I can help with the Ampere quotes. and I can help with the relationship of
the magnetic field to gravitational field, I have to find some old material.
In the meantime send me your private email ) YES, I
am a disadent. I have had some experience dealing with well disciplined
scientists.Remember if your mother has taught you that 3 plus 4 is six
nothing in this world can change your mind. Think about that while
entertaining the idea that a cat can be both alive and dead until you open
the death cage, until the moment you can personally observe the status of
the cat. That alone describe the stubberness of most disciplined students of
physics. Do me a favor, research Psychotronic generator when applied to
gemstones or river rocks, as used by shamus (indian medicine man) because
some folks see a relation ship between my theory of re-direction of inertia
and the psychotronic generator principal which I dont understand but I know
the thing works from personal experience. BTW A good mathmatician can prove
that you dont exist and never have.
While math can describe and predict physical and fictional variants and
invariants. it sometimes does mans thinking for him and man overly depends
on the math as gospel. Kind regards, Lee Pugh

B. Wood" wrote in message
...
In article , "Szczepan Bia³ek"
wrote:

wrote
news
A bar magnet has only one propagation. That is an electrical field
which is
tangential to the length of the bar
magnet. It is either a clockwise or counterclockwise field (electrical
field) as viewed by something else. When two bar magnets experience
this
electrical field having the circular pattern, force appears to be
effected.
Construed as a magnetic force or magnetic field, after all what you
see is
what you get in this wysiwyg world of physics. The magnet field is a
true
illusion because it does not span the gap between the magnets. only
the
circular electrical field spans the gap. the exhibited force is
locally
achieved as the re-direction of inertia of the individual magnets
accomodate
their newly distorted dynamic electrical field having been distorted
by
the
other magnet. Test: hold a bar magnet close to a crt face to observe
the
effect the tangential electrical field has on a moving charge. Ampere
taught
us this, nobody listens. Lee Pugh

Ampere taught that who are fluent in French. I am not. But I am very
interested on such idea. I am sure that the fields OF "mass", charge and
magnet must be the same because the space is one. Of course
grvitational,
electric and magnetic field can be different because they are math.
I have known that Aepinus found the theory that gravitational and
electrostatic forces are the same. Many people discuss that. But I could
not
find more than you wrote here about Ampere idea. Could you tell where
can I
read more? ( I am a science hobbyst).
S*

Hello, and the very first thing you need to do IMHO is distinguish science
from pseudoscience or misinterpretations of cause and effect as
illustrated by the above posts. A "theory" (e.g. electromagnetic theory)
in science is something that has been established by repeatable
experiment, produces predictable results and usually is firmly rooted in
applied mathematics. Anything else is an "hypothesis" (e.g. cold
fusion). Since you have science as a hobby this makes it more difficult
if you don't have some field of science or applied mathematics as a
profession. As an EE by profession and referring to the postings above,
may I suggest an introductory course in electromagnetics? You didn't say
your age but I'm talking about a course at the freshman/sophomore college
level. It probabably will be somewhat rough going mathematically but you
might absorb some basics. Sincerely,

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail:
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337

On Jun 4, 6:40*am, (J. B. Wood) wrote:

John, I believe it is you who need a lesson or two before you start
giving advice. I do understand you mean well, however.

Hello, and the very first thing you need to do IMHO is distinguish science
from pseudoscience or misinterpretations of cause and effect as
illustrated by the above posts. *

You are already showing your prejudice by using the term
"pseudoscience". You really have NO idea what that is as you haven't
studied it in the least. You as so many in establishment science
labor under a total misconception. You believe (wrongly) that
everything in the world is static and uniform. This kind of error is
typified in the old geological "theory of uniformity". Professors used
to stand in front of classes boldly asserting that ALL geological
phenomena is caused by the SAME slow inexorable actions of geology
that slowly over millennia carve canyons and build mountains.
Wonderful establishment "classical" learning. Too bad it's all total
bunk! The constant denial of "catastrophic" geology as "psuedoscience"
shows just how far from "real" science the establishment can get if
they close their eyes and yell real loud at anyone with some new idea!

What you are trying to distinguish between here, dear engineer, is
Science and Art! Is "art" a "pseudoscience"? No. It's ART for crying
out loud. The distinguishing feature of Art is that it doesn't stand
up to experiment. It is however judged by time.

A "theory" (e.g. electromagnetic theory)
in science is something that has been established by repeatable
experiment, produces predictable results and usually is firmly rooted in
applied mathematics. *

You have MUCH overstated this. A "theory" is a hypothesis that has
been tested by experiment to a degree though not to an exhaustive
degree. Theories can be wrong and often ARE "wrong". A theory
wherein ANY part of it fails to agree with experiment is "wrong"! I
said ANY part of it! Some "wrong" theories are often useful, such as
electromagnetic field theory. If you throw out all the "wrong"
answers you get some pretty useful stuff! Other theories such as
Evolution are partly right and partly wrong but which are promoted as
totally correct for political reasons. The interested student is left
to sort out the political bullsh!t. Other "theories" such as the "Big
Bang" are just completely wrong from one end to the other! These
become religions among the establishment who energetically defend them
without any proof or data whatsoever.

A hypothesis, on the other hand is a mere GUESS at a theory without
enough data to support it as a theory.

But when there has been gathered enough data to create a certain
degree of confidence that there has been observed NO violations of a
given theory EVER, then that theory becomes called a "law". That means
no exceptions to it have ever been observed. Sometimes laws later
become restricted such as Newton's laws which later were restricted to
velocities well below that of light. Above that they fail as "laws"
and a new "law" is required.

Anything else is an "hypothesis" (e.g. cold
fusion). *Since you have science as a hobby this makes it more difficult
if you don't have some field of science or applied mathematics as a
profession. *

Note to that in establishment science mathematics is worshiped as some
kind of "truth". Nothing could be farther from fact. Mathematics are
systems invented by the mind of man and developed to be self-
consistent within themselves. There is NO effort and NO reason that
mathematics should EVER represent some fundamental operations of the
universe. If maths make a nice model that predicts lots of useful
things for engineers, that is great. But there is NO implied meaning
in that, that maths are somehow MORE real than reality. For example,
we previously established here that EM fields are NOT real! The math
has certain characteristics that prevent the math being real. Field
theory is a useful model but ONLY a model! Reality is what is there.
There is NO evidence that reality is math. But many in the
establishment worship maths as truth.

As an EE by profession and referring to the postings above,
may I suggest an introductory course in electromagnetics? *You didn't say
your age but I'm talking about a course at the freshman/sophomore college
level. *It probabably will be somewhat rough going mathematically but you
might absorb some basics. *Sincerely,

I am not going to say that college education is not useful, but never
overestimate what it can do. It is NOT going to teach to you THINK. It
especially discourages critical thinking. If you study EE they won't
teach you what the colors on the resistors mean or how to design a
decent audio amp. Even worse you'll be coerced into memorizing
without proof all manner of dogma that may or may not be true and be
expected to barf it back "correctly". If you happen to actually know
the "correct" answer to a given problem that the establishment does
not accept, and try to give that answer instead, even if you can PROVE
you are correct, you will still flunk the course! Sorry, The
professor "proved" to Tesla that an electric "induction" motor without
brushes is "Impossible"! Sorry Tesla you flunk! We doan allow no
stinkin' "pseudoscience" in our classes at university!

Lecture on "real" science over. Class dismissed!

Amen


"Benj" wrote in message
...
On Jun 4, 6:40 am, (J. B. Wood) wrote:

John, I believe it is you who need a lesson or two before you start
giving advice. I do understand you mean well, however.

Hello, and the very first thing you need to do IMHO is distinguish science
from pseudoscience or misinterpretations of cause and effect as
illustrated by the above posts.

You are already showing your prejudice by using the term
"pseudoscience". You really have NO idea what that is as you haven't
studied it in the least. You as so many in establishment science
labor under a total misconception. You believe (wrongly) that
everything in the world is static and uniform. This kind of error is
typified in the old geological "theory of uniformity". Professors used
to stand in front of classes boldly asserting that ALL geological
phenomena is caused by the SAME slow inexorable actions of geology
that slowly over millennia carve canyons and build mountains.
Wonderful establishment "classical" learning. Too bad it's all total
bunk! The constant denial of "catastrophic" geology as "psuedoscience"
shows just how far from "real" science the establishment can get if
they close their eyes and yell real loud at anyone with some new idea!

What you are trying to distinguish between here, dear engineer, is
Science and Art! Is "art" a "pseudoscience"? No. It's ART for crying
out loud. The distinguishing feature of Art is that it doesn't stand
up to experiment. It is however judged by time.

A "theory" (e.g. electromagnetic theory)
in science is something that has been established by repeatable
experiment, produces predictable results and usually is firmly rooted in
applied mathematics.

You have MUCH overstated this. A "theory" is a hypothesis that has
been tested by experiment to a degree though not to an exhaustive
degree. Theories can be wrong and often ARE "wrong". A theory
wherein ANY part of it fails to agree with experiment is "wrong"! I
said ANY part of it! Some "wrong" theories are often useful, such as
electromagnetic field theory. If you throw out all the "wrong"
answers you get some pretty useful stuff! Other theories such as
Evolution are partly right and partly wrong but which are promoted as
totally correct for political reasons. The interested student is left
to sort out the political bullsh!t. Other "theories" such as the "Big
Bang" are just completely wrong from one end to the other! These
become religions among the establishment who energetically defend them
without any proof or data whatsoever.

A hypothesis, on the other hand is a mere GUESS at a theory without
enough data to support it as a theory.

But when there has been gathered enough data to create a certain
degree of confidence that there has been observed NO violations of a
given theory EVER, then that theory becomes called a "law". That means
no exceptions to it have ever been observed. Sometimes laws later
become restricted such as Newton's laws which later were restricted to
velocities well below that of light. Above that they fail as "laws"
and a new "law" is required.

Anything else is an "hypothesis" (e.g. cold
fusion). Since you have science as a hobby this makes it more difficult
if you don't have some field of science or applied mathematics as a
profession.

Note to that in establishment science mathematics is worshiped as some
kind of "truth". Nothing could be farther from fact. Mathematics are
systems invented by the mind of man and developed to be self-
consistent within themselves. There is NO effort and NO reason that
mathematics should EVER represent some fundamental operations of the
universe. If maths make a nice model that predicts lots of useful
things for engineers, that is great. But there is NO implied meaning
in that, that maths are somehow MORE real than reality. For example,
we previously established here that EM fields are NOT real! The math
has certain characteristics that prevent the math being real. Field
theory is a useful model but ONLY a model! Reality is what is there.
There is NO evidence that reality is math. But many in the
establishment worship maths as truth.

As an EE by profession and referring to the postings above,
may I suggest an introductory course in electromagnetics? You didn't say
your age but I'm talking about a course at the freshman/sophomore college
level. It probabably will be somewhat rough going mathematically but you
might absorb some basics. Sincerely,

I am not going to say that college education is not useful, but never
overestimate what it can do. It is NOT going to teach to you THINK. It
especially discourages critical thinking. If you study EE they won't
teach you what the colors on the resistors mean or how to design a
decent audio amp. Even worse you'll be coerced into memorizing
without proof all manner of dogma that may or may not be true and be
expected to barf it back "correctly". If you happen to actually know
the "correct" answer to a given problem that the establishment does
not accept, and try to give that answer instead, even if you can PROVE
you are correct, you will still flunk the course! Sorry, The
professor "proved" to Tesla that an electric "induction" motor without
brushes is "Impossible"! Sorry Tesla you flunk! We doan allow no
stinkin' "pseudoscience" in our classes at university!

Lecture on "real" science over. Class dismissed!

"J. B. Wood" wrote in message
...
In article , "Szczepan Bia³ek"
wrote:

wrote
news
A bar magnet has only one propagation. That is an electrical field
which is
tangential to the length of the bar
magnet. It is either a clockwise or counterclockwise field (electrical
field) as viewed by something else. When two bar magnets experience
this
electrical field having the circular pattern, force appears to be
effected.
Construed as a magnetic force or magnetic field, after all what you
see is
what you get in this wysiwyg world of physics. The magnet field is a
true
illusion because it does not span the gap between the magnets. only
the
circular electrical field spans the gap. the exhibited force is
locally
achieved as the re-direction of inertia of the individual magnets
accomodate
their newly distorted dynamic electrical field having been distorted
by
the
other magnet. Test: hold a bar magnet close to a crt face to observe
the
effect the tangential electrical field has on a moving charge. Ampere
taught
us this, nobody listens. Lee Pugh

Ampere taught that who are fluent in French. I am not. But I am very
interested on such idea. I am sure that the fields OF "mass", charge and
magnet must be the same because the space is one. Of course
grvitational,
electric and magnetic field can be different because they are math.
I have known that Aepinus found the theory that gravitational and
electrostatic forces are the same. Many people discuss that. But I could
not
find more than you wrote here about Ampere idea. Could you tell where
can I
read more? ( I am a science hobbyst).
S*

Hello, and the very first thing you need to do IMHO is distinguish science
from pseudoscience or misinterpretations of cause and effect as
illustrated by the above posts. A "theory" (e.g. electromagnetic theory)
in science is something that has been established by repeatable
experiment, produces predictable results and usually is firmly rooted in
applied mathematics. Anything else is an "hypothesis" (e.g. cold
fusion). Since you have science as a hobby this makes it more difficult
if you don't have some field of science or applied mathematics as a
profession. As an EE by profession and referring to the postings above,
may I suggest an introductory course in electromagnetics? You didn't say
your age but I'm talking about a course at the freshman/sophomore college
level. It probabably will be somewhat rough going mathematically but you
might absorb some basics. Sincerely,

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail:
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337

Isn't the NRL engaged in, or was, research into cold fusion John?
Vince

"J. B. Wood" wrote in message
...
In article , "Szczepan Bia³ek"
wrote:

Science, that is mainstream science, teaches many things are impossible.
And history has, until this day, gone along merrily with that.
But, what happens when 'History' is no longer owned by the establishment?
The link below is such an example I would think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfh2y...eature=related
Regards,
Vince

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

Ampere taught that who are fluent in French. I am not. But I am very
interested on such idea. I am sure that the fields OF "mass", charge and
magnet must be the same because the space is one. Of course grvitational,
electric and magnetic field can be different because they are math.
I have known that Aepinus found the theory that gravitational and
electrostatic forces are the same. Many people discuss that.

The first serious discussion (that I am aware of) regarding the similarities
between electromagnetism and gravitation was published by Oliver
Heaviside -- the same fellow that re-did (some say destroyed) Maxwell's
equations to make them intelligible.

He hypthesized the existence of a second type of gravitational field
analagous to the magnetic field that works in conjunction with the electric
field. But he did not take the idea very far.

In Oleg Jefimenko's "Causality, Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation,"
you will find a reprint of the Heaviside paper AND a fascinating
discussion/derivation of a co-Gravitational field (inspired by Heaviside)
that allows Newton's Law (or Newton's theory since it has a fatal flaw in
it) to also obey the conservation of momentum laws. The math is heavy, but I
have watched your participation on this list and believe you could handle it
very well if you read it slowly and VERY carefully. (Just like I did!)

Available from Amazon at a reasonable price.

BTW you and I have the same age. If I can do it, so can you!!!!

Bill Miller


But I could not
find more than you wrote here about Ampere idea. Could you tell where can
I read more? ( I am a science hobbyst).
S*

"Bill Miller" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...

In Oleg Jefimenko's "Causality, Electromagnetic Induction and
Gravitation,"
you will find a reprint of the Heaviside paper AND a fascinating
discussion/derivation of a co-Gravitational field (inspired by Heaviside)
that allows Newton's Law (or Newton's theory since it has a fatal flaw in
it) to also obey the conservation of momentum laws. The math is heavy, but
I
have watched your participation on this list and believe you could handle
it
very well if you read it slowly and VERY carefully. (Just like I did!)

I have a glance in Jefimenko and Heaviside already. My intuition tells me
that they are not right (Sorry).

In History: http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/phys442/node4.html we can
read:
"1825 - Ampere publishes his collected results on magnetism. His
expression for the magnetic field produced by a small segment of current is
different from that which follows naturally from the Biot-Savart law by an
additive term which integrates to zero around closed circuit. It is
unfortunate that electrodynamics and relativity decide in favor of Biot and
Savart rather than for the much more sophisticated Ampere, whose memoir
contains both mathematical analysis and experimentation, artfully blended
together. In this memoir are given some special instances of the result we
now call Stokes theorem or as we usually write it . Maxwell describes this
work as ``one of the most brilliant achievements in science. The whole,
theory and experiment, seems as if it had leaped, full-grown and full-armed,
from the brain of the `Newton of electricity'. It is perfect in form and
unassailable in accuracy; and it is summed up in a formula from which all
the phenomena may be deduced, and which must always remain the cardinal
formula of electrodynamics.''

So nothing queries that I want to read Ampere. Up to now I even do not know
if Ampere's works were translated into English. Were they?

BTW you and I have the same age. If I can do it, so can you!!!!

So you should also read Ampere.
As you know I am a lover of "gas analogy". In Ampere's theory are
longitudinal forces. Maybe he foresaw electrons.
S*

On May 14, 8:56*am, Benj wrote:
On May 11, 3:03 pm, Edward Green wrote:

On May 5, 10:57 pm, Benj wrote:

OK. Let me pick your brains. *I'm working on the age-old question does
a magnetic field rotate with the magnet if you spin it.

Assuming you are spinning the magnet around an axis of cylindrical
symmetry: no. *There is no concept of a rotating geometrically
invariant field.

What in the world do you mean "there is no concept"? *Of course the is
a "Concept"!!! *

I meant in modern EM, so far as I know.

Faraday *himself raised the "concept" in examining
his homopolar generator. I take it you mean that one does not speak of
the problem in polite physics company because they are still trying to
sweep the problem under the physic rug.

Many gropings have been supressed in the canon. That does not always
mean people are confused or conspiratorial.

What is the "problem" trying to fit under the rug, in your
estimation?

Which doesn't mean the field as described in normal
terms will not change. *That's a different question --

Agreed.

and you are
free to think of the new field as a "rotating magnetic field" if you
like -- nobody can stop you. ;-)

Spoken like a true physicist!

I'm a rank amateur, and not getting any smarter. "True physicists"
are not flattered.

*Of course I can imagine a field doing
anything I wish! *That doesn't make my idea real! *Who do you think I
am? Aut? *My world, apparently unlike yours is determined by
experiment and data rather than my own thoughts on how I think it
should work. You must be a cosmologist, right

What I meant is... if you will calm yourself a minute... that I
predicted spinning a permanent magnet around its major axis will have
_some_ effect on the external field (you are altering the state of
motion of the internal charge carriers and unpaired spins). I don't
think this alteration causes any problems with a conventional
description of the new field -- it's just different -- but, if you
like to look upon this new description as an alternate description of
a "rotating" magnetic field, feel free.

My hunch is that magnetic fields amount to a kind of rotation of
space, at least as seen by charged particles... so there... I'm just
as weird as you are, and our opinions put together and $2.50 will get
you a large size Starbucks coffee. Enjoy!

Much ado about nothing.

Faraday didn't think so and I don't either. The answer has a lot to do
with the understanding of several things including the Faraday
generator and the "beanstalk" device.

There may be an alternate understanding possible of things which can
be understood using conventional EM theory.

On May 14, 5:40*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Kevin G. Rhoads" wrote in ...
| If you are going to snip, ******, I will too.
| Now behave or **** off, a field rotates with a magnet
|
| Since you have resorted to ad hominem name calling, I
| decline to further engage you in discourse.

Good!
**plonk*

That's rich.

Edward Green wrote:

What I meant is... if you will calm yourself a minute... that I
predicted spinning a permanent magnet around its major axis will have
_some_ effect on the external field (you are altering the state of
motion of the internal charge carriers and unpaired spins). I don't
think this alteration causes any problems with a conventional
description of the new field -- it's just different -- but, if you
like to look upon this new description as an alternate description of
a "rotating" magnetic field, feel free.

Hey, I AM "calm". Don't be misled by my "internet persona"!

My hunch is that magnetic fields amount to a kind of rotation of
space, at least as seen by charged particles... so there... I'm just
as weird as you are, and our opinions put together and $2.50 will get
you a large size Starbucks coffee. Enjoy!

Sorry. You are NOT as "weird" as I am. My view is that a magnetic
field is a flow of Aether. (An idea due to Euler I might admit). So
consider a qVxB force. It is 'explained" with a kind of "curve ball"
or "sinker" effect. The charge q is spinning. The Aether is flowing
past. The spin of the particle (like that of a baseball) builds up
aether on one side and reduces it on the other. Then net result is a
MECHANICAL right angled force as described by the vector equation!
(This idea is actually due to the Late Prof. Hooper, I might add).

OK, so dig. if these forces are due to the relative frames of the
flowing magnetic field and the frame of the charged particle, now
whether or not a magnetic field is "attached to" or "rotates with"
it's "source" becomes a VERY important question! See?

The problem has been that if one tries to determine if a magnetic
field rotates with a magnet by using LOOPS you find that you get the
SAME answer if the field is assumed to rotate and if you assume it
does not. Hence the measurement MUST be made independent of current
loops! People have devised certain electrostatic measurements to
answer the question, but as far as I know nobody has really obtained
any credible data on the matter.

So yeah. Until someone comes up with the definitive experiment, all
our opinions probably aren't worth the high price of Starbucks
coffee.

But while it is safe to say that the rotating magnet "probably changes
the field", I say the real question is "HOW" does it affect it? In
short does it produce a magnetic field in a new rotating frame? That
question is far less 'safe".