Nigel, You are correct. I failed to remember that each charge "sees" a changing electric field due to the motion of the other charge, and if the electric field is changing this generates a changing magnetic field which generates a force.
However, my excursion into velocity dependent coulomb forces and your criticism has brought clarity to my intuition: Charge is a relative to motion. Harry On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Nigel Dyer <[email protected]> wrote: > I may be being stupid here, but if you have two charged particles moving > towards each other then can they not be thought of as generating magnetic > fields, and that these magnetic fields would form the basis of an > additional attraction alongside the column force. electric and magnetic > fields differ only in their frame of reference. > > I could well imagine that there are multiple ways of showing this, > including Burchells, and it may well be that this might be a better way of > modelling it in some circumstances, but is his extra velocity term for the > colomb attraction not just something that we are familiar with but under a > different guise? > > Nigel > > On 15/02/2014 07:37, H Veeder wrote: > > He is certainly not the first person to formulate a velocity dependent > version of Coulomb's law, but I think his formulation is the first to make > use of a distinction between the velocity of approach and the velocity of > recession. (If I have understood him correctly, it would mean if one was > only interested in the force on an electron orbiting a proton in a > perfectly circular orbit, the force would be described by the standard > Coulomb's law since there would be no velocity of approach or recession.) > > He tries to explain gravity using his theory but he concedes that there > still may be a significant portion of gravity which is not explained by his > theory. http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/Gravity.htm > > Harry > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:40 PM, John Berry <[email protected]>wrote: > >> It would make sense, a Doppler like effect is very reasonable with >> electric fields. >> >> Now if this is so, it is very possible that gravity could be explained >> this way. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:09 PM, H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> James Bowery and other vortex members, >>> >>> Today I learned about the the work of Bernard Burchell. >>> He argues for a velocity dependent version of coulomb's law* >>> >>> In his model the coloumb force between two like charges increases when >>> the charges are moving together and decreases when they are moving apart. >>> The reverse is true for opposite charges. >>> >>> The revised law: >>> >>> F = {K(q1)(q2)/r^2} {1 + [(q1)(q2)(v1- v2)]/c}^3 >>> >>> He goes into more detail here: >>> http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/RelativisticMass.htm >>> >>> This is just a small fraction of his work. He has many bold and >>> wonderful ideas in his free on-line book. >>> >>> http://www.alternativephysics.org/ >>> >>> ----------------- >>> * I made a similar proposal on vortex sometime ago although it was >>> nothing more than an intuition and I only considered like charges: >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg45063.html >>> >>> Harry >>> >> >> > >
