Dave, I am not sure what you mean by different angle. The orientation of the two particles hasn't changed, but they are connected by a spring. If my example does not make the paradox undeniably clear, then please see John's dramatic example. I don't know if the Biot Savart law for current carrying wires would be affected by a resolution of this paradox.
Harry On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:57 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > Harry, that is an interesting experiment. I will certainly give it some > thought since it approaches the problem from a different angle. (pun > intended) This is similar to the case where a second non moving charge > counters the initial repulsion. My first thought is that this idea might > reveal something about energy storage or perhaps charge behavior as seen by > a moving observer. If we had the normal current carrying wire case there > would be no problem since this type of structure has been proven to > generate a force. So, if taken to the extreme, is there a reason that a > small segment along the wire behaves in a different manner? > > Thanks Harry, > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Thu, Feb 20, 2014 2:53 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law > > Dramatic! > > As alternate way of revealing the paradox, I imagined the two charged > balls connected by a spring which counter balances the force of repulsion. > In the reference frame where the balls are moving, a magnetic force > would cause the spring to become shorter. Paradoxically, in the frame of > reference of the balls the length of the spring would remain unchanged. > > > harry >
