[geocentrism] magnetic modernism.
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>, "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 16:53:09 +1000
On Faradays Riddle, science and the devil.. oops.
"does the field rotate with the magnetising force?"
The Church (the vatican occupants) ARE TO ME IN A STATE OF WHAT IS CALLED
DIABOLICAL DISORIENTATION. The term is not mine.. It came from an apparition,
which my Protestant friends do call a manifestation of the devil. Well either
way. the Devil or God would know.
But This diabolical disorientation is not just in the Vatican. I am absolutely
certain it is in the world universally, and in particular for this post, the
world of Physical science. Engineering science cannot afford it.. Thats how
planes crash.
For the past few weeks I have worked on solving the Faraday Riddle mentioned
before, because it is closely associated with the GC/HC delemma. It drove
Faraday to his grave almost mad. Mainly because he absolutely accepted Galileo,
and the idea of a stationary earth NEVER was a thought.
Anyway, I have not yet proved myself to be much better, in that my proof fell
flat in this recent week just as I was about to release this brilliant writeup
to you all.
Hence not to be discouraged, knowing my knowledge of ancient memory could be
faulty, as regards magnetic theory, I went to Wiki, oh almighty Wiki always
bound to tell us every angle of everything.. YES Yes ,, they do.
They comfirmed my memory as true, and they , well they mixed it with the new
stuff, stuff like Maxwell before I was born, not mentioned in my class, but re
re-gurgitated today.. in this crazy way.. I hope you can follow it as I put in
my ancillary comment in brilliant green or something. Why did I go to wiki..?
Well I wanted to find the answer definitively to this question before I posted
my brilliant thesis to you all.
Maybe a PHuD reading this question can give me the answer. Cynically, he'd have
to be an old PHuD.
Question:
Preamble: When I was a little boy,('50's) magnetic field strength H was
measured "gauss" or "oersted," (nationalism or judaism) the force on a unit
pole as dynes per unit pole. This force was dependent on the field density, B
which we denoted in lines per sq centimetre.
Q.
If two identical poles of two different permanent magnets each having a pole
face density of 1200gauss, lines per sq cm, were placed to closely face each
other in attracting mode, will the magnetic density B between them be 1200 or
twice that?
Keep in mind you are comparing it to just one magnet facing an equivalent piece
of Hi permeability soft iron, having no magnetising force of its own. Soft iron
in magnetic circuits merely provides a low reluctance path for magnetic field
to keep the intensity, density constant.
My thesis and solution depends upon it being unchanged, ie 1200. even though I
believe the opposite may be true. But I need to know.
so now on to Wiki confusion.
B and H
There are two quantities that physicists may refer to as the magnetic field,
notated and . The vector field is known among electrical engineers as the
magnetic field intensity or magnetic field strength also known as auxiliary
magnetic field or magnetizing field. ( also known, yimminy four names.., not my
engineers.. they had one certainty)The vector field is known as magnetic flux
density or magnetic induction or simply magnetic field, as used by physicists,
(notice the separation of the powers of state engineers v physicist) and has
the SI units of teslas (T), equivalent to webers (Wb) per square metre or volt
seconds per square metre. Magnetic flux has the SI units of webers so the
field is that of its areal density. [1][2][3][4][1] What is areal
WOW take you pick.. teslas webers .. seems even the Jews cannot agree to who
gets the glory. though I'm not sure tesla was a Jew. But we had lines per sq
centimeter..
The vector field has the SI units of amperes per metre and is something of the
magnetic analog to the electric displacement field represented by , with the SI
units of the latter being ampere-seconds per square metre. Although the term
"magnetic field" was historically reserved for , with being termed the
"magnetic induction", is now understood to be the more fundamental entity, and
most modern writers refer to as the magnetic field, except when context fails
to make it clear whether the quantity being discussed is or . See: [2]Oh what
a tangled web.. "except ewhen the context makes it clear.." No constants.. no
constraints. Writers have no need to be correct... The year 2000 was the first
year of the new millenium.. WRONG.. but no apology for the error.. Whats one
year error in 1000? the above paragraph is totally unscientific. Here is their
excuse:
The difference between the and the vectors can be traced back to Maxwell's
1855 paper entitled On Faraday's Lines of Force. It is later clarified in his
concept ? dream of a sea of molecular vortices aether theory? that appears in
his 1861 paper On Physical Lines of Force - 1861. Within that context,
represented pure vorticity (spin), SPIN is right. whereas was a weighted
vorticity that was weighted for the density of the vortex sea. OH dear more
aether? Maxwell considered magnetic permeability µ to be a measure of the
density of the vortex sea. Hence the relationship,
Actually Mu or permeability is a measure of a materials ability to be
magnetised. High mu iron for example made good soft iron magnetic material for
transfer or conducting magnetic fields. Permanent magnets generally were not
high mu
(1) Magnetic induction current causes a magnetic current density
was essentially a rotational analogy to the linear electric current
relationship,
(2) Electric convection current
where ? is electric charge density. was seen as a kind of ? magnetic current
of vortices ? aligned in their axial planes, with being the circumferential
velocity of the vortices. With µ representing vortex density, we can now see
how the product of µ with vorticity leads to the term magnetic flux density
which we denote as .Oh no I do not see any such thing from such an imagined
concept. Now I do see this relating to an aether, but they have no way of
quantifying as REAL such things as "vortex circumference velocities" or showing
there to be any spins.. as they call it.. Pure science fiction..
The electric current equation can be viewed as a convective current of electric
charge that involves linear motion. By analogy, the magnetic equation is an
inductive current involving spin. There is no linear motion in the inductive
current along the direction of the vector. The magnetic inductive current
represents lines of force. In particular, it represents lines of inverse square
law force.
To me two words are misplaced and used in a material manner. "convection"
relates to thermo currents in a fluid. and vectors are a graphical
representation in mathmatics, having nothing to do with real space. to say
There is no linear motion in the inductive current along the direction of the
vector.is a nonsense use of the english language and the jargon of the
engineer.. Did this writer ever write the word analogy? or analogous to?
Have fun with the rest.. I'm finished.. Philip. .
The extension of the above considerations confirms that where is to , and
where is to ?, then it necessarily follows from Gauss's law and from the
equation of continuity of charge that is to . Ie. parallels with , whereas
parallels with .
In SI units, and are measured in teslas (T) and amperes per metre (A/m),
respectively; or, in cgs units, in gauss (G) and oersteds (Oe), respectively.
Two parallel wires carrying an electric current in the same direction will
generate a magnetic field that will cause a force of attraction between them.
This fact is used to define the value of an ampere of electric current.
The fields and are also related by the equation
(SI units)
(cgs units),
where is magnetization.
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] magnetic modernism.
