Re: Magnetic field and relative motion
From: Alex Green (dralexgreen_at_yahoo.co.uk)
Date: 06/26/04
- Next message: Sam Wormley: "Re: Prefered frame of reference"
- Previous message: Richard Henry: "Re: Managers manage research"
- In reply to: V.K.Tamhane: "Magnetic field and relative motion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 26 Jun 2004 07:27:40 -0700
vktamhane12@rediffmail.com (V.K.Tamhane) wrote in message news:<9d62a326.0406150313.241a71b0@posting.google.com>...
> ...
> This expt. proves that relative motion plays no
> part. Further it proves 'reality' of the magnetic field. If it is just
> a force, then there cannot be any emf, because there is no change in
> flux. Force on the moving charge can be explained only by the proerty
> 5 of the article 17.
Whatever it does prove, if anything, it does not prove that "relative
motion plays no part" in the generation of magnetic fields. Someone
observing a stationary charge observes just the charge, someone
passing the charge at high speed observes a magnetic field plus a
charge (this is true of pre-relativistic as well as post relativistic
physics). See:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lka/conz2b1.htm
Best Wishes
Alex Green
- Next message: Sam Wormley: "Re: Prefered frame of reference"
- Previous message: Richard Henry: "Re: Managers manage research"
- In reply to: V.K.Tamhane: "Magnetic field and relative motion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
