Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] A sort of story time in physics] Steven Rado's Aethro-kinematics

Expand Messages
  • Ernest John Berry III
    As to what magnetism really is I haven t a clue. The following things I think about, note that a charge can not detect a magnetic field directly, it only feels
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 2, 2000
      As to what magnetism really is I haven't a clue.

      The following things I think about, note that a charge can not detect a magnetic field directly,
      it only feels the electric field created by relative motion to the fabled lines. (or an increase
      of those lines, as in the case of a transformer where the magnetic field does not leave the core
      of the transformer, yet induces a type of electric field or force outside of the core)

      And that magnetic fields don't exist in all reference frames (more specifically don't have to)
      as it is the relative motion to a charge that creates a magnetic field. (I think everyone got
      that, but to elaborate if you have a cluster of charges, lets say negative ions if you move
      relative to them you find a magnetic field that does not exist if you are stationary to them,
      and opposite to that if you are moving in the opposite direction)

      Magnetic fields a created by charges, Detected by charges, and felt (by the charges) as electric
      fields or force.

      Another apparent clue is that they don't seen to merge but two magnetic fields at 90 degrees do
      not create one magnetic field at 45 degrees but two separate magnetic fields, or so it seems if
      you look at saturation.
      I would like to know others take on any evidence agreeing or disagreeing with this one.

      The question that arises from the above is if magnetic fields actually exist at all except as a
      type of electric field.

      Though they sure look very real with two magnets and some iron fillings, but if you break it
      down what part of the iron atom actually aligns to the magnetic field?
      I'm not sure what the answer is meant to be, John Schnurer I'm sure you know more than me on
      that.

      It's either the orbital motions of the electrons in the electron shell, The spin of electrons in
      the electron shell, the rotation of the nucleus, or the spin of the nucleus.

      That being as clear as mud it doesn't help us much (and the less said about spin the better),
      but as I understand it all magnetic fields are said to be created by moving charges including
      that of an atom. And detected by other moving charges. (which as they are moving relative to a
      magnetic field see it as an electric field again)

      It seems like at most a magnetic field is just an intermediary which does not directly interact
      with anything but it's self (created by moving charges, detected only by relative motion, felt
      as an electric field or force, it's very existence in a certain area depends on your relative
      motion to the charge creating it), and might just be an abstraction, an illusion that makes an
      otherwise difficult things easy to understand (somewhat) as long as you don't ask the big
      questions.

      Above I just said that it only interacts with it's self, but there is evidence that what looks
      like interacting merging and bending might just be vector sums and addition. (two magnetic
      fields might not merge but actually be two distinct magnetic fields in the same space, only most
      things like iron powder will make them look like they have merged by reacting to both)

      I guess magnetism might be some spunup electric field where motion is needed to untangle it...

      Well I still don't have a clue what it is though, because even if the above is right, the
      question becomes "What is an electric field".

      Then what is an electron? An infinitely small point and infinitely large electric field coming
      from it?



      Note: I'm tired, confused, out of practice with writing emails, and I never was any good, and
      I'm on some antibiotics that are messing with my mind a little, so I'm sorry if any of the above
      is written wrongly of confusingly.

      And that's assuming what I'm trying to say makes sense.


      John Berry

      "c.h.thompson" wrote:

      > Dear John
      >
      > > I looked at the site briefly..... and went to the description of
      > > Magnetism. i did theis because magnetic fields are my main area.
      > >
      > > Steve Rado describes a "fan" operating in a pipe.
      > >
      > > This sort of sounds like ..to me .... lets us put together a set of
      > > mechanical models and explain things.... It may be pretty... but leaves
      > > me a little un satisfied.
      >
      > I agree. It leaves me unsatisfied for rather more basic reasons, that it
      > introduces a difference between north and south poles that I have never seen
      > anyone suggest actually existed. If you put two like poles together in his
      > theory, they are supposed to repel whether they are both sucking aether in
      > or spewing it out. Though he puts forward some faintly plausible arguments
      > for this, I can't see any reason why the forces should turn out equal for
      > equal pole strengths!
      >
      > But what is YOUR explanation of magnetism? I have my own private (or not
      > so completely private -- there are hints on my web site) basic picture, and
      > this is closely related to the nineteenth century one with little circling
      > currents. I do not have detailed knowledge of all the properties of
      > magnetism, though. What other ingredients are needed?
      >
      > Incidentally, Steven Rado's book was an inspiration to me -- I don't agree
      > with his aethrons, his model of the electron or many other things, but all
      > the same he presents some very plausible explanations for relativistic
      > effects and makes interesting suggestions about the nature of light. He
      > pulls to pieces the supposed evidence for the quantum. Though his ideas on
      > gravity may not be right, they may not be wholly wrong! He is at least
      > right to challenge existing theory. I suppose I appreciated his work
      > because it happened to be the first time I'd seen some of the challenges in
      > print. Here was a like mind! An intuitive model of the universe IS
      > possible.
      >
      > But what I'm really writing for is just to ask about your own model of
      > magnetism?
      >
      > Cheers
      > Caroline
      > c.h.thompson@...
      > http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat
      >
      >
      > To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...
      >
      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.