>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 orientation. I see the problem with
the "pole flip" as being the stability caused by the
E-Field - I suspect strongly it would radiate. But I could be
wrong.
>The field at some distance from the magnet must
logically be moving greater than C.
That is the point I wanted
to get too!!!! Yes, but nothing can go faster than C, so something
must give.
>So we have 2 possibilities.
>First is
that the field will entrain the aether and drag it (frame dragging)
and hence the field will not be moving at a speed greater than C.
(though the field may be in effect shielded from expanding beyond a
point where the moving >aether ceases to be entrained by the
field)
>To what degree that answer would be acceptable to
anyone besides me I'm not totally sure since I have not bothered to
understand what frame dragging really refers to as IMO special
relativity is wrong and science made a wrong >turn when it
disregarded the aether, and everyone considered to have 'disproven'
the aether including Enstein and MM still believed it existed.
>The
other possibility is that, and this one sounds possibly more likely,
the fields will be thrown off as radiation.
Now this I
disagree with, these are not the only possibilities. The other
possibility is that delta-t changes - C remains the same because the
rate at which time moves forward is changed - the measuring stick and
the clock are now in a different frame of reference and must be
looked at just like with the spaceship and spacestation example
discussed before. Due to the rotation this is no longer an inertial
frame of reference. If this is correct, there a certain predictions
we can make. First, due to the rotation of the field, it should
acquire inertial mass- attempts to move the field (and that which is
generating it) should resist being moved. Next, time within the field
should run at a different rate, either slower or faster depending on
the direction of rotation relative to the n/s pole (Ok, I have not
shown this yet...). This could be tested by placing a radioactive
isotope inside the field and measuring the radiation compared to a
control sample outside the field. Time measurements would also be
affected. And, if I am right, any mass contained by the field should
gain or loose its gravitational mass (actually, I'm way over-simplifying
here). I would also expect a strong E-Field from the outer most part
of the field to the axis of rotation, as would be normally expected.
I strongly suspect that these relativistic effects will have
direction and magnitude.
>Fields don't need to expand and
shrink IMO to be thrown off as radiatiuon, it merely requires a swift
enough change that causes the more distant part of a field to
decouple from the source that generated it.
I'm not sure about
this one. I do suspect that attempting to change the angular velocity
to rapidly would cause the field to rotate or "vibrate" at
harmonic frequencies in addition to the primary frequency which would
likely cause EM radiation.
>Of course this has an
implication, that the magnetic field would put a drag on it because
it can't freely radiate energy right?
>Would not some
pulsars or something else astronomical be in the range of powerful
enough to be an astronomical version of this experiment?
Maybe,
but I'm also thinking of the EM fields that exist in atoms, shells
and electrons...
>Or would their magnetic field be more
likely to be in an axial orientation? I guess so? or not?
I
pretty sure, but I will need to think about it. I think the issue has
to do with the symmetry of the E-field, or lack there of.
>So
no astronomical versions of this thought experiment?
I would think
pulsars and black holes, but don't we already acknowledge
relativistic effects for these objects?
C. Michael Crosiar
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 7:27 AM, OrionWorks <svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>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 reason I have speculated that there might possibly be EM
radiaion generated is that if the PM was positioned in such a manner
that the opposite poles were swinging 90 degrees in relation to the
rotational axis I would assume that there would be a lot of dynamic
magnetic changes occuring. Seems to me that if one placed a circular
wire close to the rotating PM, would not the circular wire be
influenced by the rotating PM causing some level of AC to course
through the wire?
I think my ignorance stems from the fact that it's not clear to me
what the crucial differences are between standing or scaler waves and
EM radiation.
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
