So you think you know EM? Explain this!

[Area54]

39 minutes ago, koti said:

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.

While you may be correct, I believe it would be precipitate. Granted the OP is unclear (I described it as word salad) amd ZZ's attitude appears uncooperative, even arrogant. However, if ZZ is largely self-educated he may have found it necessary to develop his own terminology to describe his ideas. He would, naturally, be protective of both his terms and his ideas, and frustrated at our focus on the former. I think he should be afforded the opportunity to answer the questions put to him thus far, to define his terminology and to present his ideas to the forum properly.

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Zetetic Zen said:

Nobody is forcing you to play my game, if you can't work it out simply move along

!

Moderator Note

This isn't your game room. If you have some hypothesis, post it, and follow the guidelines for posting in speculations. Otherwise, I will be closing this.

IOW, you play by our rules, not yours, or you don't play. (and don't waste what goodwill you have remaining complaining about how unfair this is, or other tangential nonsense)

 

[Zetetic Zen]

Stu, thank you for asking for clarification, i'm happy to respond. I'll be ignoring much of the ad hominem slander from other commenters however as they aren't worth my time.
There are 2 things going on inside a permanent magnet. A centripetal charge and a centrifugal discharge. When i ask what the difference is, i am merely seeing if anybody knows the distinction between these two field modalities. We're talking about EM here, so it's field theory. I feel like i'm asking what's the difference between A and B, to someone who never learned the alphabet. Nobody can differentiate between something they don't yet understand. Maybe i have overestimated the abilities here. In any case, by stringing these words together i've given you a much more concise idea of what they are. If anything the answer was in the question. If i say what's the difference between cold ice and hot fire, you'd say one is hot and one is cold, not instead criticize the language with pedantics and avoiding the question by claiming there's no such thing as hot ice or cold fire. Obviously, they are oxymorons. I was looking for somebody to tell me, but i guess i'll have to answer my own question, if not just to move it out of the way so i can get some kind of response to my other questions.

The centripetal aspect of a magnet is a dielectric charge, it is convergent, and counter-spatial acceleration (towards inertia). It's generative. This is what occurs when 2 magnets of opposing polarity accelerate towards each other for example, and what a layman may call 'magnetic attraction', but this isn't entirely accurate in my opinion, it's more akin to electrostatics. It is increasing acceleration & inertia.

Conversely, the centrifugal aspect is magnetic discharge spatial, divergent, it displaces, it is centrifugal and radiative. This is polarization, the creation of space or 'magnetic vectorization' to put it another way. Increasing Force & Motion. The difference is night and day lol. Ever heard of yin and yang? These are dualistic and conjugate modalities. Light and sound, if you want a really base analogy. That's all that is happening in nature more or less. Force & Motion VS Inertia & Acceleration.

Faraday called magnetism the "Dielectric Field". Think about that. Eric Dollard once said if you don't understand counter-space you will never understand electricity. He's the only man to have replicated Tesla's most profound experiments, and is very much worth listening to on this subject. Counter-space is just unmanifest and unmodulated inertia. Electricity is actually the multiplicative by product of magnetism and dielectricity. There's good material out there on this, and it's not that contemporary even but rather just a unification of understanding compromising of all our history's greatest electrical engineers. N Tesla, CP Steinmetz, M Faraday, O Heaviside, JC Maxwell and W Russel to name just a few key players. Even M Planck to a point. Essentially everybody we have to thank for the world's electrical grids and the very communications we are even having right now. Sadly, physics seems to drift further and further away in their quantum insanity  from this tangible natural science of electricity. But i digress.

Anyway, the point is every magnet has a centripetal center and a centrifugal edge. It is NOT 'all magnetism' or all simply the same thing, there are field dynamics at play with EM, it's all pressure meditation. This is why ferrous objects (under magnetic induction) always go to the maximum throw of magnetic divergence, the centrifugal edge of a magnet. Whereas another magnet would find itself in the center seeking coherency and field incommensurability.

This is also why if you place a gyroscope with an iron flywheel directly over the center of one face and pole of a giant disc magnet for example, it'll keep spinning unhindered, but move the edge of the flywheel to the outside edge of the magnet and you'll get immediate magnetic clutching from the centrifugal magnetic radiation. (discharge/divergent/spatial etc.) This is in light of the fact you'll get a practically identical readings in Gaussian flux from either of these two areas, so a Guass meter tells you nothing about the difference between the centrifugal divergent and centripetal convergent aspects of a coherent and binding magnetic/electromagnetic system, such as the field of a neodymium iron boron. This has nothing to do with lenz law, and Maxwellian field equations won't help you with this distinction either.

I mean i really don't want to go too much in depth about it, i wasn't planning on giving a lesson and was just wondering if anybody else was aware. But the fact you consider my language un-scientific is extremely concerning to me. These are very simple phenomena, and you know them all well, just probably not in this particular context. If you couldn't understand the language of the first question, much less attempt to answer it, then i see now why everybody is pretending questions 2 and 3 don't exist, despite me repeatedly asking for focus on those particulars.

Maybe you guys don't know this stuff about magnets yet and that's fine. It's not hugely present in contemporary academia and is somewhat overshadowed by much more popular nonsense. However, the experiments are simple, inexpensive and easy to perform. It is not speculation or conjecture, it is empirical observation. Don't take my word for it. One of the reasons i know this to be true is because i have seen it, i have a device that allows me to see the entire geometry of a field in 3D holographic depth and real time through the medium of light. This is not like traditional experiments with iron sand or ferro-fluid that only give you half the picture because they can't show you the dielectric aspect of a field but only the effect a field has on ferrous particles. The golden section phi ratio torus and double hyperbola geometry is the underlying fractal of the cosmos. I contend that from understanding a simplex magnet, and how magnetism really works it consequently leads to revelations on how our entire (electric/holographic) universe works in much the same way. 

If i had the time, i'd be more than happy to explain it all in greater detail, show you the data, the math, the experiments and 'present a thesis' but that wasn't my intention here. Maybe i will if enough humble people with an open mind express some interest, feel free to PM me for that. It's more of the matter that i wanted to see if anyone else had experienced these observations and come to the same conclusions, but clearly nobody knows what i'm talking about and would much rather just dismiss and attack a thesis, than actually answer simple questions. The best answer i've gotten so far was "I don't know" and that seems to be the best i can expect from here . Why you all are begging me for my theories (so i answer my own questions which you can then scrutinize, instead of presenting your own theories/answers) is hilarious to me. I honestly didn't think these simple questions would be that confusing. The terms speak for themselves, even in the compounding manner i've put them, and if anything that only clarifies them further to present them so synonymously. I was helping you, not making things more obscure or diluted. And, i thought the chart i provided above was more than generous in establishing my viewpoint and offering you the opportunity to comprehend these rudiments.

Now, regardless of whether you agree with me on these notions or not... can we shift the focus to questions 2 and 3 please? Scientifically denote to me a field in principle, as well as a Bloch wall, and explain why the latter has no locus. Thank you

If you can't, don't sweat it, don't be offended, and don't presume this automatically equates me to be a crackpot nutjob merely because google yields you no results.

Question 4. When you break a ring magnet in half it won't come back together the same way, but it will if you flip one half the other way around, and what we see appear (under magnetic viewing film) after this is a white line between the breakage point that was not there before. It seems to travel through 'space' and connect each end of the break like invisible goo completing a 'circuit' if you will. What is this line, what is it doing, why is it there now and wasn't there before the magnet broke?

Come on guys, your physicists, and magnets are in everything these days, all of our amazing technology we mass reproduce every day, so we must know how these fundamental forces of mother nature work in principle, right? My questions are very direct and should be easy to answer. Of course i have my own theories, with the hindsight of experimentation but that's irrelevant. I want you to tell me what you think is going on. And perhaps if you would so indulge and humor me in such a discourse, you will eventually evoke and unravel a thesis out of me. But not before.

In closing i'd like to present some wise words that are more than relevant. I hope they inspire someone.

“The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane. Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

The history of science shows that theories are perishable. With every new truth that is revealed we get a better understanding of Nature and our conceptions and views are modified.  There is no conflict between the ideal of religion and the ideal of science, but science is opposed to theological dogmas because science is founded on fact. To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end. The human being is no exception to the natural order. Man, like the universe, is a machine.

Einstein’s relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king… its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.   The scientific man does not aim at an immediate result. He does not expect that his advanced ideas will be readily taken up. His work is like that of the planter – for the future. His duty is to lay the foundation for those who are to come, and point the way. 

The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence. If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” – N. Tesla

“The notion exists that the electro-motive force, E.M.F. in volts, is established by “cutting” lines of magnetic induction via a so called electric conductor. This “cutting” is then said to impel the motions of so-called electrons within the  conducting material. It is however that a perfect conductor cannot “cut” through lines of induction, or flux lines, Phi. Heaviside points out that the perfect conductor is a perfect obstructer and magnetic induction cannot gain entry into the so-called conducting material. So where is the current, how then does an E.M.F. come about? Now enters the complication; it can be inferred that an electrical generator that is wound with a perfect conducting material cannot produce an E.M.F. No lines of  flux can be cut and the Ether gets wound up in a knot. Heaviside remarks that the practitioners of his day “do a good deal of churning up the Ether in their dynamos”. – E. Dollard

Edited October 15, 2017 by Zetetic Zen

[Mordred]

You don't measure the talent of a forum by being scattering a few key terms into a post.

For example you claimed Maxwell theory cannot describe the above, yet the entire field of superconductors does well in describing the above. Is there perhaps something wrong with those treatments that you disagree with or what is it that you find doesn't work about them to claim they cannot describe Block?

 

where is your mathematical proof that Maxwell cannot describe the relations your after in this post?

Your images are utterly useless, this is physics. Not drawing class.... You imply requiring an ether in them yet have posted zero zip on mathematics. So don't presume to lecture us.

here is an example

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~dhv/pubs/local_copy/mt_fdw.pdf

 

isn't it funny that there is literally 100's of examples of using Maxwell to model Bloch domain walls and its part of the MIT lessons?

yet you come here with extremely poor terminology on your OP, and don't address that issue itself???

What is wrong with these equations in regards to your claims?

https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/3947/1936.pdf;sequence=1

[studiot]

Quote

Stu, thank you for asking for clarification, i'm happy to respond.

I feel like i'm asking what's the difference between A and B, to someone who never learned the alphabet.

I'm hoping this was not part of your response to me, specially when you mention

1 hour ago, Zetetic Zen said:

I'll be ignoring much of the ad hominem slander from other commenters however as they aren't worth my time

in the same breath.

 

Anyway I asked for clarification of your phrase "centrifugal magnetic radiation" and I take it that the words between the above quotes form some sort of response.

 

For your information I am quite comfortable with Fields in general and EM fields in particular.

I am not aware that a phenomenon that could be described as magnetic radiation (centrifugal or otherwise) can be isolated.

Could you please offer an example of a radiation that is purely magnetic?

 

So far as I am aware, the only radiation emitted by permanent magnets comprises some low level random radiactivity from material impurities and the usual black body radiation, appropriate to its temperature.

 

Neither of these could be described as magnetic radiation.

[Zetetic Zen]

No, i said Maxwellian field equations do not differentiate between dielectric centripetal convergence and centrifugal divergent magnetism. The bloch wall is a different question. It's very easy to cite external sources and say "This body of words explains everything you ask for" - But does it though? All i see are a lot of calculartions and quantifications about the properties and dimensions, but no denotation in principle, unless i've missed something. Descriptions are not explanations, and i'm asking for a personal understanding in your own words, if anything to show me that the equations you've provided do explain the specific phenomena i've mentioned, and that you did understand the questions.

So where exactly in this paper does it specifically explain why a bloch wall has no locus? Please explain in your own words, if you can. Thank you

I'm not lecturing, i'm the layman, i was merely asking questions, it was everybody else who begged for a lecture because they couldn't understand the questions. You are very vague when you say "This explains that" - can you be more specific please? Perhaps use bullet points or numbers so i know which question you feel you are answering. Or, are you stating that paper explains every question i've asked? If so... please show how.

My terminology is fine, i've rectified this repeatedly, and clarified them for those who were nescient. I don't know what issue you have with my images, and fail to see why a logistics chart and photographs of experiments with magnets doesn't constitute physics, or have anything to do with art class. I'm illustrating to help clarify, or in the latter case was providing visual aid to question 4.

As for the ether.. well, what you think i 'imply' is irrelevant, as i've said already. I want to know what YOU think is going on, don't you worry about my understanding, i came here looking for that, not planning to share it. At least, not one before the other anyway, i am partial towards reciprocal flow and mutual exchange, but i asked first.

This image details what i was talking about in question 1. You don't have to like it, and it's not meant to look pretty. It's for the convenience of other readers, and further clarification on my part. Find me anywhere in contemporary academia that distinguishes this and explains it. You can prove it to yourself in 10 seconds with some magnets. It's really very easy. It's clearly observable and repeatable, but i can't find a single physicist who understands this, much less even knows about it. Except of course, between and amongst the great minds of electrical theory i've mentioned prior. Nobody had the full picture, but further developments are being made.

If you think modern science has already come to know everything there is to know about electricity and magnetism, when only a single man alive today was able to replicate the genius Tesla's experiments and technological results from all those years ago, that is asinine and you are insane. We have  along way to go, and i'm happy to provide my experiements, math, and data, once i find somebody here who cares enough to understand what i'm asking, and come to realize these questions have no answers in modern academia. I mean, feel free to prove me wrong, but it'll take more than merely citation, i want to actually hear precise answers to my last 3 questions, not 3 links to 3 books that one merely assumes contains the answers. If you think they do, then extrapolate them, for me, the humble and scientifically illiterate crackpot layman.

[Mordred]

Right and read your OP again, then compare that to the quality of post your presenting now...

 Anyways enough said about that.

With regards to your questions above this will take a bit to put together. Give me a bit of time on it.

 How much do you understand on spin connections with regards to superconductor materials? Its an arena that actively applies the required mathematics.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Mordred

[Zetetic Zen]

Stu, sorry no that was not intended at you. I started off responding to you but ended up generalizing my speech to address the entire forum. Forgive me.
Magnets 'radiate' magnetism, ie centrifugal force divergence. Field modalities are either radiative or generative, (see the first chart) opposite functions. Same with charge and discharge, or centripetal and centrifugal. An example of this, would be any magnet. Sorry if that sounds patronizing or unclear, but it's very simple to me. Magnetism is radiation, that's what spatial vectors are. Volume is so, due only to magnetism. Magnetism never attracted anything, it only displaces, it is the dielectric component that acts as attraction.

My understanding is that a field is a reciprocating precessional hyperboloid of centrifugal force divergence (IE; magnetism) and centripetal dielectric acceleration towards a null point of inertia, (IE; counter-space). And this isn't merely speculation, because i've seen it with my own eyes. [ https://zeteticzen.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/what-is-a-ferrocell-seeing-into-the-cross-section-of-the-secret-of-mother-nature/ ]

Thanks Mordred, i look forward to it. The better you can dumb it down the better for me. I am just a layman, so do the best you can and i'd really appreciate it.

[studiot]

7 minutes ago, Zetetic Zen said:

Stu, sorry no that was not intended at you. I started off responding to you but ended up generalizing my speech to address the entire forum. Forgive me.
Magnets 'radiate' magnetism, ie centrifugal force divergence. Field modalities are either radiative or generative, (see the first chart) opposite functions. Same with charge and discharge, or centripetal and centrifugal. An example of this, would be any magnet. Sorry if that sounds patronizing or unclear, but it's very simple to me. Magnetism is radiation, that's what spatial vectors are. Volume is so, due only to magnetism. Magnetism never attracted anything, it only displaces, it is the dielectric component that acts as attraction.

My understanding is that a field is a reciprocating precessional hyperboloid of centrifugal force divergence (IE; magnetism) and centripetal dielectric acceleration towards a null point of inertia, (IE; counter-space). And this isn't merely speculation, because i've seen it with my own eyes. [ https://zeteticzen.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/what-is-a-ferrocell-seeing-into-the-cross-section-of-the-secret-of-mother-nature/ ]

 

So you are using the word radiation to describe a geometric pattern, as in "the spokes of a wheel radiate from its hub".
Can I assume this is not meant to imply any continuous generation of an energy stream emanating from the magnet as radioactive radiation or EM would be?

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, Zetetic Zen said:

I want to know what YOU think is going on, don't you worry about my understanding, i came here looking for that, not planning to share it. At least, not one before the other anyway, i am partial towards reciprocal flow and mutual exchange, but i asked first.

!

Moderator Note

You can ask, or you can explain. You don't get to do both. If you just have questions about mainstream physics, open a thread where you ask those questions without presenting your pet theory.

Since you are not planning on following our rules (by your own admission) then we're done here