"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:b36si.2261$2c6.1928@trnddc01...
: "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
: news:bbmri.34408$2U6.318@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >
: Bravo, Professor Andro Zaubermeister, for the 2 lectures you
: gave below... In particular I like this section of yours... and the
: second one further down.
: >
: [Androcles]
: > What I'm trying to say is that understanding how Nature works
: > is like trying to understand how a computer works. We want the
: > binary bits and George Boole's algebra of logic, the simple
: > switches and combinations of them that make it all happen, but
: > they are going to be ternary bits. The properties of a cathedral are
: > mystical, but it's made of bricks and stones which are not "holy".
: > As physicists our investigations are into the smallest and simplest
: > bricks or switches possible, not the steeple with the cross or
: > weathervane on top, or how to program a spreadsheet when it is
: > only binary bits anyway. When we know what the bits of Nature
: > are and how they fit together, then we are God.
: > But we have to KNOW, not speculate and guess.
: >
: [hanson]
: Do/give some more on the "why & how existence" of the poles.
: Then could you continue on your lecture with **your thought train**
: and go with your description of the +/- poles (below) with
: YOUR view and explanation of why stationary like charges
: do repel, but why these same (-), or like, charges do behave
: seemingly different when they move in 2 parallel wires in the
: same direction and now attract each other. Do it without
: invoking the standard left/right hand/finger rules or Maxwell
: or the term "field", but instead use your own way, preferably
: your "bit" route. IMHO your bit route has great potential in
: the heuristic age of digitism.
: Looking forward to your next lecture.
: hanson
:
: PS:
: As ref to the classical pix of teaching do filter out, without
: an scruples, what you deem to be useless or misleading in here:
:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html
:
: >
:: [hanson fu]
:: Do/give some more on the "why & how existence" of the poles.

As established, there are no poles without an interruption in the
"circuit" of the matter, and a force appears outside the matter
between the poles. This is the "action at a distance" that bothered
Newton.

In the case of a magnet, pieces of iron will readily fill the gap between
the poles.

http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/images/magnetic_detection2.jpg

There are several things we can observe in that image.
1) There are definite poles, points from which the lines radiate.
2) There are gaps between the lines of filings.
3) Each filing behaves as if it were a tiny magnet, as is the compass
needle.
4) Unlike poles attract, like poles repel.
5) The concentration of filings is greatest near the poles.

We therefore surmise that the gaps between the lines of filings
is a result of the filings repelling each other.
Looking at the magnet itself as a group of filings rigidly connected,
it's as if the poles wanted to shrink lengthwise. So... what
is the force that keeps the magnet together as an entity?
In other words, why do solids exist at all?

: >
: [Androcles continued]
: In this oscillator the ferrite ring circuit is unbroken but the copper
:wire circuit is broken by the plates of the capacitor.
: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/oscillator.JPG
:
: Thus alternating +ve and -ve poles appear across the plates of the
: capacitor because the current is interrupted, but no interruption is
: present in the ferrite ring. If we DO interrupt the ferrite ring
: (as with a horseshoe magnet) then N and S poles appear.
: Androcles' rule for electrodynamics. There are no poles
: without the gap to interrupt the flow.
: The permanent magnet is analogous to the charged capacitor.
: Put a keeper across the gap and the field vanishes (or at least
: diminishes greatly). It differs in that the field returns when the
: keeper is removed, whereas the capacitor doesn't recharge after
: being shorted.
: >
: [hanson]
:: Then could you continue on your lecture with **your thought train**
:: and go with your description of the +/- poles (below) with
:: YOUR view and explanation of why stationary like charges
:: do repel, but why these same (-), or like, charges do behave
:: seemingly different when they move in 2 parallel wires in the
:: same direction and now attract each other. Do it without
:: invoking the standard left/right hand/finger rules or Maxwell
:: or the term "field", but instead use your own way, preferably
:: your "bit" route. IMHO your bit route has great potential in
:: the heuristic age of digitism.
:: Looking forward to your next lecture.
:: hanson
::
: [Androcles' 2nd lecture]
: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/oscillator.JPG
: The picture shows several turns of copper wire (green insulation)
: but if we can imagine just one turn with a gap in each interlocking
: ring, one copper and one ferrite, like links in a chain, and
: then set it oscillating, the magnetic poles will alternate as well.
: INSIDE the magnet we have an alternating flux of magtrons
: just as inside the copper we have an alternating current of electrons,
: but outside we have alternating fields, voltage across the electric
: poles and gaussage across the magnetic poles. In order to talk
: about entities we have to give them names.
:
: Here comes the tricky part. The magnetic field between the N and S
: poles exists OUTSIDE the ferrite ring and the electric field between
: the +ve and -ve poles OUTSIDE the copper ring. Hanging in space.
: But of course they alternate, one exists when the other doesn't.
: So what happens to them if we take the rings away?
:
: Well... we can't just take the rings away, have them vanish into
: thin aether. But what are they anyway?
: They are matter.
: They have properties.
: The copper ring isn't a good magnet, the ferrite ring isn't
: a good conductor (although iron is). Yet the copper ring
: IS a magnet, except the field is a ring around it.
: But what are the properties they have in common?
: Gravity, inertia.
: The poles of gravity are where the matter is, inertia keeps
: them apart. The Moon doesn't fall to Earth because
: it has inertia.
:
: Back to the two rings, one copper, one ferrite. We can
: make a chain, alternating copper and ferrite with each link.
: Any Cu-Fe-Cu ring set is a 1:1 transformer, so we can pass AC
: along the chain. What frequency should we use? The resonant
: frequency, of course. What are the rings for? To prevent radiation
: from the gaps.
: Just a thought... I am no chemist or metallurgist, but
: is that going to be a superconductor?
: http://superconductors.org/Type2.htm
:
: [hanson]
:: PS:
:: As ref to the classical pix of teaching do filter out, without
:: an scruples, what you deem to be useless or misleading in here:
::
:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html
::
: [Andro]
: This I agree with:
: " if the real history of physics of the 19th century were known, most of
: what passes as teaching of fundamental topics in that discipline today,
: would be shown to be, in the best of cases, misdirected, in the worst,
: willful fraud."
:
: This is misleading:
: " It was found to be experimentally equal, in electrodynamic units, to
the
: product of the velocity of light, in vacuo, with the square root of 2.
That
: value, became known as the Weber constant. In electromagnetic units,
: it was equal to the light velocity."
:
: It cannot be said often enough, ALL velocities are relative.
: The hidden reference to vacuum as being the measure against which
: the velocity of light is relative to is completely meaningless, there is
: NOTHING there.
:
: As Hecht states, "To get at the source of those self-imposed shackles,
: requires that we go beyond the bounds of what is today defined as
“physics,”
: into matters usually classified as philosophical, or metaphysical."
:
: The aether (or vacuum with properties, a rose by any other name... ) is
a
: self-imposed shackle.
: There is NO experiment that measures the velocity of light from a moving
: source, in vacuo, as being c. If anything, this observation shows that
: electromagnetic radiation has a RANGE of velocities.
: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html
:
: We really do have to think of photons as bullets, unimpeded by vacuum,
: complete and separate from the nothing and not as waves, as with water
: or air. Do that and the confusion of wave-particle duality vanishes.
: The wave nature of the photon is its intrinsic frequency, its
oscillation
: between its magnetic and electric state. It is self-contained,
independent
: of vacuum.
: The wave nature of the radio transmission, same thing. Geostationary
: satellites are actually going around the Earth every 24 hours, but they
are
: also going around the sun at 0.0001c along with the Earth. If signal
: velocity in vacuo were fixed they'd be displaced eastward at noon
: and westward at midnight, take longer to get here at 6:00 am
: than at 6:00 pm. The velocity of light in vacuum is c RELATIVE
: to the SOURCE. All "experiments" have used the source as the
: reference, the one that PROVES source dependence is Sagnac.
:
: This needs following up once Einstein's exotic time dilation crap is
cast
: aside for the worthless sci-fi garbage and blundering mathematics it is:
: "In a short paper on gravitation, he suggested that the net effect of
the
: electrodynamic forces between two electrically neutral bodies would be
an
: attraction. His approach was not that of Mossotti; rather, he seems to
be
: considering the internal motions of the electrical particles in the
atoms
as
: generating such a net effect. The paper is all too short; Ritz died in
1909
: at the age of 31. (Deviations in the gravitational force, detected at
: eclipses, and other anomalous effects suggesting the need for radical
: revamping of accepted theory continue to make themselves known. "
:
: Whether Ritz's suggestion was right or not can only be investigated,
we'll
: have to see what future technologies arise from it.
: Throw out the text books, the Robertses, Baezes and Carlips, those
: we don't need. Bring back science to physics.
:
: "To achieve any useful understanding, the reader must relive the
original
: discovery as if it were his own."
:
: I've said this before, I'll go on saying it. It was John Goodricke's
: theorising that threw physics off the tracks. If he'd only considered
: the effect of adding the velocity of light to his moving source then
: we might never have stumbled down this blind alley. But he was
: just a kid, dead at 22, and Newton was long gone.
: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
: I have relived the original discovery as if it were his own, and have
: made a different discovery. The planet orbiting Algol is "Androcles",
: the planet orbiting delta-Cepheus is "Cassandra".
: Cassandra was doomed to tell the truth, but never to be believed.
:
http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/imageswomen/papers/fittoncassandra/intro.html
: Cassandra was a great, intelligent heroine who was cursed by the gods
for
: not playing by their rules. She is a tragic figure, not a madwoman.
:
: They are my discoveries and I'm proud of them. I have stood upon
: the shoulders of Newton and seen further than any man before me.
: I can die happy with that, not many make such a discovery.
: >
: [hanson]
: Thank you, Andro.
: Your most memorable and profound line, AFAIC, are
: --- Andro's Maxim ---
:::: "To achieve any useful understanding, the reader must
:::: relive the original discovery as if it were his own."
: ---
: Obviously, hearing all that continuous & incessant parroting
: from the Einstein Dingleberries and the echoing from the
: QMassters.. of them just reading & unconditionally believing
: just because it was in print, shows that physics by and large
: is really nothing more than a social enterprise.
: Only a select few like yourself do get to experience the true
: and profound beauty of physics.
: You are a man to be envied, Andro.
: Take care, old buddy,
: hanson
: >
: PS:
: Please do push your "I can die happy" into the far future.
: For when you finally do fold your tent and close your umbrella
: then these NGs will become truly a walk thru the graveyard...
: So, hang in there, mate, will ya!!!
:
: >
: ------- original posts --------
: > : > : The Yentzer Yenta "Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote
: > : > : > Rect-Al Schwartz <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in his
: > : > : >> Wind your stator into a Moebius band. Energize. You now
: > : > : >> have a magnetic monopole. Infinite free energy follows.
: > : > : >
: > : > : [The Yentzer Yenta said to rect-Al]
: > : > : > *****!
: and the rest of it is here:
: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/53d2d0f0f3835113?hl=en&
: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/dcd43f98fa992dca?hl=en&
: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/746b83a003823252?hl=en&
: