Re: rotating magnetic field

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 09:38:54 -0700 (PDT) pmb <pmb61@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| On Apr 14, 5:27 am, phil-news-nos...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
|
|> My conclusion actually comes from taking both possible theories and applying
|> them to relativity. If the field does NOT rotate, it creates contradictions
|> in space-time. One such contradiction is that it would allow a determination
|> of what your absolute motion in space is. Relativity says you cannot, and
|> can only know your motion relative to other mass/energy.
|
| That?s incorrect. The special theory of relativity states that the
| laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. That
| means that the linear velocity of you?re frame of reference relative
| to another inertial frame (some ?absolute? frame which is ?at rest?)
| will never have an effect of the outcome of any experiment. That is
| with regards to the *linear? velocity of your frame of reference.
| However it may depend on the angular velocity of your frame of
| reference and it often does in fact. This means that while it?s
| meaningless to speak of your frame of reference as moving it is still
| quite meaningful to say that you?re frame of reference is rotating.
| And we all know that we can tell if we are in a frame of reference
| that is rotating relativity to the universal set of inertial frames of
| reference. So it?s quite possible that your experiment will have
| different results dependant on what is rotating and what isn?t. The
| homopolar generator is actually a superb example of that fact.

I'm not speaking of rotation specifically, but of motion in general. The
idea that the field near a rotating disc magnet is not rotationg is the same
as saying that a field is not in motion when the magnet involve is in motion
other than for any changes in field intensity due to changes in proxminity
of the magnet. The rotating disc is simply a case where there is no change
in the amount of (magnetized) mass occupying certain space.

If the field does not rotate, then you get electricity when the conductive
disk rotates, regardless of the magnet rotating or not. Extending that to
linear, take a LONG magnet that is has poles along the sides. Move a wire
(that is oriented perpendicular to the length of the magnet and the field
lines) along the length of the magnet. It should develop a change. Now do
the same thing but also move the magnet along its length with the wire. If
the field does not rotate above, the field does not move along here and the
wire will develop a charge potential in both cases.

What this means is you can have a device that carries along its own magnetic
field that does not move, while the whole device moves in space. The faster
it moves, the more charge develops. So what is this motion velocity relative
to? If it can be stationary, move slow, or move fast, there has to be some
kind of reference point to relate to.

Set up three such devices oriented at 3 perpendicular angles. Accelerate
or decelerate the whole 3 device assembly until you get zero potential in
all 3 devices. Now you have universal absolute zero velocity.

But you can't really do that. You can't have a device that based on whether
it is moving faster or slower (or not at all) in a universal absolute sense
would generate electricity. And conservation of energy would require that
if you capture that energy and emit it away in some other form, such as a
light radiating it all directions, you have to take away energy and that would
mean you have to slow down this device that is essentially just moving through
space not attached to anything.

This is why I am convinced that for the charge to be induced in the wire, it
has to be moving _relative_ to the magnet. If the magnet and wire are moving
together as a unit, no charge can be induced. It would be wonderful if it
could. Then I could extract energy from the rotation of the Earth (nothing
to do with its magnetic field which is weak in comparison to string ND 50+
magnets within a centimeter). All I would need to achieve that is a clever
arrangment of magnets and coils (moving together) and a rigid attachment to
the Earth which would push the whole assembly eastward as the load current
in the coils would be pushing the assembly westward.

The Earth is just like the Faraday disk rotating with the magnet. Unlike the
experiment, we can use the extracted power while "riding" the rotation, so we
don't need the external stationary wires to extract the power to an outside
point.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Simultaneity of Relativity
    ... the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of reference do ... relative to the embankment frame of reference. ... What we do know, is in relativity, there is no preferred frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.
    ... Morley may have been in the same frame of reference as the apparatus, ... the Lorentz equations, which always show a length contraction in the ... which I have done with Einstein's special theory of relativity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Simultaneity of Relativity
    ... the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of reference do ... What we do know, is in relativity, there is no preferred frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?
    ... >>I recall your comment about rotating FoR about the magnet and 'that's ... Angular velocity does have an absolute frame of reference. ... as the absolute inertial frame of the universe, which, as Einstein said, ... "is contrary to the spirit of the relativity principle". ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??
    ... > underpinnings of the Special Theory of Relativity. ... > Principle of Relativity. ... > specific frame of reference. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)