Yes.
Of course!
Please tell me the magnetic force on the
stationary lattice?
Straw man. I've clearly stated already that the force on the lattice is that of the electrons and
E force. The H force acts on the electrons which are moving and not stationary. In attempting to make me look bad, you are introducing straw men.
Really? What about Newton's 3rd law?
I already acknowledged that just as the electrons attract the lattice, so does the lattice attract the electrons. You pulled 1 sentence
out of context with the intent of making me look bad.
Of course. I've been saying that all along.
That's sounds very close to what I've been saying all along, but you miss the punch line. Again I ask: What force directly acts on the positive lattice?
Already been acknowledged as the E force. But my point was that you cannot simply declare E as the only entity responsible. They both are involved, E & H. I can respond with "What force acts on the electrons holding them in place so as to make lattice attraction possible?" When placed in close proximity, a ping pong ball and a bowling ball, each with 1 uC of charge will mutually attract (opposite polarity) or repel (like). If the pp ball remains stationary or moves relatively little vs. the bowling ball which moves a greater distance, what is going on?
Answer - there is another force, quite significant, acting on the pp ball, holding it in its position.
Of course. But that force does not directly act on the positive lattice.
They are equally strong. And only one
directly acts on the lattice.
As far as I can see, this is the first time you've been exposed to the issue, so I can't imagine why you think others have "laid it to rest". Please cite a learned researcher who claims that the statement made by Griffiths in his
introductory E&M book is false.
I can name countless that affirm the right hand rule. Every text. I never said Griffiths was wrong. Since page 1 of this thread, I have fully acknowledged the E force. I never took issue with Griffiths. But you and others keep putting forth isolated facts emphasizing the role of E while neglecting all facts pointing to H as having great influence. When I force the issue, you acknowledge the role of H, but you don't bring it up on your own. You are obsessed with presenting only 1 side of the issue.
You then break up my post into fragments, isolating single sentences, then attacking the fragments by asking questions I've already answered. You are clearly here to "win". I only want to point out that there are numerous things going on here. Then you pit me against Griffith, with whom I have no beef.
Because it works just fine. No need to go into the nitty gritty details all the time--which gives you the same answer of course, only with more effort. (That was Vanadium's point, back in post #13.)
