Re: Magnets

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Wall Richard Wayne by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com>

Paul,

A real impossibility to merely exchange words as in the case you suggest. 
As you well know there are no known magnetic monopoles.  There are always
two magnetic poles and magnetic lines of force always travel from one pole
and insert on the other opposite pole.  For the sake of simplicity I use
the antiquated term magnetic "pole".  Not so, with charge.  A charge may be
a monopole either positive or negative and it's lines of force are not
required to insert on an opposite charge and in fact they may travel to
infinity.  True there may be positive and negative charges and even
dipoles, but their lines of force aren't required to insert on an opposite
charge.  More so yet, magnetic and charge fields are geometrically oriented
orthogonally at right angles.  So you can't simply exchange words electric
and magnetic and replace the magnetic loop with an electric dipole.

Charge is the most elementary of all "particles" and is of primary
importance to all things physical.  Magnetism, as important as it may be,
arises secondarily to charge movement regardless of its platform of
reference.

RWW


> Terry wrote:
> > "Static" electric charges have no magnetic field.
> 
> Exchange the words electric and magnetic and replace the
> magnetic loop with an electric dipole.  Then the above 
> comments still apply.  I'm afraid 'static' is only a relative
> term, for both motion and field.  To make sense of all of this
> you have to dig beneath the observer-dependent appearance
> of the field and deal directly with the entity.  When you do so,
> you find that the EM field, and 'charge' itself, are both inevitable
> consequences (and their physics determined by) certain simple
> geometric symmetries of nature.
> --
> Paul Nicholson


--- Richard Wayne Wall
--- rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com