Re: Electron at rest - magnetic field?



"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1130124582.568367.134230@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Bilge wrote:
> > John Kennaugh:
> > >Rod Ryker wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Bill Hobba <rubbish@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > >>news:0030f.5663$U51.1063@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>>
> > >>> "Rod Ryker" <rryker@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > >>> news:2052f$43408df0$d8442672$11598@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Bill Hobba <rubbish@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > >>> > news:RE_%e.5446$U51.2993@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> "Rod Ryker" <rryker@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > >>> >> news:8a3f9$433f0bd5$d8442809$22074@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>> >> > Long ago Faraday proved, not caring at the time,
> > >>> >> > that electrons at rest have a magnetic field.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Since that in not what Faraday proved it is you who speaks with forked
> > >>> >> tongue.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Bill
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Rod: Read up on Faraday's Cage, Bill.
> > >>>
> > >>> I have - you obviously have not since it does not show electrons at rest
> > >>> have a magnetic field - even assuming one can give a specific velocity to
> > >>a
> > >>> quantum object.
> > >>>
> > >>> Bill
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>Rod: The Cage was steel.
> > >
> > >Is it? I am under the impression that a Faraday cage can be made of any
> > >conductor - but hey what do I know I'm only an electronics engineer.
> >
> > The better the conductor, the better the faraday cage. For that
> > reason, most faraday cages are made from copper. Silver would be better,
> > but silver is too expensive and would need to be gold plated, since
> > silver corrodes quickly (which is why the silver surfaces inside wave
> > guides are flashed with gold, which is not as good a conductor as copper,
> > but can be plated onto surfaces in a very thin layer.) I have a hard
> > time seeing why anyone would make a faraday cage out of steel unless
> > they had a bunch of steel lying around.
>
> The traditional use of the term 'Faraday shield'
> is a structure which blocks E-plane energy but
> passes H-plane energy so your logic seems correct.
>
>
> The OP is making some kind of case that Michael
> Faraday was a 'seeer' who channeled the work
> of Zeeman, Stern and Gerlach and established
> a psuedo-medium permitting all future physicists
> to ignore spin-orbit interaction. Yeaha... that
> sounds like a causality violation but at no point
> does the OP mention killing Albert Einstein's
> grandfather so it surely makes sense to him.
>
> ;o)
>
> Sue...
>
Rod: Why don't you read my recent reply to John Kennaugh.
You clearly do not understand the argument I posed, either.
--
Rod Ryker...
The intricacies of nature is man's cannon fodder.


.