So you think you know EM? Explain this!

[Zetetic Zen]

1. What’s the difference between the convergent counter-spatial centripetal charge of dielectricity and the divergent spatial polarization and centrifugal discharge of magnetic radiation, and how does that inter-correlate with dielectric voidance and dielectric counter-voidance; AKA magnetic vectorization?

2. Moreover, in regards to this how does one define a ‘Field’ necessarily? And by that i mean, can you give me the absolute scientific denotation of the quantification of a field in principle?

3. Furthermore, can you explain what a Bloch wall is without merely describing it’s attributes, and tell me why it has no locus and thus there is no spatial flux at the center of any magnet?

Thanks in advance.

~Zen

 

Spoiler

P.S - Hint: Answer can not be found among Maxweillian field equations, Lenz law or Eddy currents.

 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Zetetic Zen said:

1. What’s the difference between the convergent counter-spatial centripetal charge of dielectricity and the divergent spatial polarization and centrifugal discharge of magnetic radiation, and how does that inter-correlate with dielectric voidance and dielectric counter-voidance; AKA magnetic vectorization?

You've used different buzzwords?

Seriously, if you want to discuss physics, you have to use physics terminology that's in common use, in the way that it's used by physicists.

[Zetetic Zen]

You could just say "No i can't answer this, i don't understand your terminology" and then ask for clarification of any terms. I'm happy to provide that and I can assure you there are all terms you can find in a physics dictionary and ones that aren't really speak for themselves and couldn't mean anything other than what they sound. Question 1 is a little complex and unorthodox, i get that, why don't you give it a skip and try questions 2 and 3. =)

[Lord Antares]

23 minutes ago, Zetetic Zen said:

 Question 1 is a little complex and unorthodox, i get that, why don't you give it a skip and try questions 2 and 3. =)

Swansont is an actual physicist and has been for a long time. I'm sure he can handle your questions if you phrase them correctly.

[Area54]

12 minutes ago, Zetetic Zen said:

You could just say "No i can't answer this, i don't understand your terminology" and then ask for clarification of any terms. I'm happy to provide that and I can assure you there are all terms you can find in a physics dictionary and ones that aren't really speak for themselves and couldn't mean anything other than what they sound. Question 1 is a little complex and unorthodox, i get that, why don't you give it a skip and try questions 2 and 3. =)

Well, it is true that there were no words in your post that cannotbe found in a dictionary, the combination of some of those words is unusual in physics. Consider, as an example, your phrase " convergent counter-spatial centripetal charge".

If this were a common, or even occassional physics phrase, then we might expect to find some examples on Google Scholar. But there are none. What about dropping one word: "counter-spatial centripetal charge"? No luck. Finally, when we get down to "centripetal charge" Google scholar returns three hits. That's 3 hits.

In contrast, if we choose a phrase like centripetal acceleration we get 18,500 hits. That's eighteen thousand five hundred.

If physicists are not using such phrases and you are discussing physics, perhaps you should try a change of terminology.

If you think it is sufficient to let other terms "speak for themselves" then you haven't been paying attention to the way science has been reported for the last century or two.

I thought I might try and throw you a life-line, so I looked for your phrase on DuckDuckGo. Success! Four, that's 4, hits! The trouble is they were all made by you. You might want to take the advice of swansont, a practicing physicist - use the language of the science correctly.

[Strange]

But... that is just linguistic trickery to avoid answering the question. After all, magnetodielectric subterranean trans-euclidean anapraxic field hypergeometry tells us all we need to know.

[Zetetic Zen]

Area 54, No need to change terminology, it is what it is and i can clarify terms if need be. The point is they do actually denote real phenomena. They may not be used in the very specific manner and order that i've written them in (hence your very scientific method of google searching came up with naught). If you know what these terms mean individually then you can easily put together what they refer to when used in the way i've presented them. They are correctly placed and used in perfect context. I'm sorry but you won't be finding answers to these questions in contemporary academia, it's fairly new at least in regards to the contemporary scientific community and hasn't been entirely assimilated into academia yet, not as a whole, but the knowledge does exist, in parts and pieces, among plenty of sources you would easily recognize such as Nikola Tesla for one example. I think the reason the order these terms have been applied perplexes some of us is because they represent a unified model and understanding of EM somewhat contradictory to what is currently accepted. Take note however when i do say that there is really nothing 'new' about it, the issue is popularity i guess.

Question1 is really an exercise in due diligence, i expect nobody here to instantly grasp what is being asked much less be able to answer it. But if you hadn't guessed already it simply refers to the properties of electromagnetism on a most fundamental level. There is a very important reason i have not used other terms where i could have, such as 'electron'. Because the question is rooted within a not well known model and framework, they simply do not teach EM this way in mainstream education. It's a little bit fringe i admit, but not for long i promise you.

So, perhaps you'd like to present what you DID find, and attempt to piece together what it being asked. With pedantics aside, it's very simple really.

Until then, why not have a crack at the other two questions instead of criticizing me for a lack of scientific lexicon when perhaps that error is the burden of the reader, not the author.

If you're all still scratching your noggins after i see some effort, i'd be happy to simplify my sentence structure, and 'water it down' as it were, but i expected better than that. Again, i'm also happy to clarify any terms that are being struggled with, but i really feel that WYSIWYG and that shouldn't be necessary for the intellectualism i expect to find here from this lovely forum.

Thanks for your time so far. Good luck cracking this riddle.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Zetetic Zen said:

Until then, why not have a crack at the other two questions instead of criticizing me for a lack of scientific lexicon when perhaps that error is the burden of the reader, not the author.

I don't think you can expect the average reader, especially not those with some basic education in science, to be familiar with the terminology you have invented in your made-up "theory". 

It is up to you to explain these concepts you have invented (or "discovered"); it is not up to others to try and work out what you are talking about. You clearly have plenty of time on your hands, so there is no reason for you to avoid explanations instead of asking silly questions.

[Area54]

5 minutes ago, Zetetic Zen said:

So, perhaps you'd like to present what you DID find, and attempt to piece together what it being asked. With pedantics aside, it's very simple really.

What I did find looked remarkably like word salad. I noted, in particular, the absence of any maths. These two features - word salad, no maths - are diagnostic for cranks. If you don't wish readers to suspect you are crank, don't post like one.

If there is something of substance there it is not my responsibility to "piece it together". It is your responsibility to write as clearly as possible, using conventional terms as far as possible and carefully explaining any new terms, or old terms that are used in a new way. Of course, if you don't want your ideas to be treated seriously you could continue as before.

Until then, why not have a crack at the other two questions instead of criticizing me for a lack of scientific lexicon when perhaps that error is the burden of the reader, not the author.

If I want to indulge in word play I'll do the Telegraph crossword.

If you're all still scratching your noggins after i see some effort, i'd be happy to simplify my sentence structure, and 'water it down' as it were, but i expected better than that. Again, i'm also happy to clarify any terms that are being struggled with, but i really feel that WYSIWYG and that shouldn't be necessary for the intellectualism i expect to find here from this lovely forum.

I don't want it watered down. I want it 'teched up'. That means using clearly defined terms and coming to the point, instead of playing riddles - and coming to the point would involve some relevant maths.

[Lord Antares]

31 minutes ago, Zetetic Zen said:

/cut

You sound like a complete tool.

31 minutes ago, Zetetic Zen said:

I'm sorry but you won't be finding answers to these questions in contemporary academia, it's fairly new at least in regards to the contemporary scientific community and hasn't been entirely assimilated into academia yet, not as a whole, but the knowledge does exist, in parts and pieces,

So, in another words, it's unscientific garbage you thought up on a whim.

You're another one of those ''I don't need any academic knowledge because something something Nikola Tesla out of the box genius I can see beyond the rules'' crackpot. Have fun proving whatever you think you're conjuring up here.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Lord Antares

[Zetetic Zen]

Strange, i said numerous time i'm happy to clarify didn't i? Nobody has asked me a question yet, only assumed that i'm talking out my arse and inventing language. I'm not avoiding anything, thank you very much. Nobody is forcing you to play my game, if you can't work it out simply move along, or as i've suggested more than once, tackle the other questions. You can't tell me that the other 2 aren't very direct questions. You all know what a Bloch wall is right? It's funny to me you think i'm avoiding explainations, as i said question 1 is more of an exercise, to see if anybody knows what i'm talking about, and if they did the answer would be very simple. The other 2 questions are much more sincere and curious. Very interested to see what the current mainstream consensus is on those matters.

Stop getting hung up on the parts you don't understand and attacking me for something you should probably ALL know by now, and maybe be grateful i am bringing it to you in this fun and exciting puzzle.  What is the difference between the two conjugate phenomena and how to they play a part in our understanding of electromagnetism? "After all, magnetodielectric subterranean trans-euclidean anapraxic field hypergeometry tells us all we need to know. "

Seems like you have a head start on the others. My phrasing is fine, perhaps the physicists here have outdated lexicons, and if so, let's update them together.

[John Cuthber]

3 minutes ago, Zetetic Zen said:

Strange, i said numerous time i'm happy to clarify didn't i?

If you have had to say it more than once, it's clear that you should, indeed, clarify your post.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Zetetic Zen said:

 Nobody has asked me a question yet, 

 

What makes you think you're right?

[Area54]

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

If you have had to say it more than once, it's clear that you should, indeed, clarify your post.

Nailed it.

Edit: So, did Dimreepr

Edited October 9, 2017 by Area54

[Zetetic Zen]

I repeat, there is nothing wrong with my terminology. Of course you'd berate me for wordplay and inventing pseudoscience instead of considering that you may be ignorant of something. How humble of you. It sounds like you want me to answer my own questions. Well what would be the point in that?

If i 'tech up' the first question as you propose, using terms you are familiar with, the question wouldn't mean the same thing, it is what it is, break it up into parts, you know what these things mean you've probably just never thought to arrange them that way because you wouldn't know how they describe the attributes of the two conjugate phenomena. As i said, it's contradictory to conventional theories of atomism and relativism and more akin to grand unified field mechanics. If you don't want to investigate and try to find an answer, don't bother, but don't criticize me for correct and concise terminology because you don't know what it refers to.

I love how you all are focusing on pedantics and trying to shift the burden of explanation to the questioner whilst completely ignoring my 2 legitimate questions i've prompted you to answer time and time again.
Hope i'm not rattling too many egos here. It's OK not to know something, let's not cry about it or behave like butthurt know-it-alls. There's something here that's worth looking at in my opinion. Answer the questions, or don't, but let's not resort to ad hominems and false accusations. I've invented nothing here, it's merely presented from an already unified understanding of individual things you'd all be very familiar with initially. Please don't make me repeat myself yet again. I've said all that needs to be said. Thanks =)

Addendum:
Seeing as i'm now unable to reply to this thread, for whatever reason, i'll edit my last point here and leave it at that.

" If you have had to say it more than once, it's clear that you should, indeed, clarify your post." - Oh sure, because when the village idiot turns up at a Stephen Hawking lecture and says "I don't get what you mean, you have to clarify" it's because Hawking lacks eloquence and clarity in his language. Nothing at all to do with the listener's nescience. lol That quasi-axiomic statement is a farce my friend,  sorry.  

"What does X mean in your understanding?" - Is that really so difficult? Haha, you guys are a hoot!

Sooo, just to be clear.

1. Nobody understands this terminology and consider the question moot by virtue of it's "made-up" and non-scientific nature.
2. Nobody here is prepared to denote what a field is in principle.
3. Nobody here knows what a Bloch wall is denotatively, and can explain why it has no locus.

That's great guys, that's all i needed to hear. Thanks for all your input.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Zetetic Zen
Reply feature missing.

[Area54]

No one is especially interested in your riddles. If you have something as genuinely novel and interesting as you claim then lay it out for us. Contrary to your assertion your terminology obfuscates rather than clarifies. If you don't wish to accept that and don't wish to have your ideas considered then that is your choice.

5 minutes ago, Zetetic Zen said:

Hope i'm not rattling too many egos here.

As far as I can see there is only one in this thread.

[studiot]

Please explain whast you mean by the expression

 

Quote

centrifugal magnetic radiation

 

[Strange]

40 minutes ago, Zetetic Zen said:

Strange, i said numerous time i'm happy to clarify didn't i? 

Go on then. No one is stopping you.

40 minutes ago, Zetetic Zen said:

Nobody is forcing you to play my game,

Reported for trolling

[Mordred]

13 hours ago, Zetetic Zen said:

1. What’s the difference between the convergent counter-spatial centripetal charge of dielectricity and the divergent spatial polarization and centrifugal discharge of magnetic radiation, and how does that inter-correlate with dielectric voidance and dielectric counter-voidance; AKA magnetic vectorization?

2. Moreover, in regards to this how does one define a ‘Field’ necessarily? And by that i mean, can you give me the absolute scientific denotation of the quantification of a field in principle?

3. Furthermore, can you explain what a Bloch wall is without merely describing it’s attributes

 

 

Alright lets see if you know what you are talking about.

How can you have a dielectric flow of charges in one direction as described by the first line ? dielectric charge flows both ways depending on which charge polarity you are describing.

"1. What’s the difference between the convergent counter-spatial centripetal charge of dielectricity"

Do you even understand the terminology you are using. Counter spatial is meaningless in physics. Please provide a professional  peer review of the mathematical definition or are you perhaps referring the handedness and helicity. ie more precisely in terms of dipole moments?

Edited October 9, 2017 by Mordred

[beecee]

13 hours ago, Zetetic Zen said:

1. What’s the difference between the convergent counter-spatial centripetal charge of dielectricity and the divergent spatial polarization and centrifugal discharge of magnetic radiation, and how does that inter-correlate with dielectric voidance and dielectric counter-voidance; AKA magnetic vectorization?

2. Moreover, in regards to this how does one define a ‘Field’ necessarily? And by that i mean, can you give me the absolute scientific denotation of the quantification of a field in principle?

3. Furthermore, can you explain what a Bloch wall is without merely describing it’s attributes, and tell me why it has no locus and thus there is no spatial flux at the center of any magnet?

Thanks in advance.

~Zen

I'll answer your question: I havn't a bloody clue, OK? Now let me add some further comments....when we (the forum) suddenly has a newbie popping in asking a question with obviously a giant ego to feed, and when that newbie when requested for clarification of his questions by not one, but many reputable members, who are known as credentialed authorities in the discipline being discussed, answers with total arrogance and dismissal of those clarifications and requests, then in my mind that newbie needs to take a backward step, have a disprin, and a good lay down and start thinking as to why so many knowledgable members are making there requests. Otherwise other members observing such egotistical arrogant behavour from that newbie, will just dismiss him as another f$%#^&$# troll that science forums such as this seem to attract.

I hope that helps.

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, Zetetic Zen said:

I repeat, there is nothing wrong with my terminology.

And I repeat that there is.

Nobody understands it.

[Mordred]

Nor his claims that even ignoring the poor terminology, for dielectric properties simply study superconductivity under Maxwell. 

[studiot]

In all fairness, the OP has reached his newcomer  temporary post limit and stated that he cannot answer at the moment. (We have seen this before).

He also said (several times) that he would answer questions about his wording and hypothesis

My only other post here was to take him at his word and ask a simple polite question about one particular aspect of this.

I await the response with interest, when he is allowed to post this response.

[Mordred]

Agreed, keep forgetting about post limits for newcomers. Thanks for the reminder.

[koti]

As poisonously amusing as this is, why is this thread being let on to this point? It should be cut off at the very first sign of cracpottery which is obviously tne original post.