Re: is the magnetic field really moving?

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 phil-news-nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:56:52 +1000 Timo A. Nieminen
<timo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> | 
> | I find that all of the cases #0 - #4 above are explained without any 
> | problems by the standard relativistic theory which assumes that the
field 
> | does _not_ rotate.
> 
> I agree that assuming the field does not rotate explains all the cases
and
> the observed effects.  What I am saying is that assuming the field
really
> DOES rotate with the magnet ALSO explains all the cases and the observed
> effects.
> 
> I have reasons outside of the scope of these 5 cases to believe that the
> field rotates with the magnet.  All I can say within the context of
these
> cases is that the observations do not rule out that the field rotates
with
> the magnet.

There is one difference between (a) the field-rotates and (b) the 
field-doesn't-rotate pictures. In (b), the electric field of the rotating 
magnet is im****tant. In (a), these same effects are _not_ due to any 
electric field of the rotating magnet, but are attributed to a rotating 
magnetic field. Therefore, ****eld the rotating magnet with a non-magnetic 
(non-rotating) conductor. This will block the electric field in view (b), 
but won't block the magnetic field. I don't see why it should have any 
effect on the field at all in view (a).

A quick search fails to find examples of this being done. I'll have a 
better look later. There might be relevant geophysical observations, too, 
due to differential rotation of the magnetic core wrt the surface of the 
Earth.

-- 
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html