If a spinning charge moves relative to another, the induced electrical force
will be orthonormal; the induced magnetic force (Lorentz force) will be
orthogonal.

If a spinning mass moves relative to another the induced graviatational
force will be orthonormal, the induced inertial force (precession) will be
orthogonal.

Gravity and charge are static effects.
Inertia and Magnetisim are motional effects.

No "tick faries" or time required. How else could it be?
----------
Sue...

"jahn" wrote in message ...
If a spinning charge moves relative to another, the induced electrical force
will be orthonormal; the induced magnetic force (Lorentz force) will be
orthogonal.

If a spinning mass moves relative to another the induced graviatational
force will be orthonormal, the induced inertial force (precession) will be
orthogonal.

Hey Dennis McCarthy, shouldn't you first find out what "orthonormal"
actually means before you start a rant about an "orthonormal force"?

Welcome again:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...thonormal.html

Dirk Vdm



Gravity and charge are static effects.
Inertia and Magnetisim are motional effects.

No "tick faries" or time required. How else could it be?
----------
Sue...

jahn wrote:
If a spinning charge moves relative to another, the induced electrical force
will be orthonormal; the induced magnetic force (Lorentz force) will be
orthogonal.

Perhaps you should use words you understand. The word "orthonormal"
clearly does not apply here, and while "orthogonal" might apply, it is a
relationsip between vectors, not a property of a single vector as you
used it above.

Let me guess what you are trying to say:

If a spinning charge moves relative to another, the induced electrical
force will be parallel to the line between them[#]; the induced
magnetic force will be perpendicular to their relative velocity
3-vector[#].

[#] These statements need more qualifications to be true.
Note also that the Lorentz force includes both electric
and magnetic forces.


Your words are ambiguous (does "another" mean "another [non-spinning]
charge" or "another spinning charge"?); if I assume that both charges
are spinning, then you forgot the force due to their magnetic moments.


If a spinning mass moves relative to another the induced graviatational
force will be orthonormal, the induced inertial force (precession) will be
orthogonal.

This has all the problems of your first paragraph, plus the ambiguity in
the phrase "inertial force". For instance, "centrifugal force" and
"Coriolis force" are "inertial forces", and in GR "gravitational force"
is also "inertial"; but you seem to mean something else.


Gravity and charge are static effects.
Inertia and Magnetisim are motional effects.

Hmmm. You are clumping incommensurate concepts together, and AFAICT you
end up with meaningless nonsense. In general, generalizations such as
you attempt are usually either meaningless, wrong, or useless.

For instance, gravity can be quite dynamic, and inertia still applies to
an object at rest (just kick a bowling ball at rest on the floor and
feel the effect of its inertia on your toe).


Tom Roberts

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
om...
jahn wrote:
If a spinning charge moves relative to another, the induced electrical
force
will be orthonormal; the induced magnetic force (Lorentz force) will be
orthogonal.

Perhaps you should use words you understand. The word "orthonormal"
clearly does not apply here, and while "orthogonal" might apply, it is a
relationsip between vectors, not a property of a single vector as you
used it above.

Let me guess what you are trying to say:

If a spinning charge moves relative to another, the induced electrical
force will be parallel to the line between them[#]; the induced
magnetic force will be perpendicular to their relative velocity
3-vector[#].

[#] These statements need more qualifications to be true.
Note also that the Lorentz force includes both electric
and magnetic forces.


Your words are ambiguous (does "another" mean "another [non-spinning]
charge" or "another spinning charge"?); if I assume that both charges
are spinning, then you forgot the force due to their magnetic moments.


If a spinning mass moves relative to another the induced graviatational
force will be orthonormal, the induced inertial force (precession) will
be
orthogonal.

This has all the problems of your first paragraph, plus the ambiguity in
the phrase "inertial force". For instance, "centrifugal force" and
"Coriolis force" are "inertial forces", and in GR "gravitational force"
is also "inertial"; but you seem to mean something else.

I DO! Inertia is in no way equivalent to gravity. I was not refering
to Einstein's theory nor assuming it's precepts.


Gravity and charge are static effects.
Inertia and Magnetisim are motional effects.

Hmmm. You are clumping incommensurate concepts together, and AFAICT you
end up with meaningless nonsense. In general, generalizations such as
you attempt are usually either meaningless, wrong, or useless.

For instance, gravity can be quite dynamic,
Oh? Just what is moving when a Cavendish balance torques
it's fiber?
and inertia still applies to
an object at rest (just kick a bowling ball at rest on the floor and
feel the effect of its inertia on your toe).


Tom Roberts
Indeed Tom,
Co-linear might have been a clearer choice tho orthonormal is more correct
because the resultant motion is helical NOT linear. If you expect electrons
to move like a bowling ball in a magnetic field then your confusion is not
surprising.
Kind regards,
Sue...

"jahn" wrote in message ...

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
om...
jahn wrote:
If a spinning charge moves relative to another, the induced electrical
force
will be orthonormal; the induced magnetic force (Lorentz force) will be
orthogonal.

Perhaps you should use words you understand. The word "orthonormal"
clearly does not apply here, and while "orthogonal" might apply, it is a
relationsip between vectors, not a property of a single vector as you
used it above.

[snip]

Indeed Tom,
Co-linear might have been a clearer choice tho orthonormal is more correct
because the resultant motion is helical NOT linear.

Have you tried a dictionary, Dennis?

Dirk Vdm

jahn wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
om...
For instance, gravity can be quite dynamic,

Oh? Just what is moving when a Cavendish balance torques
it's fiber?

I said "can be", not "is always". Trying to do physics requires you to
read carefully.

Just consider gravitational waves. Or on a more mundane level, ocean
tides on earth.


Co-linear might have been a clearer choice tho orthonormal is more correct

Please, go look up "orthonormal" -- your usage is incommensurate with
its meaning.


Tom Roberts

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
: jahn wrote:
: "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
: om...
: For instance, gravity can be quite dynamic,
:
: Oh? Just what is moving when a Cavendish balance torques
: it's fiber?
:
: I said "can be", not "is always". Trying to do physics requires you
to
: read carefully.

Yeah... read carefully:

½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

The ray has returned to (0,0,0)
That is not the origin of the moving frame.
That is the origin of the stationary frame.
The light moved at c in the stationary frame, not at c-v, c+v.
Roberts is not a physicist, he doesn't read carefully.
Androcles.

"Androcles" skrev i melding . ..

Yeah... read carefully:

Einstein:
"We first define tau as a function of x', y, z, and t."

½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

The ray has returned to (0,0,0)

Indeed.
That is to x' = 0, y = 0, z = 0.

That is not the origin of the moving frame.

Of course it is. x' = x - v*t2 = 0.
x = v*t2, obviously where the origo of k is at t = t2.

Androcles doesn't read carefully.

Paul