I know the calculations exist, but that is not my forte. What can we detect from the magnetic component of an EM wave?
What we detect is the electric force it places of charges, this force is orthogonal to the magnetic field and is identical to the electric component. In other words the only way we can detect the magnetic component is from detecting the electric component. And if the magnetic component was not present, how would you know? Everything would be the same, for instance if you had just the electric component of an EM wave (transmitted from a wire antenna) and you had a magnetic particle such as a tiny permanent magnet which creates a magnetic field in the same way as a tiny electromagnet would. (only the size of an electron orbit) Then you would expect to notice a force on this tiny magnet, however the force you get would infact be manifested as an electric force on the electrons. And if you looked as it, the electric force on the electrons would make sense as the force on the electrons that are moving toward the source would be forced up while the ones moving away would be forced down. And if we were to look at what happens when we thrust a wire towards one carrying a current we would find a voltage induced into it, that is how generators work and why motors have back EMF. If we move the wire away the electrons would be induced in the opposite direction. Ok, so why is this electric force created? Well the distortion of the electric field of the electrons in the wire is complex as they are moving and you are moving toward them, if you look at the path they take you are closer to each electron as it moves away. Ok, so now I can explain this however it just occurred to me how this could be explained. Imagine you are approaching a train, the train is spraying water from several hoses straight out and you are walking towards this. The water hits you, first from your left then the right as the train is moving by, because you are approaching the train you get more wet on your right side because when each hose passes by your right side you are closer than when it was spraying at your left side. This means that if the train was negatively charged these negative charges would have more effect on your right side, this would induce a current in you that would push electrons to your left side. This is the same direction you would expect a current to be induced. Now I'll admit, I have no equations on any of this. I thought of all this myself thinking I had made a breakthrough only to learn that this has been known for a very long time and apparently the equations have been done. Maybe the equations wouldn't add up? At any rate I'm not the person to find out. But I would think it very strange that they didn't, seriously what are the odds of the same (except in magnitude) electric forces being created by Magnetism and by motion distorted electric fields being a coincidence? I'll admit I could be wrong, but you really must weigh up the evidence... All sources of magnetic fields are moving charges/electric fields. Magnetic fields are only felt as an orthogonal electric field, which is to say it only effects charges and the direction is Dependant on their sign & motion. Analysis of how motion should distort electric fields creates predictions of forces the same as those expected from magnetic analysis and according to those who are able to calculate these the magnitude is the same. You and I should be able to come to agreement on all but the issue of magnitude which I can't hope to work out and will just take the word of those who apparently can and have said it adds up. Sure, when you hold a magnet and a piece of iron it takes some effort to do away with the illusion of a magnetic field and it is far easier than trying to work it out electrically. But if you want to you can explain it all based on electric fields being distorted. On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Mark Iverson <zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: > So you are postulating that: > "What mainstream calls a magnetic field is really a 'relativistically > distorted electric field'." > > Okay, that's a good start... > But then you say, > "...ignoring the fact that I have already essentially proven that magnetic > fields are non-existant..." > > I'm afraid that simply asserting that you've "proven" something doesn't fly > on this forum... > What you have done is postulated an alternative explanation, and that is > what I was looking for, and is certainly out the box thinking, however, it > is NOT PROOF of what you are postulating. Can you provide some specific > examples with calculations??? Are there any examples where your > theoretical framework explains aspects of electromagnetics that current > theory does not??? > > -Mark > > ------------------------------ > *From:* John Berry [mailto:aethe...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, May 29, 2011 3:00 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields > perpendicular? > > Ok, as you might guess from my email address I very much disagree that the > aether was proven false, nothing of the sort. Only a static Aether was > found to have evidence against it. > > Secondly if you still want to know why Electric and Magnetic fields are > perpendicular in an EM wave etc... then you are ignoring the fact that I > have already essentially proven that magnetic fields are non-existant and > only a convenient was to understand how relativistically distorted electric > fields manifest. > > So it is like asking why I am perpendicular to that dark guy lying on the > floor where I am standing by a light at night, how come we are always > perpendicular when I am standing on the floor. > If I have told you that it just looks like a man but it is just my shadow > do you really need to keep on being curious when you now understand > precisely how it comes to be that way? > > I can show you every example where magnetic forces arise are due to > electric fields/forces that are distorted by movement that creates precisely > the same force we expect and get magnetically. > Quite a co-incidence. > > If you choose to ignore the simple logical truth that makes sense then it > is likely you are really just practicing mysticism, and IMO there are plenty > of real mysteries to work out, no need to create them where none exists. > > Electrons spin and orbit, Nucleus's spin, and distort their electric fields > doing so and should create the forces that we experience with permanent > magnets. > Wires attract and repel in theory as experienced. > > > > On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Mauro Lacy <ma...@lacy.com.ar> wrote: > >> On 05/27/2011 07:50 PM, Charles Hope wrote: >> >>> I suppose we are all somewhere on the conservative/crank spectrum. I >>> think physics is a difficult place for novel thought because the current >>> models are so excellent. Yet mysteries do remain. However I didn't know that >>> Cooper pairs was one of them. >>> >>> >>> But I see the difficulty in our communication. I take epistemic issue >>> with the idea that there can be a mathematical model without true >>> understanding. If we have a model, it behooves us to twist our minds into >>> understanding that! There is no understanding but the use of a valid model. >>> >>> >> >> Exactly. And once you understood it, you stick with it because "it just >> works". You almost never question it at the philosophical or epistemological >> level. During most of the last century, there was a lot of confusion, >> introduced by Relativity theory, about the concept of time, by example. >> >> The case of the aether is also paradigmatic: when the results of some >> experiments were not the expected ones, the aether was disregarded, and >> relativity theories appeared. Nobody, or almost nobody, took the time to >> reflect at the philosophical level on what had happened, and as a >> consequence, a lot of confusion ensued. What had happened was that the >> mechanical model of the aether was found to be false by experiment. As a >> replacement, purely mathematical models were quickly introduced, which >> agreed with the experiments. But those models were now devoid of physical >> meaning. Just the general idea of "relativity", and of "all is relative" >> popped up, and stuck like a grand revelation. That happened during most of >> the last century, and is still happening. >> That philosophical thinking is still lacking, and it's coming from >> outsiders like me, because "real scientists" are so busy trying to >> understand the math first, and to apply for grants and publish later, that >> they don't have time to really reflect and think. >> >> Philosophy was disregarded(a big mistake) in the name of results and >> predictive power. The other consequence of the increasing complexity and the >> quest for results was super-specialization. You have to be an expert to be >> able to talk with authority and understanding about something. And when you >> finally study to be an expert in one field, you cannot talk about anything >> else! Moreover: you mostly lost the ability to relate and correlate >> knowledge from different fields of knowledge. >> >> That is an unfortunate state of affairs, and we can say that a great part >> of the decadence of the western culture we experience today is related to >> our urge for control only from the mechanistic perspective. >> >> Regards, >> Mauro >> >> >
