[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Gnorts, Vorts, > > Most of us know that 'equivalence' refers to the comparison of an > intertial reference frame and gravity. In other words, there's no > difference between gravity and inertia. > > I am exploring a similar claim: the equivalence of magnetism by > current flow and permanent magnet magentism. There might be a clue to > the real truth here. > > Thanks to Frank, for the record,<;-)>, I do not believe either are > "equivalent" to their partners. > > Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Another thought which may have already occurred to you. In Special Relativity a magnetic field depends on relative motion of an electrostatic force, see for instance this entry from wikipedia on the magnetic field: > > Maxwell did much to unify static electricity and magnetism, producing a set of > four equations relating the two fields. However, under Maxwell's formulation, > there were still two distinct fields describing different phenomena. It was > Albert Einstein who showed, using special relativity, that electric and > magnetic fields are two aspects of the same thing (a rank-2 tensor), and that > one observer may perceive a magnetic force where a moving observer perceives > only an electrostatic force. Thus, using special relativity, magnetic forces > are a manifestation of electrostatic forces of charges in motion and may be > predicted from knowledge of the electrostatic forces and the velocity of > movement (relative to some observer) of the charges. > HOWEVER, what motion can possibly eliminate the macroscopic magnetic field of a permanent magnet?? Harry
