Re: Explanation? of Inductance and Inertia

On Jul 9, 11:22 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"George" <edwardsg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:9bb49594-eed7-4743-9878-b1d47f3a5be5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
My comment attempts to give at least a plausible explanation of both
inductance and inertia based on more basic physical concepts as I
understand them. I would be delighted to hear whether or not the
following explanation/comment gains any acceptance.

Faraday gave the name field to the apparent change in empty space
itself surrounding an electrical charge and the same concept has been
used for a gravitational field surrounding a mass. When either is in
constant motion, one would anticipate that the field around either
would travel along in equilibrium with the mass or charge.

=========================================
There's your first problem. All motion is relative, so what is it
moving relative to? Perhaps you are thinking of the Earth "in
motion" around the sun, but it is not moving relatively to me.
I too am "in motion" around the sun, but I am not (as I write)
in motion relative to the Earth.

=========================================

But if the
motion were changed with an acceleration,
=========================================
There's your second problem. I only accelerate if I apply
a force, and it has to be between me some other object. Forces
act between TWO bodies. If lean against the wall, trying to
push it over, I move backwards from the wall. If I push
on the floor, I'm doing pushups. I move; not the floor,
not the Earth. The irresistible force has met the immovable
object and the object that was not immovable (me) has moved.

the equilibrium would be
lost until the acceleration ceased and, with time, a constant motion
at a new velocity would re-establish the same equilibrium between
field and mass or charge that existed before.

The acceleration of all bodies at the macroscopic level, other than
gravitation, appears to require a “push” or “pull” that interacts
electronically although the speed-of-light speed limit

=========================================
There's your third problem. ALL motion, including light, is relative.
There is no "speed-of-light limit", and never was.

Suppose I allow two magnets to meet, or place a keep on a horseshoe
magnet.  What happened to the magnetic field that was there?

Now I pull the magnets apart. Up springs the field. Not only that,
but it deflects a compass needle some distance away.
 Now I do both, rapidly, and set the compass needle spinning.
   http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/spin.gif

I increase the distance:
 http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/spindistance.gif
(I've used stop motion to show the meter position).

This could be any generating station and any electric motor.

What "speed-of-light limit" is involved?

Get used to the PoR, it will not be denied.
   http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1st/Postulates.htm
You will have no explanation without it.
ALL motion, including light, is relative.

requires a
delay in the interaction. For example, even if an electron appeared
and disappeared  instantaneously near an atom, there would be a delay
before the nearer electrons in the atom would respond and an even
greater delay before the further electrons responded. Thus the total
electrical field around the atom would at first be shrunk in a line
opposite from the electron as the atom started moving away, but the
electric field around the atom would  ultimately return to its
original equilibrium shape, and the atom and its field would continue
onward forever at the newly acquired velocity, given no further
interactions. In a similar thought experiment replacing the atom with
a free electron, the field around the free electron would first shrink
and then expand at a newly acquired fixed velocity.

This all seems plausible to me given the basic physical concepts that
I have come to accept. Where might I have gone astray?

P.S. This stems from an exchange I read on google answers (that
appears not to still be open) in which someone was asking for a
fundamental explanation of inductance and inertia along the lines of
the special relativistic explanation of magnetism involving moving
charges -- preferably non-mathematical. The ultimate answer given was
that there was no explanation -- apparently that these were simply
givens from experimental evidence. Do you agree with that, agree or
disagree that my attempt has any merit or do any of you have an
alternate explanation?

Thank you for responding.

1. The thought is that the mass or charge is relative to its
associated field. In equilibrium there is no displacement to that
field. In acceleration, the mass or charge is, for a time, displaced
from its prior position relative to that field.
2. An acceleration admittedly requires an interaction between two (or
more) bodies. I didn't intend to indicate otherwise.
3. The speed of light speed limit is relative to the two bodies
involved. Again, I did not intend to indicate otherwise.

I guess I'm missing the points you are making.

I am not a professional physicist and have based my hypothesis, as
stated, at the macroscopic level (not addressing weak and strong
interactions within atoms) using classical concepts (including
special relativity). I'm aware of the nuclear forces but have to leave
any possible extension of my supposition to those intimately
conversant with the quantum principles of modern physics.

I'm quite interested in any comments you or others may have -- using
classical physics concepts if possible. I have just put my background
in my profile.

Thanks again and please get back to me to explain if you feel I missed
the points you were trying to make.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Charged spinning disks
    ... the radial separation between the charges. ... less space between them when in relative motion. ... (principle of relativity) ... requires the recoiling electron to know how it's supposed to respond. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Charged spinning disks
    ... the radial separation between the charges. ...  The relativity quacks get ... requires the recoiling electron to know how it's supposed to respond. ... perfectly oblivious to its motion, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Charged spinning disks
    ...  The relativity quacks get ... less space between them when in relative motion. ... relative motion of those charges and our test charge matter. ... requires the recoiling electron to know how it's supposed to respond. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Explanation? of Inductance and Inertia
    ... All motion is relative, so what is it ... You will have no explanation without it. ... even if an electron appeared ... and disappeared instantaneously near an atom, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Explanation? of Inductance and Inertia
    ... You will have no explanation without it. ... even if an electron appeared ... special relativity). ... conversant with the quantum principles of modern physics. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading