >> question is relative to an aether providing an unknown frame of reference... >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:52 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> We observe two moving electrons in my calculation. The first one >>> generates a magnetic field that the second one is exposed to. The >>> electrons do not see this effect in their world view. This is equivalent >>> to what we might see if we look at two parallel beams of charged >>> particles. Speed them up to nearly the speed of light and my calculation >>> is that they do not attract or repel each other. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: H Veeder <[email protected]> >>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 11:41 pm >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law >>> >>> What is the source of the magnetism? >>> >>> Harry >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 6:24 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Sorry, I realize that my wording was flawed. I mean that the two >>>> particles are moving in parallel at the same velocity. >>>> >>>> Dave >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: H Veeder <[email protected]> >>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 3:20 pm >>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:44 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Once I made a calculation of the attraction between two charged >>>>> particles that are moving together at a constant velocity relative to my >>>>> frame of reference. I was pleasantly surprised to find that as the >>>>> velocity of the two charges approached the speed of light, a perfect >>>>> balance between the electric force and the magnetic force was achieved. >>>>> This implied that there would be precisely zero electromagnetic force >>>>> between the two and hence no acceleration either together or apart at the >>>>> speed of light. This matches the special theory of relativity since at >>>>> light speed the time dilation reaches infinity for the objects being >>>>> viewed. >>>>> >>>>> Since their time was slowed down to zero, they should not be seen as >>>>> accelerating towards or away from each other. >>>>> >>>>> Dave >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Dave, what do you mean by "moving together"? Moving on parallel paths >>>> at constant velocity or moving off in different directions at constant >>>> velocity? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Harry >>>> >>> >>> >> >
