Proposing Physics Experimentation with Effectuationism Premises


This subject is somewhat in the context of Einstein's paper,
reproduced here
http://leiwen.tripod.com/eingra.htm

"In Newtonian physics the elementary theoretical concept on which the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is the material
point, or particle. Thus matter is considered a priori to be
discontinuous. This makes it necessary to consider the action of
material points on one another as "action at a distance." ": So, with
Eff. premises the elementary theoretical concept on which the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is that of matter
effecting through relationship of 'forces'. Thus matter is considered
a priori to be a demarcatory interactivity (somewhat discontinuous,
but yet somewhat continuous, indefinite, dynamic, relationships). This
would not give rise to the concept of "action at a distance".

Also, this system would only trade in effects - not 'the forces'
through which effects effect.

Further, the system would employ just one frame of reference - there
would be no 'jumping' around of FORs.


Is it possible to develop a system of Physics from here, but quite
independently of (Einstein's) Relativity? In effect, what equations
would hold for relationships of 'forces'? Perhaps this leads to
Maxwell's electrodynamics and perhaps to this concept expressed here
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "But if the
magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field
arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however,
we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of
relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of
the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces
in the former case".

It is not that I am particularly clear about what is meant in the last
quote, but perhaps the last sentence of same may be a good basis from
which to experiment and develop equations.

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...
Proposing Physics Experimentation with Effectuationism Premises


This subject is somewhat in the context of Einstein's paper,
reproduced here
http://leiwen.tripod.com/eingra.htm

"In Newtonian physics the elementary theoretical concept on which the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is the material
point, or particle. Thus matter is considered a priori to be
discontinuous. This makes it necessary to consider the action of
material points on one another as "action at a distance." ": So, with
Eff. premises the elementary theoretical concept on which the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is that of matter
effecting through relationship of 'forces'. Thus matter is considered
a priori to be a demarcatory interactivity (somewhat discontinuous,
but yet somewhat continuous, indefinite, dynamic, relationships). This
would not give rise to the concept of "action at a distance".

Also, this system would only trade in effects - not 'the forces'
through which effects effect.

'effects effect'?


Further, the system would employ just one frame of reference - there
would be no 'jumping' around of FORs.

In other words there is preferred frame of reference and a violation of the
POR - care to provide actual evidence rather than philosophical mumbo jumbo?



Is it possible to develop a system of Physics from here, but quite
independently of (Einstein's) Relativity? In effect, what equations
would hold for relationships of 'forces'? Perhaps this leads to
Maxwell's electrodynamics and perhaps to this concept expressed here
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "But if the
magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field
arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however,
we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of
relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of
the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces
in the former case".

It is not that I am particularly clear about what is meant in the last
quote, but perhaps the last sentence of same may be a good basis from
which to experiment and develop equations.

What is meant Peter is a demonstration of the POR. Regardless of what
frame we consider stationary - the frame of the magnet or the frame of the
conductor then the forces (on the charges in the wire) are the same (as is
required by classical mechanics) yet it traditionally (according to
Maxwell's equations) it has a different physical explanation - one results
from the lorentz force law (the conductor is moving and contains charges
that have a velocity relative to a magnetic field) the other results from a
changing magnetic field creating an electric field that moves the charges
(in this case the wire is considered stairtonary). The point is the only
thing of relevance is their relative motion so the underlying physics must
really be the same - this leads to the idea of the equations of EM being
Lorentz invariant ie the equations describing it take the same form in all
frames. And indeed Einstein demonstrated with the Lorentz transformations,
for EM, they do. But it is my understanding Poincare had already done
that - but Einstein's methods were more fundamental.

Peter - the above is really fundamental to an understanding of EM. May I
suggest you acquaint yourself with what is going on - see
http://www.cse.secs.oakland.edu/hask...Relativity.htm

Bill


Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...
Proposing Physics Experimentation with Effectuationism Premises


This subject is somewhat in the context of Einstein's paper,
reproduced here
http://leiwen.tripod.com/eingra.htm

"In Newtonian physics the elementary theoretical concept on which the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is the material
point, or particle. Thus matter is considered a priori to be
discontinuous. This makes it necessary to consider the action of
material points on one another as "action at a distance." ": So, with
Eff. premises the elementary theoretical concept on which the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is that of matter
effecting through relationship of 'forces'. Thus matter is considered
a priori to be a demarcatory interactivity (somewhat discontinuous,
but yet somewhat continuous, indefinite, dynamic, relationships). This
would not give rise to the concept of "action at a distance".

Also, this system would only trade in effects - not 'the forces'
through which effects effect.

'effects effect'?

I'll leave this point for now, if I may.



Further, the system would employ just one frame of reference - there
would be no 'jumping' around of FORs.

In other words there is preferred frame of reference and a violation of the
POR - care to provide actual evidence rather than philosophical mumbo jumbo?

In other words, the relational nature of value would be recognised,
one would then _select_ a FOR, and then get on with attempting to
develop a system - thereby expecting to avoid 'jumping' around of
FORs.




Is it possible to develop a system of Physics from here, but quite
independently of (Einstein's) Relativity? In effect, what equations
would hold for relationships of 'forces'? Perhaps this leads to
Maxwell's electrodynamics and perhaps to this concept expressed here
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "But if the
magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field
arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however,
we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of
relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of
the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces
in the former case".

It is not that I am particularly clear about what is meant in the last
quote, but perhaps the last sentence of same may be a good basis from
which to experiment and develop equations.

What is meant Peter is a demonstration of the POR. Regardless of what
frame we consider stationary - the frame of the magnet or the frame of the
conductor then the forces (on the charges in the wire) are the same (as is
required by classical mechanics) yet it traditionally (according to
Maxwell's equations) it has a different physical explanation - one results
from the lorentz force law (the conductor is moving and contains charges
that have a velocity relative to a magnetic field) the other results from a
changing magnetic field creating an electric field that moves the charges
(in this case the wire is considered stairtonary).

Good; it suggests that the proposal of this thread has some weight.
Let's simply select one FOR and get on with business.

The point is the only
thing of relevance is their relative motion so the underlying physics must
really be the same - this leads to the idea of the equations of EM being
Lorentz invariant ie the equations describing it take the same form in all
frames. And indeed Einstein demonstrated with the Lorentz transformations,
for EM, they do. But it is my understanding Poincare had already done
that - but Einstein's methods were more fundamental.

Good; same as above.


Peter - the above is really fundamental to an understanding of EM. May I
suggest you acquaint yourself with what is going on - see
http://www.cse.secs.oakland.edu/hask...Relativity.htm


So, perhaps now you can focus on selecting a FOR, in accordance with
the proposal of the thread.

Re "In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to
which in itself there is no corresponding energy []": For now, when I
said I am not particularly clear about what is meant here I
principally had in mind the meaning of "to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy"?

--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...
Proposing Physics Experimentation with Effectuationism Premises


This subject is somewhat in the context of Einstein's paper,
reproduced here
http://leiwen.tripod.com/eingra.htm

"In Newtonian physics the elementary theoretical concept on which the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is the material
point, or particle. Thus matter is considered a priori to be
discontinuous. This makes it necessary to consider the action of
material points on one another as "action at a distance." ": So, with
Eff. premises the elementary theoretical concept on which the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is that of matter
effecting through relationship of 'forces'. Thus matter is considered
a priori to be a demarcatory interactivity (somewhat discontinuous,
but yet somewhat continuous, indefinite, dynamic, relationships). This
would not give rise to the concept of "action at a distance".

Also, this system would only trade in effects - not 'the forces'
through which effects effect.

Further, the system would employ just one frame of reference - there
would be no 'jumping' around of FORs.


Is it possible to develop a system of Physics from here, but quite
independently of (Einstein's) Relativity? In effect, what equations
would hold for relationships of 'forces'? Perhaps this leads to
Maxwell's electrodynamics and perhaps to this concept expressed here
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "But if the
magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field
arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however,
we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of
relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of
the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces
in the former case".

It is not that I am particularly clear about what is meant in the last
quote, but perhaps the last sentence of same may be a good basis from
which to experiment and develop equations.

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/

You might find these helpful:

9. Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations when
Convection-Currents are Taken into Account
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/websumm122/node72.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...ntCurrent.html
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath567/kmath567.htm
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/rtzein.htm

Kind regards,
Sue...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
SNIP

What is meant Peter is a demonstration of the POR. Regardless of what
frame we consider stationary - the frame of the magnet or the frame of the
conductor then the forces (on the charges in the wire) are the same (as is
required by classical mechanics) yet it traditionally (according to
Maxwell's equations) it has a different physical explanation - one results
from the lorentz force law (the conductor is moving and contains charges
that have a velocity relative to a magnetic field) the other results from
a
changing magnetic field creating an electric field that moves the charges
(in this case the wire is considered stairtonary). The point is the only
thing of relevance is their relative motion so the underlying physics must
really be the same - this leads to the idea of the equations of EM being
Lorentz invariant ie the equations describing it take the same form in all
frames. And indeed Einstein demonstrated with the Lorentz
transformations,
for EM, they do. But it is my understanding Poincare had already done
that - but Einstein's methods were more fundamental.

Poincare did not publish with as much detail how he did it - instead he just
gave the results such as the relativity of simultaneity, the clock
calibration procedure, and of course the Lorentz transformations.

Bill, you pointed out the sore thumb in the above example - for what matters
for the PoR is *not* the relative motion of magnet and wire, but the motion
of each relative to inertial frames of reference. That confusion is at the
basis of the Clock Paradox. The relative motion of magnet and wire is only
coincidentally related to the PoR when they are both resting in inertial
frames.
I would like to read a good paper on that issue, if there is one - a quick
search now gave me http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/symm.html, but I
hope that also reviewed journal papers about this subject are available.
Anyone?

Harald

(Peter Kinane) wrote in message . com...
Proposing Physics Experimentation with Effectuationism Premises


This subject is somewhat in the context of Einstein's paper,
reproduced here
http://leiwen.tripod.com/eingra.htm

"In Newtonian physics the elementary theoretical concept on which the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is the material
point, or particle. Thus matter is considered a priori to be
discontinuous. This makes it necessary to consider the action of
material points on one another as "action at a distance." ": So, with
Eff. premises the elementary theoretical concept on which the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is that of matter
effecting through relationship of 'forces'. Thus matter is considered
a priori to be a demarcatory interactivity (somewhat discontinuous,
but yet somewhat continuous, indefinite, dynamic, relationships). This
would not give rise to the concept of "action at a distance".

Also, this system would only trade in effects - not 'the forces'
through which effects effect.

Further, the system would employ just one frame of reference - there
would be no 'jumping' around of FORs.


Is it possible to develop a system of Physics from here, but quite
independently of (Einstein's) Relativity? In effect, what equations
would hold for relationships of 'forces'? Perhaps this leads to
Maxwell's electrodynamics and perhaps to this concept expressed here
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "But if the
magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field
arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however,
we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of
relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of
the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces
in the former case".

It is not that I am particularly clear about what is meant in the last
quote, but perhaps the last sentence of same may be a good basis from
which to experiment and develop equations.


Bill, Sue, etc.,

I suspect that, due to exposure to the magnetic, let's say, force, now
resolved, the conductor has a degree of charge not present prior to
the exposure - an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy.

If so, I would propose to experiment with that extra charge. That
charge could be our selected FOR. Any ideas of what is - would be -
found?

--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...
(Peter Kinane) wrote in message
. com...
Proposing Physics Experimentation with Effectuationism Premises


This subject is somewhat in the context of Einstein's paper,
reproduced here
http://leiwen.tripod.com/eingra.htm

"In Newtonian physics the elementary theoretical concept on which the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is the material
point, or particle. Thus matter is considered a priori to be
discontinuous. This makes it necessary to consider the action of
material points on one another as "action at a distance." ": So, with
Eff. premises the elementary theoretical concept on which the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is that of matter
effecting through relationship of 'forces'. Thus matter is considered
a priori to be a demarcatory interactivity (somewhat discontinuous,
but yet somewhat continuous, indefinite, dynamic, relationships). This
would not give rise to the concept of "action at a distance".

Also, this system would only trade in effects - not 'the forces'
through which effects effect.

Further, the system would employ just one frame of reference - there
would be no 'jumping' around of FORs.


Is it possible to develop a system of Physics from here, but quite
independently of (Einstein's) Relativity? In effect, what equations
would hold for relationships of 'forces'? Perhaps this leads to
Maxwell's electrodynamics and perhaps to this concept expressed here
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "But if the
magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field
arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however,
we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of
relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of
the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces
in the former case".

It is not that I am particularly clear about what is meant in the last
quote, but perhaps the last sentence of same may be a good basis from
which to experiment and develop equations.


Bill, Sue, etc.,

I suspect that, due to exposure to the magnetic, let's say, force, now
resolved, the conductor has a degree of charge not present prior to
the exposure - an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy.

If so, I would propose to experiment with that extra charge. That
charge could be our selected FOR. Any ideas of what is - would be -
found?
Perhaps I missed something in your opening of thread but it is my
understanding that a change in the magnetic "field" will result in a
redistribution of charge on the conductor, the rate and duration
being determined by the free space impedance.
The net charge wouldn't change; only the distribution.
Indeed, you have a worthy subject of study and I will caution
against "reverse engineering" to conform to any particular theory
whenever you have valid microscopic models. The displacement
current assumed by Maxwell is one such example where we should
probably ask more probing questions about what exactly is occuring
on a subatomic scale.
Kind regards,
Sue...


--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/

"Harry" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
SNIP

What is meant Peter is a demonstration of the POR. Regardless of what
frame we consider stationary - the frame of the magnet or the frame of
the
conductor then the forces (on the charges in the wire) are the same (as
is
required by classical mechanics) yet it traditionally (according to
Maxwell's equations) it has a different physical explanation - one
results
from the lorentz force law (the conductor is moving and contains charges
that have a velocity relative to a magnetic field) the other results
from
a
changing magnetic field creating an electric field that moves the
charges
(in this case the wire is considered stairtonary). The point is the
only
thing of relevance is their relative motion so the underlying physics
must
really be the same - this leads to the idea of the equations of EM being
Lorentz invariant ie the equations describing it take the same form in
all
frames. And indeed Einstein demonstrated with the Lorentz
transformations,
for EM, they do. But it is my understanding Poincare had already done
that - but Einstein's methods were more fundamental.

Poincare did not publish with as much detail how he did it - instead he
just
gave the results such as the relativity of simultaneity, the clock
calibration procedure, and of course the Lorentz transformations.

Bill, you pointed out the sore thumb in the above example - for what
matters
for the PoR is *not* the relative motion of magnet and wire, but the
motion
of each relative to inertial frames of reference. That confusion is at the
basis of the Clock Paradox. The relative motion of magnet and wire is only
coincidentally related to the PoR when they are both resting in inertial
frames.
I would like to read a good paper on that issue, if there is one - a quick
search now gave me http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/symm.html, but I
hope that also reviewed journal papers about this subject are available.
Anyone?

Harald


Chapeter 8. Invariance of Maxwell-Lorentz equations of
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408077
might be something of interest.
Kind regards,
Sue...

Sorry about threadlet.

"jahn" wrote in message ...

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...
(Peter Kinane) wrote in message
. com...
Proposing Physics Experimentation with Effectuationism Premises


This subject is somewhat in the context of Einstein's paper,
reproduced here
http://leiwen.tripod.com/eingra.htm

"In Newtonian physics the elementary theoretical concept on which the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is the material
point, or particle. Thus matter is considered a priori to be
discontinuous. This makes it necessary to consider the action of
material points on one another as "action at a distance." ": So, with
Eff. premises the elementary theoretical concept on which the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is that of matter
effecting through relationship of 'forces'. Thus matter is considered
a priori to be a demarcatory interactivity (somewhat discontinuous,
but yet somewhat continuous, indefinite, dynamic, relationships). This
would not give rise to the concept of "action at a distance".

Also, this system would only trade in effects - not 'the forces'
through which effects effect.

Further, the system would employ just one frame of reference - there
would be no 'jumping' around of FORs.


Is it possible to develop a system of Physics from here, but quite
independently of (Einstein's) Relativity? In effect, what equations
would hold for relationships of 'forces'? Perhaps this leads to
Maxwell's electrodynamics and perhaps to this concept expressed here
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "But if the
magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field
arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however,
we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of
relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of
the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces
in the former case".

It is not that I am particularly clear about what is meant in the last
quote, but perhaps the last sentence of same may be a good basis from
which to experiment and develop equations.


Bill, Sue, etc.,

I suspect that, due to exposure to the magnetic, let's say, force, now
resolved, the conductor has a degree of charge not present prior to
the exposure - an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy.

If so, I would propose to experiment with that extra charge. That
charge could be our selected FOR. Any ideas of what is - would be -
found?
Perhaps I missed something in your opening of thread but it is my
understanding that a change in the magnetic "field" will result in a
redistribution of charge on the conductor, the rate and duration
being determined by the free space impedance.

I may have achieved as much as I should expect from this thread -
thank you - and probably cannot go much further, however, I'll try
this:
Is there fairly solid evidence that the rate and duration is
determined by "the free space impedance"? Perhaps it is entirely
determined by the behaviour of the magnetic field- -force?

Indeed, perhaps we should go further: Considering what is already
given in the system and what we have developed, the concept of "the
free space impedance", or indeed of "free space", does not (yet)
feature, and may not ever do.

The net charge wouldn't change; only the distribution.
Indeed, you have a worthy subject of study and I will caution
against "reverse engineering" to conform to any particular theory
whenever you have valid microscopic models. The displacement
current assumed by Maxwell is one such example where we should
probably ask more probing questions about what exactly is occuring
on a subatomic scale.
Kind regards,
Sue...


--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...
Proposing Physics Experimentation with Effectuationism Premises


This subject is somewhat in the context of Einstein's paper,
reproduced here
http://leiwen.tripod.com/eingra.htm

"In Newtonian physics the elementary theoretical concept on which the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is the material
point, or particle. Thus matter is considered a priori to be
discontinuous. This makes it necessary to consider the action of
material points on one another as "action at a distance." ": So, with
Eff. premises the elementary theoretical concept on which the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is that of matter
effecting through relationship of 'forces'. Thus matter is considered
a priori to be a demarcatory interactivity (somewhat discontinuous,
but yet somewhat continuous, indefinite, dynamic, relationships). This
would not give rise to the concept of "action at a distance".

Also, this system would only trade in effects - not 'the forces'
through which effects effect.

'effects effect'?

I'll leave this point for now, if I may.



Further, the system would employ just one frame of reference - there
would be no 'jumping' around of FORs.

In other words there is preferred frame of reference and a violation of
the
POR - care to provide actual evidence rather than philosophical mumbo
jumbo?

In other words, the relational nature of value would be recognised,
one would then _select_ a FOR, and then get on with attempting to
develop a system - thereby expecting to avoid 'jumping' around of
FORs.

Not in other words Peter. If the laws of physics are the same in all
inertial frames there is nothing preventing us logically from looking at
phenomena from different frames and seeing what that tells us - see for
example the well known situation you described below. Just because you do
not like something does not mean it is not a logically valid procedure.





Is it possible to develop a system of Physics from here, but quite
independently of (Einstein's) Relativity? In effect, what equations
would hold for relationships of 'forces'? Perhaps this leads to
Maxwell's electrodynamics and perhaps to this concept expressed here
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "But if the
magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field
arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however,
we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of
relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of
the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces
in the former case".

It is not that I am particularly clear about what is meant in the last
quote, but perhaps the last sentence of same may be a good basis from
which to experiment and develop equations.

What is meant Peter is a demonstration of the POR. Regardless of what
frame we consider stationary - the frame of the magnet or the frame of
the
conductor then the forces (on the charges in the wire) are the same (as
is
required by classical mechanics) yet it traditionally (according to
Maxwell's equations) it has a different physical explanation - one
results
from the lorentz force law (the conductor is moving and contains charges
that have a velocity relative to a magnetic field) the other results
from a
changing magnetic field creating an electric field that moves the
charges
(in this case the wire is considered stairtonary).

Good; it suggests that the proposal of this thread has some weight.
Let's simply select one FOR and get on with business.

Since the context of your post so far content your usual drivel against
frame jumbling it suggests nothing of the sort.


The point is the only
thing of relevance is their relative motion so the underlying physics
must
really be the same - this leads to the idea of the equations of EM being
Lorentz invariant ie the equations describing it take the same form in
all
frames. And indeed Einstein demonstrated with the Lorentz
transformations,
for EM, they do. But it is my understanding Poincare had already done
that - but Einstein's methods were more fundamental.

Good; same as above.

Same as above for me.



Peter - the above is really fundamental to an understanding of EM. May
I
suggest you acquaint yourself with what is going on - see
http://www.cse.secs.oakland.edu/hask...Relativity.htm


So, perhaps now you can focus on selecting a FOR, in accordance with
the proposal of the thread.

Your of refernece where 'effects effect'


Re "In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to
which in itself there is no corresponding energy []": For now, when I
said I am not particularly clear about what is meant here I
principally had in mind the meaning of "to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy"?

The energy to move the electrons comes from the electric field for the
stationary conductor - or do you wish to deny faradays law?

Bill




--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/