On May 18, 8:15*am, Benj wrote:
of "Is the magnetic field attached to the source that generates it?
This is of course identical to or nearly identical to the question I
was asking about does a magnetic field rotate with the magnet?
Hooper's experiments then led him to develop the "All-electric
Motional Field Generator". This device is a bundle of wires arranged
in a totally non-inductive fashion (current flowing in as many wires
"up" as flows in the wires "down"). *The device purportedly develops a
potential outside of it due to the assumption that the magnetic field
is more or less attached to the electrons and moved on the average at
the "drift velocity" of those electrons. *If you think about this ( I
know that is a strain in the modern world but it actually still IS
possible!), you'll see that because of directions and polarities a
potential should happen.

This should not be hard wittun. As I first said, magnèts are not
perfect standards; elementary magnèts the least so. If you take their
finite dipole moment of their domains, and add their longwise and
withwise velocities with the magnetic boost at all radii, you can find
the mean net boost (nonzero) and also the effective magnetic moment.
Of course if you blew up the magnèt as a coil or a plasma, the
rotation would indeed induct a magnetic field, as it would approximare
a two-body sýstem instead of two-mole. Uncle Al is wrong again, about
magnèts and neutròns.

But, then Hooper made a large leap into crankosity (one which, by the
way, I DO NOT agree with) that noticing that both the VxB force and
gravity are non-shieldable and also since there is charge separation

They're not.

And let me add a minor comment to Timo's exposition on relativity
relationships between frames and E and B fields. That would simply be
that I do not believe this theory to be correct because I do not
believe that E fields and B (or H) fields are at the fundamental level
similar enough in their formation to allow the mathematical transform
of one to the other based on reference frames and relative motion.

why?

-Aut