On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> John, it is great that we are now in agreement concerning my example of > the two parallel moving charges. It comes as a complete surprise to me > that you now accept the fact that the field observed by the stationary lab > due to one of the moving charges can influence the motion of the second > moving charge as seen by that same lab. > The whole time I stressed that I was talking about how SR would demand it is seen, and was not necessarily my personal belief as I reject SR. This is at total odds with SR. And I would not use the term 'seen' either, rather the charge moving through the aether of the Earth/Lab frame would create a magnetic field that would be seen by all observers in all frames essentially the same however they are moving. Otherwise you have huge Paradoxes appear. > > You made quite a point initially that this could not happen. If SR is correct, which clearly I do not believe, read my posts I did mention that. > If I recall correctly, you very clearly stated that there was no > magnetic field present as seen by each ball in the frame of reference that > moves with the balls so there could not be one seen in any other moving > frame. > According to SR, which I still hold as true IF SR were true, which it isn't. Also I am not saying definitively either way, other than to say I prefer a model with absolute motion relative to a locally entrained aether. You said there is experimental evidence to back up this view, please share it and you may take me from favouring the view to being certain of it. Seriously I would appreciate ALL evidence that a moving charge seems to effect things in a magnetic manner even when that thing being effected is moving with the charge, and hence is subject to no relative motion. Help me be certain! > > If you believed the way I did all along then why did you attack my > position in the first post? 1: I was stating from an SR perspective, and from an SR perspective that is still true. And to me proving SR wrong on electrodynamics is a big thing. 2: I had not formulated an opinion as to what should happen in a non-SR view at the time, it could be the same or different, I have since looked at the subject and find some evidence for thinking that it is not related to relative motion between the charge and anything that responds to the charge. 3: I still can in no way agree (ever) with the view that each frame sees what they expect from their relative motion to the charge (if any) to be seen to occur in other frames, that is paradox city. If you are moving with the electric charge you would not see a magnetic field and insist that no other frames act that way, but if you do have relative motion, then you expect to see other frames respond to the magnetic field you see and not the field you would expect to see if you occupied that other frame. Also you must admit that if we transferred this argument to magnets and coils inducing voltage, a coil with no motion to a magnetic field will get no induction, ever. That there is such an asymmetry between electric and magnetic induction surprises and delights me, symmetry is overrated. There is nothing wrong with changing ones understanding, but there is > something strange about pretending to believe the other way all along when > the evidence is clearly otherwise. > Please show me this clear evidence, I am still only aware of vague evidence I have sighted in the Homopolar thread. > > The only explanation that I can come up with as to how we could have been > in agreement all along as you now imply is that there has been some kind of > misunderstanding. If this is true please explain what you found wrong with > my example in the first place. If a charged object moves through aether (from wire, or a lab frame) and generates a magnetic field that can be seen by all observers in any state of motion essentially identically, I have no problems with that at all. Now I am not utterly convinced of it, but I like it and can see some evidence for it. And I want more. However if an electron/charged tennis ball sits still in a void, and fails to deflect a compass (c1) that is not moving relative to, but does defect a second compass that it is moving relative too it, and an observer is moving with that compass (c2) now expects the stationary compass (c1) to be also deflected to agree with the magnetic field the moving frame sees? And yet an observer stationary relative to stationary compass (c1) demands that neither compass is deflected... That is the problem, I hope you understand this. That is what I was and am still arguing with IF you believe that. But if you want to believe such a paradox, then go ahead, I just want you to furnish experimental evidence for your view since it should suit my purposes anyway. Both models predict the same thing for an observer that occupies the lab frame. Go back to the first post you made and point out how it matches your > present position. It is important for me to uncover the wording problem > that lead to the long painful discussions so that I will not have to go > through that again. > > Unless we figure out how to communicate with the same language it is > fruitless to continue any discussions. I await your explanation. Hopefully this email will have cleared up some of it. I also suspect that I must have misunderstood your intention in one email, either that or you changed your own opinion as you typed it. I am starting to think we might just get somewhere. John
