sci.physics.electromag

"Bill Miller" wrote in message
news:YXgzj.705138$kj1.603128@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "FrediFizzx" wrote in message
> news:633l72F25jq7pU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Bill Miller" wrote in message
>> news:MfXyj.699528$kj1.80670@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>
>>> "Eric Gisse" wrote in message
>>> news:00568aeb-e6ef-4040-a6a3-ac268610294c@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>> The only thing being demonstrated is ignorance. Nothing Jefimenko
>>>> says
>>>> can undo basic observation.
>>>
>>> OK... please prove your staement. In particular, I'd like to know:
>>>
>>> 1. What part of Jefimenko's "Causality" is in error, and how do you
>>> demonstrate that?
>>>
>>> 2. What "basic observation" can you cite that proves that, for
>>> instance, an E field CAUSES an H field?
>>
>> The fact that electro-magnets work.


> An electromagnet works because electrons are in motion; not because
> any causal relationship exists between an electric field and a
> magnetic field.
>
> Such relationship cannot be causal because E fields and H fields exist
> simultaneously. The basic concept of causality is that A must precede
> B in order for A to cause B.

Don't you think the E field from the electrons in motion help to make
the B field of the electro-magnet? Do you think the magnetic field of
the electrons in motion are enough to make the total mag field of the
electro-magnet?

> If you have not done so, I highly recommend you get (and carefully
> read) Jefimenk's "Causality, Electromagnetic Induction and
> Gravitation." If, after doing so, you still think that E causes H and
> vice-versa, then I think that a very spirited discussion will likely
> ensue.

Just ordered it as it is cheap enough.

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations