On May 13, 3:13*pm, wrote:
On 13 mai, 02:36, "Y.y.Porat" wrote:





On May 12, 7:28 pm, wrote:

On 12 mai, 10:22, "Y.Porat" wrote:

On May 12, 3:15 pm, wrote:

On 12 mai, 04:10, PCB wrote:

On May 11, 10:46 pm, wrote:

On 11 mai, 12:36, PCB wrote:

On May 11, 6:02 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

PCB wrote:
I read somewhere that only electric currents generate magnetic fields.

That is incorrect. The intrinsic spins of elementary particles also
produce magnetic fields.

Where is the electric current in a permanent magnet?

There is none.

Is a permanent magnet a frozen electric current *in matter?

No.

It seems that the electric current in a magnet would like to flow, but
it cant.

No. Iron is conductive, as are most other permanent magnets.

The bulk magnetization of a permanent magnet is due to the alignment of
spins in the constituent atoms. This cannot be understood classically,
QM is required.

Tom Roberts

But sir, QM is false, never makes accurate predictions.

QM only probably will make a prediction, but probably not. I learned
that if a theory does not always make a predicted prediction, always,
than that theory is false, or at best useless.

So the question still remains untouched, and I have a permanent magnet
which is not a conductor at all.

No electrical conduction is required. Ceramic magnets for example
are not conductive.

Yes, thanks

You will find all the particular of what interests you here in the
CRC handbook of Chemistry & Physics, p 12-117

* electrons that are partially free to rotate locally.

*detectable
field that we can use.

This has been understood for more than 80 years, even though
QM trained physicists tend not to learn about it since this
observed fact is in contradiction with QM.

I do appreciate your answer.

This is what a high resolution surface scanner shows. I saw this
many times.

* *.

André Michaud

Thanks

André Michaud- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--------------
your explaantion about our scanners viewing sphers
is right it is not a comprehensive picture
actually very decieving
2
now what is for you *a * *'magnetic field'??
is it all clear to you ??

I do have a clear picture of how it resolves in
the 3-spaces model, yes.

what lighes behind the abstarct words ??

I don't know if you can make heads or tail of the
math involved, but here is an equation describing
the internal dynamic fields structure of an electron
in the 3-spaces model and also one describing the
internal dynamic fields structure of the de Broglie
photon.

------------------
French scientists ineed contributed a lot for advance of science
it was mainly because of the mind revolution of free speach
and thinking !!
now De Broglie
lived 100 years a go
he caould not know what we know today

At least, he really understood Maxwell's theory. And
besides, he lived untill 1985. He knew just about
all we know today.





i peersonally dont accept his
'wave around the nuc' concept
the electrons do not create field areond it
unless the whole Atom is revolving like say
a hydrogen gass that obviously does not stand still
according to myunderstanding based on some findings
th eelectron in the Atom is sending sort of 'Arms'streched
outwards in certian directions (if you like sort of
radially and not tangentally to the nuc )
-----------

http://pages.videotron.com/ceber/moving_electron.jpg

i will look for it later
-----

dont you think that if an electron can create
a 'megnetic field arrund it is it not a profe
that the eelctron is not a 'solid * undivisible '
unsubdivided particle ??

It seems to me that an electron does not "create"
a magnetic field around itself.

so what and how itis created *BY THE ELECTRON ??!!

Look at the equations I gave you. They explain it.

waht is it s'raw material for doing it if the
electron is an indivisible entity ??

Energy. Plain and simple

maybe this extract will explain a little more
for you, but I doubt it. I have tried in the
past to explain this to you.

http://pages.videotron.com/ceber/decoupling_orbit.jpg

----------
------

*It simply is "made

up of" both an electric field and a magnetic field

but that is exactly the question:
what are those fileld bhind those abstract words!!

They are a mathematical representation of the dynamic
nature of the energy that makes up the substance of
the electron.

what are they made of
are they made of 'pjhtons how and why are they move
as they do and not otherwise * *etc

Yes. They are made up of the same substance as
photons. The equations I gave you describe both,
but I don't think you will understand the math.

i hope you remember my Circlon' idea .....
----------------

since it is electromagnetic in nature.

???????

The fundamental energy is electromagnetic in nature.
See Maxwell's theory.

----------

Electrons have charge AND spin. They have both by
nature.

so waht is charge

Nobody knows what charge is.

and how and by waht means they word as they do
dont you think that 'modern physics' just take
some assumptions as for granted without *getting
into it deeper ??

Modern physics these days is the Copenhagen interpretation,
which means that it has made no progress since the 1930's
about the foundation.

while that attitude prevents firther advance !!
(as a pupil of the French education and spirit
i think you should not be happy about the existing situation!

I am not a pupil of any French education and spirit.
I study the foundation. That's all.





actually i noticed that you are as well 'plaged' with some
nonconformism !!......)
------------

(by spreading soemthing of *itself* around himself ??)

*in short Andre
just try and think how is it thatthe electron
can spread fields (that are certinly not mind ans spirit)
around itself

It doesn't "spread fields around itself" as you say.
It is these fields.

it is a serious question not a joke .....
serious and obviously not properly solved !!
and leaving it unsolved or delusivly solved
prevents advance of science!!

As long as you believe it is not solved, you are
unlikely to try to understand the answers offered
you.

André Michaud- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

-----------------
Mr Andre

just above you admit that no one really understand
what is an electric of magnetic field
and it is only some mathematical representation of it!!

on the other hand you pose to reach me
what they are by methematical formulas
that in manty cases lead to 'findings of
W and Z bosons !!!!

you cant old the string on both its edges
now instead that you willteach me
i will teach you ::

suplying some mathematical presentations
of a physical phenonene is not a completer
understanding of it
let me lend you a methapho

our situation about it is as the fire stoty:
people knew how to use fire thousands of years ago
BUT THEY DIDNT KNOW WAHT IT IS AND GOOD ENOUGH WHAT ARE THE DEEPER
PROCESSES
OF IT
it was only after the deaper understanding
of the chemical process and partners that take place in it
that
listen carefully
IT WAS ONLTY THEN THAT THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE COULD BE
INVENTED!!

got it pompy ??
got the meaning of deaper understanding !!
including the practical meaning ??

so dont pose that patronizing pose of youself
and start to be more humble about physics understandings
because you can still get
some physics lessons form me as well
about say
nuclear and Atomic structure !!!!!!!!!!
and the outcome of that knowlwdge !!
i hope that both of us undesrand what i mean .....
2
you didnt answer if you understood my
'Circlon' idea !!

3
again you admitted that no one really understand what is a field !!
soplease dont forget your statement about it !!
and dont foerget waht are the conclutions of that
admittance
(just if you ddint understand the conclutions:
if that is the situation it must be first
a
be asserted again and again (mainly foer the young generation)
in order of looking for better understanding
and no t to stay ion the smugg idiotic situation

b
make more efforts for better and deeper undertanding!!

TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------

On 14 mai, 01:00, "Y.y.Porat" wrote:
On May 13, 3:13 pm, wrote:

On 13 mai, 02:36, "Y.y.Porat" wrote:

On May 12, 7:28 pm, wrote:

On 12 mai, 10:22, "Y.Porat" wrote:

On May 12, 3:15 pm, wrote:

On 12 mai, 04:10, PCB wrote:

On May 11, 10:46 pm, wrote:

On 11 mai, 12:36, PCB wrote:

On May 11, 6:02 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

PCB wrote:
I read somewhere that only electric currents generate magnetic fields.

That is incorrect. The intrinsic spins of elementary particles also
produce magnetic fields.

Where is the electric current in a permanent magnet?

There is none.

Is a permanent magnet a frozen electric current in matter?

No.

It seems that the electric current in a magnet would like to flow, but
it cant.

No. Iron is conductive, as are most other permanent magnets.

The bulk magnetization of a permanent magnet is due to the alignment of
spins in the constituent atoms. This cannot be understood classically,
QM is required.

Tom Roberts

But sir, QM is false, never makes accurate predictions.

QM only probably will make a prediction, but probably not. I learned
that if a theory does not always make a predicted prediction, always,
than that theory is false, or at best useless.

So the question still remains untouched, and I have a permanent magnet
which is not a conductor at all.

No electrical conduction is required. Ceramic magnets for example
are not conductive.

Yes, thanks

You will find all the particular of what interests you here in the
CRC handbook of Chemistry & Physics, p 12-117

electrons that are partially free to rotate locally.

detectable
field that we can use.

This has been understood for more than 80 years, even though
QM trained physicists tend not to learn about it since this
observed fact is in contradiction with QM.

I do appreciate your answer.

This is what a high resolution surface scanner shows. I saw this
many times.

.

André Michaud

Thanks

André Michaud- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--------------
your explaantion about our scanners viewing sphers
is right it is not a comprehensive picture
actually very decieving
2
now what is for you a 'magnetic field'??
is it all clear to you ??

I do have a clear picture of how it resolves in
the 3-spaces model, yes.

what lighes behind the abstarct words ??

I don't know if you can make heads or tail of the
math involved, but here is an equation describing
the internal dynamic fields structure of an electron
in the 3-spaces model and also one describing the
internal dynamic fields structure of the de Broglie
photon.

------------------
French scientists ineed contributed a lot for advance of science
it was mainly because of the mind revolution of free speach
and thinking !!
now De Broglie
lived 100 years a go
he caould not know what we know today

At least, he really understood Maxwell's theory. And
besides, he lived untill 1985. He knew just about
all we know today.

i peersonally dont accept his
'wave around the nuc' concept
the electrons do not create field areond it
unless the whole Atom is revolving like say
a hydrogen gass that obviously does not stand still
according to myunderstanding based on some findings
th eelectron in the Atom is sending sort of 'Arms'streched
outwards in certian directions (if you like sort of
radially and not tangentally to the nuc )
-----------

http://pages.videotron.com/ceber/moving_electron.jpg

i will look for it later
-----

dont you think that if an electron can create
a 'megnetic field arrund it is it not a profe
that the eelctron is not a 'solid undivisible '
unsubdivided particle ??

It seems to me that an electron does not "create"
a magnetic field around itself.

so what and how itis created BY THE ELECTRON ??!!

Look at the equations I gave you. They explain it.

waht is it s'raw material for doing it if the
electron is an indivisible entity ??

Energy. Plain and simple

maybe this extract will explain a little more
for you, but I doubt it. I have tried in the
past to explain this to you.

http://pages.videotron.com/ceber/decoupling_orbit.jpg

----------
------

It simply is "made

up of" both an electric field and a magnetic field

but that is exactly the question:
what are those fileld bhind those abstract words!!

They are a mathematical representation of the dynamic
nature of the energy that makes up the substance of
the electron.

what are they made of
are they made of 'pjhtons how and why are they move
as they do and not otherwise etc

Yes. They are made up of the same substance as
photons. The equations I gave you describe both,
but I don't think you will understand the math.

i hope you remember my Circlon' idea .....
----------------

since it is electromagnetic in nature.

???????

The fundamental energy is electromagnetic in nature.
See Maxwell's theory.

----------

Electrons have charge AND spin. They have both by
nature.

so waht is charge

Nobody knows what charge is.

and how and by waht means they word as they do
dont you think that 'modern physics' just take
some assumptions as for granted without getting
into it deeper ??

Modern physics these days is the Copenhagen interpretation,
which means that it has made no progress since the 1930's
about the foundation.

while that attitude prevents firther advance !!
(as a pupil of the French education and spirit
i think you should not be happy about the existing situation!

I am not a pupil of any French education and spirit.
I study the foundation. That's all.

actually i noticed that you are as well 'plaged' with some
nonconformism !!......)
------------

(by spreading soemthing of *itself* around himself ??)

in short Andre



just try and think how is it thatthe electron
can spread fields (that are certinly not mind ans spirit)
around itself

It doesn't "spread fields around itself" as you say.
It is these fields.

it is a serious question not a joke .....
serious and obviously not properly solved !!
and leaving it unsolved or delusivly solved
prevents advance of science!!

As long as you believe it is not solved, you are
unlikely to try to understand the answers offered
you.

André Michaud- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

-----------------
Mr Andre

just above you admit that no one really understand
what is an electric of magnetic field
and it is only some mathematical representation of it!!

Maybe you should read again. I never said that
no one understand what electric and magnetic
fields are. Everyone in the community understand
them. They are mathematical representations.

What you asked was

"so what is charge"

And I answered

"Nobody knows what charge is."

on the other hand you pose to reach me
what they are by methematical formulas
that in manty cases lead to 'findings of
W and Z bosons !!!!

I have no idea what you are talking about.
Never talked about W and Z bosons.

you cant old the string on both its edges
now instead that you willteach me
i will teach you ::

suplying some mathematical presentations
of a physical phenonene is not a completer
understanding of it
let me lend you a methapho

our situation about it is as the fire stoty:
people knew how to use fire thousands of years ago
BUT THEY DIDNT KNOW WAHT IT IS AND GOOD ENOUGH WHAT ARE THE DEEPER
PROCESSES
OF IT
it was only after the deaper understanding
of the chemical process and partners that take place in it
that
listen carefully
IT WAS ONLTY THEN THAT THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE COULD BE
INVENTED!!

got it pompy ??
got the meaning of deaper understanding !!
including the practical meaning ??

so dont pose that patronizing pose of youself
and start to be more humble about physics understandings
because you can still get
some physics lessons form me as well
about say
nuclear and Atomic structure !!!!!!!!!!
and the outcome of that knowlwdge !!
i hope that both of us undesrand what i mean .....

Well, you asked me questions and I gave you
my answers. I don't really understand where
you are leading the conversation since you
seem to think that I am patronizing you.

Not so. I have more interesting things to do
than patronizing people. So I guess this
will be the end of our little conversation.

André Michaud


2
you didnt answer if you understood my
'Circlon' idea !!

3
again you admitted that no one really understand what is a field !!
soplease dont forget your statement about it !!
and dont foerget waht are the conclutions of that
admittance
(just if you ddint understand the conclutions:
if that is the situation it must be first
a
be asserted again and again (mainly foer the young generation)
in order of looking for better understanding
and no t to stay ion the smugg idiotic situation

b
make more efforts for better and deeper undertanding!!

TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------

On May 14, 2:51*pm, wrote:
On 14 mai, 01:00, "Y.y.Porat" wrote:

On May 13, 3:13 pm, wrote:

On 13 mai, 02:36, "Y.y.Porat" wrote:

On May 12, 7:28 pm, wrote:

On 12 mai, 10:22, "Y.Porat" wrote:

On May 12, 3:15 pm, wrote:

On 12 mai, 04:10, PCB wrote:

On May 11, 10:46 pm, wrote:

On 11 mai, 12:36, PCB wrote:

On May 11, 6:02 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

so what and how itis created *BY THE ELECTRON ??!!

Look at the equations I gave you. They explain it.

waht is it s'raw material for doing it if the
electron is an indivisible entity ??

Energy. Plain and simple

maybe this extract will explain a little more
for you, but I doubt it. I have tried in the
past to explain this to you.

http://pages.videotron.com/ceber/decoupling_orbit.jpg

----------
------

*It simply is "made

???????
very scientific

up of" both an electric field and a magnetic field

but that is exactly the question:
what are those fileld bhind those abstract words!!

They are a mathematical representation of the dynamic
nature of the energy that makes up the substance of
the electron.

and is it the complete representation of the eelctron??
just because you saied so ??
----------

what are they made of
are they made of 'pjhtons how and why are they move
as they do and not otherwise * *etc

Yes. They are made up of the same substance as
photons. The equations I gave you describe both,
but I don't think you will understand the math.

crook !!
do you undeerstand it ???
can you tell us crackparroter
how is it that a physical entity that moves IN STRAIGHT LINES
can do any attraction force ???
hey pompus crackparroter

i hope you remember my Circlon' idea .....

??????
n o answer Eh ???
you can never answwer what is uncoveniet for you
----------------

since it is electromagnetic in nature.

???????

The fundamental energy is electromagnetic in nature.
See Maxwell's theory.

so what is electromagnetic energy made of
you know to use fire
but you dont know what fire is !!
you even dont understand and apparently unable to understand
about how much you dont understand !!!
and you pose to teacj me physics whiloe you are nothing but a parrot:

your electron that rotates around the nuc in an exact number of wave
lengths as in your site - is idiotic
because the electron does not rotate at all around the nuc !!
-----------

-------------

----------

Electrons have charge AND spin. They have both by
nature.

so waht is charge

Nobody knows what charge is.

if you dont know what is charge
how do you know that is an electromagnetic field??
you know some exxperimental facts about it
anmd can fiddle with some data tomake predictions
but nothing behind and in advance of it !!

and how and by waht means they word as they do
dont you think that 'modern physics' just take
some assumptions as for granted without *getting
into it deeper ??

Modern physics these days is the Copenhagen interpretation,
which means that it has made no progress since the 1930's
about the foundation.
----------
bravo!!
at last some honest relark !!!!
but you as well according to your site
didnt make progress as well !!
it is unpleasnt to you therefore
you quite Eh ??
a very cleave tactic ..........
----------

while that attitude prevents firther advance !!
(as a pupil of the French education and spirit
i think you should not be happy about the existing situation!

I am not a pupil of any French education and spirit.
I study the foundation. That's all.

actually i noticed that you are as well 'plaged' with some
nonconformism !!......)
------------

(by spreading soemthing of *itself* around himself ??)

* *in short Andre

just try and think how is it thatthe electron
can spread fields (that are certinly not mind ans spirit)
around itself

It doesn't "spread fields around itself" as you say.
It is these fields.

??????
i am sure you dont really understand what you wrote !!
-----------

it is a serious question not a joke .....
serious and obviously not properly solved !!
and leaving it unsolved or delusivly solved
prevents advance of science!!

As long as you believe it is not solved, you are
unlikely to try to understand the answers offered
you.

crook !!!
----------

on the other hand you pose to reach me
what they are by methematical formulas
that in manty cases lead to 'findings of
W and Z bosons !!!!

I have no idea what you are talking about.
Never talked about W and Z bosons.

---------------
of course youi dont understand!!

thje current attraction forces understandings
BY PHOTONS leaded to the
CROOCKISH THEORY of the W and Z
virtual photons
-----------------


you cant old the string on both its edges
now instead that you willteach me
i will teach you ::

suplying some mathematical presentations
of a physical phenonene is not a completer
understanding of it
let me lend you a methapho

our situation about it is as the fire stoty:
people knew how to use fire thousands of years ago
BUT THEY DIDNT KNOW WAHT IT IS AND GOOD ENOUGH WHAT ARE THE DEEPER
PROCESSES
OF *IT
*it was only after the deaper understanding
of the chemical process and partners that take place *in it
that
listen carefully
IT WAS ONLTY THEN THAT THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE COULD BE
INVENTED!!

*got it pompy ??
got the meaning of deaper understanding !!
including the practical meaning ??

so dont pose that patronizing pose of youself
and start to be more humble about physics understandings
because you can still get
some physics lessons form me *as well
about say
nuclear and Atomic structure !!!!!!!!!!
and the outcome of that knowlwdge !!
i hope that both of us undesrand what i mean .....

Well, you asked me questions and I gave you
my answers.

those are vert poor answers !!

I don't really understand where
you are leading the conversation since you
seem to think that I am patronizing you.

i dont mind very much you personally
i though t for a while that you are a bit less a crackparroter ..and
i thought for a while we could have some more
common lagguage
but you disaponted meonce more .
and in a way you are a bit less (imho)
but not enough!!

Not so. I have more interesting things to do
than patronizing people. So I guess this
will be the end of our little conversation.
-------------------------
that was always your 'cleaver' tactics
toquit while you have no good enough answers

for me it is enough tha this converation was followed
by some other people
so it was not in vane

kep well
Y.Porat


André Michaud 2
you didnt answer if you understood my
'Circlon' *idea !!

3
again you admitted that no one really understand what is a field !!
soplease dont forget your statement about it !!
and dont foerget waht are the conclutions of that
admittance
(just if you ddint understand the conclutions:
if that is the situation it must be first
a
be asserted again and again (mainly foer the young generation)
in order of looking for better understanding
and no t *to stay ion the smugg idiotic situation

b
make more efforts for better and deeper undertanding!!

TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------

On Sun, 11 May 2008 11:02:58 -0500, Tom Roberts
wrote:

PCB wrote:
I read somewhere that only electric currents generate magnetic fields.

That is incorrect. The intrinsic spins of elementary particles also
produce magnetic fields.


[Hammond]
At present there is no scientific explanation of WHY the
electron has "spin" angular momentum and consequently a
magnetic dipole moment. It is only an experimentally
discovered fact which was then inserted ad hoc into QED by
Dirac in the 1920's where it remains today.
Interestingly, J.R. Yablon (on this newsgroup, s.p.r.)
has shown that circulation of the electron in the 5th Kaluza
Klein dimension can actually explain the "spin" of the
electron, in fact the spin and the magnetic moment of all
the charged leptons. K-K posits that a 4th spatial
dimension is curled up in a circle on the order of the
Planck Length and the electron moves at a constant velocity
q/m in that dimension, and it is precisely that circular
"current" that causes the magnetic dipole moment of the
electron and hence "permanent magnets" so called.
Yablon is a highly competent mathematical physicist and
his paper has been reviewed by Phys. Rev. I have read the
review (wch. was posted on s.p.r.) and apparently they
rejected the paper solely on the grounds that the idea was
too shocking and simple to possibly be true! Which as
anyone can see is a quite inadequate and unfair response!






Where is the electric current in a permanent magnet?

There is none.


[Hammond]
Na, unlikely.... it's more likely charge circulation in the
4th Klauza Klein dimension.

Is a permanent magnet a frozen electric current in matter?

No.

It seems that the electric current in a magnet would like to flow, but
it cant.

No. Iron is conductive, as are most other permanent magnets.


The bulk magnetization of a permanent magnet is due to the alignment of
spins in the constituent atoms. This cannot be understood classically,
QM is required.

[Hammond]
That is debatable since Klauza Klein is an entirely
classical theory, and handily explains the origin of
electron "spin" and the magnetic dipole moment f the
elementary particles.

Tom Roberts

=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On May 15, 12:33*am, George Hammond wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2008 11:02:58 -0500, Tom Roberts

wrote:
PCB wrote:
I read somewhere that only electric currents generate magnetic fields.

That is incorrect. The intrinsic spins of elementary particles also
produce magnetic fields.

[Hammond]
* *At present there is no scientific explanation of WHY the
electron has "spin" angular momentum and consequently a
magnetic dipole moment. *It is only an experimentally
discovered *fact which was then inserted ad hoc into QED by
--------------------------
untill here
very nice saied !!!!
yet that is not properly internalised by too many
crackparroters !!!!!

----------------------
Dirac in the 1920's where it remains today.
* *Interestingly, J.R. Yablon (on this newsgroup, *s.p.r.)
has shown that circulation of the electron in the 5th Kaluza
Klein dimension can actually explain the "spin" of the
electron, in fact the spin and the magnetic moment of all
the charged leptons. *K-K posits that a 4th spatial
dimension is curled up in a circle on the order of the
Planck Length and the electron moves at a constant velocity
---------------------
now for your information

the electron does not orbit all around the nuc !!
b

the formulas of an orbiting object
are exacty as those of a VIBRATION HARMONICALLY

object!!
so according to my new findigs about nuclear and Atomic structure

the electron does not orbit
BUT VIBRATE
sort of a vibration of a rodd or a string!!

-------------
q/m in that dimension, and it is precisely that circular
"current" that causes the magnetic dipole moment of the
electron and hence "permanent magnets" so called.
* *Yablon is a highly competent mathematical physicist and
his paper has been reviewed by Phys. Rev. *I have read the
review (wch. was posted on s.p.r.) and apparently they
rejected the paper solely on the grounds that the idea was
too shocking and simple to possibly be true! *Which as
anyone can see is a quite inadequate and unfair response!
---------------------
i dont know about that specific case but
simple is not a disadvantage
quite the opposite (:-)
nature is not cleeaver enough to understand some
crackparoters 'sophysications '
---------------------

ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------------

On May 11, 1:46*pm, wrote:
Because the atoms are still round in a permanent magnet, you cant
align somthing which is round.

You need something to be elongated in order to align them.

Am I wrong? Where?

Atoms are not really "balls" you know. They are mostly
vacuum with the electrons captive at certain locations
in the volume detemined by the whole atom. Electrons
keep their individual characteristics, including their
spin orientation, which can only be anti-parallel for
orbital filling and for covalent bound (between atoms)

That "vacvum" /is/ the elèctròn. And Tom Roberts is wrong; magnetic
dipole moments and polarisations prove the elèctric current of
elèctròns under the misnomer "spin", as spin has no barýcentric
displacement. Such a charge has trend (intrinsic) and whorl (orbital)
displacements or currends, which are a hýbrid of classic and quantal
cinematics. As do the allotropic/isomeric peanut-, ball-, and donut-
frames of quarks' currends in nucleòns prove their extension.

In a permanent magnet with d-orbitals, you can wittan the elèctròns as
a whorly-clover bola. As it looks lik the probability-plots of
charges (orbitals) as seen in books apply only for the elèctric
componend of the mote, one should see no qualm with havvan orbitals
other than the s whip about the nucleus and linger abroad, whereas in
the s-orbital the elèctròn whips abroad and lingers at the nucleus.
As charges make leaps, their orbits get bigger and thus more polar or
magnetic. In neutral atoms, these poles are quencht with charges
below, so there's a compromise between small and big atoms for the
strongest magnets--at least in the same block.

-Aut