On Jul 6, 2:00*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jul 6, 12:20*am, Keith Dysart wrote:

Is there a problem providing an answer?

I don't know how to measure the exact answer. How many photons does it
take to cause a measurable EM field at one cycle per two years? If the
EM field is too low to measure, how do you know it is there at all?
Blind faith in a math model?

beware cecil... remember, there are electric fields, and there are
magnetic fields, there is NOT an Electro-Magnetic 'Field'! there are
Electro-Magnetic WAVES but NOT a 'Field'! he is trying to draw you
in! remember DC is forever, any direct current creates a Magnetic
FIELD... and any net charge imbalance would create an Electric FIELD
(though DC does not require a charge imbalance, only a moving charge
at a constant velocity). But in any case if it is a stream of charged
particles moving at constant velocity forever they create an Electric
FIELD... BUT there is no Electro-Magnetic WAVE produced by those
static fields.

note, if you google 'electromagnetic field' you will indeed find may
misuses of the term, including wikipedia that inappropriately
abreviates it EMF, which we all know means Electro-Motive Force. The
term 'electromagnetic fields', little f, and plural, is commonly used
to refer to collections of electric and magnetic fields. This is seen
quite often when talking about relativistic transformations where the
electric and magnetic fields are linked by the frame transformation.