Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.electromag > #21722 > unrolled thread

Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.electromag

Contents

  Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2023-12-15 18:25 +0000
    Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-12-15 10:40 -0800
      Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2023-12-15 21:49 +0000
        Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-12-15 14:55 -0800
          Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2023-12-15 23:03 +0000
            Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-12-15 16:43 -0800
              Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2023-12-16 10:46 +0000
                Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-12-16 08:24 -0800
                  Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2023-12-16 18:43 +0000
                    Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-12-16 11:02 -0800
                      Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2023-12-16 19:27 +0000
                        Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-12-16 11:40 -0800
                          Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2023-12-16 21:18 +0000
                            Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-12-16 14:03 -0800
                              Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2023-12-16 23:45 +0000
                                Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-12-17 08:56 -0800
                                  Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2023-12-18 20:14 +0000
                                    Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-12-18 13:08 -0800
                                      Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2023-12-19 16:37 +0000
                                        Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-12-19 09:07 -0800
                                          Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2023-12-20 23:09 +0000
                                            Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-12-20 15:33 -0800
                                              Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2023-12-21 00:39 +0000
                                                Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-12-20 18:48 -0800
                                                  Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2023-12-21 15:01 +0000
                                                    Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-12-21 07:48 -0800
                                                      Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2023-12-22 19:29 +0000
                                                        Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-12-22 11:46 -0800
                                                          Re: Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 14:32 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#21722 — Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law

Dear readers, 

I have been working on new electromagnetism since year 1997 and written 
many articles which I sent to several journals of physics for publication. 
But all my articles were turned down. The main reason for the rejection is 
that I put the Maxwell’s theory into question. Normal physicists believe 
that the Maxwell’s theory is flawless and think that any challenge to it 
is absurd.

However, we have shown in « From Coulomb’s force to magnetic force and 
experiments that show parallel-to-current magnetic force »   that the 
prediction of the Lorentz force law is wrong, but the new magnetic force 
law derived in this article gives the correct magnetic force. Since the 
Lorentz force law is wrong, the energy and mass of high energy particles 
which are derived with this law are unreliable. So, refusing to solve the 
violation of the Newton's third law by the Lorentz force law harms the 
development of physics. Only a revision of electromagnetic theory can 
unblock the situation. 
  
Revising the Maxwell’s theory is such a radical change of paradigm that 
normal physicists will laugh at it. But few of them will understand and 
promote it. Later, in the same way as Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max 
Born or Erwin Schrödinger were for Quantum mechanics, when the new theory 
is finally accepted, the early promoters will become the masters of the 
discipline.
 
Revision of Maxwell’s theory is a type of revolution that occurs once in 
a century. You have the opportunity to be the early promoters of the new 
theory and become later great masters of physics. For promoting the new 
theory, you can carry out your own experiment, produce your own 
development of the theory. You can also spread the idea through your 
friends or colleagues who think they know all about electromagnetism, just 
challenge them to solve the paradox of the angular coil1 or those in the 
list1. These paradoxes are consequent of the inconsistency of the 
Maxwell’s theory and cannot be solved. Beating them with these paradoxes 
will make them rethink about the electromagnetism they know and be 
interested in the new theory. 
  
Because of the aversion to question the Maxwell’s theory of the physical 
community, I got repeatedly rejected by mainstream journals which hurts me 
badly. So, I decide to publish my articles only online and count on the 
wise of you, my readers, to spread the new idea. Breakthroughs in science 
always fight against old convictions before being accepted, like when 
geocentrism was replaced by heliocentrism. Once accepted, it will be the 
happiest event for everyone who is involved. So, let us join our force to 
revolutionize physics.

Please read this article « From Coulomb’s force to magnetic force and 
experiments that show parallel-to-current magnetic force » 1 to learn 
about the new magnetic force law. If you are interested in this project, 
please contact me at this address pengkuanem@gmail.com so that we can 
create a worldwide team which will accelerate its realization. 

Kuan Peng
11 December 2023


1. Kuan Peng, 2023, « From Coulomb’s force to magnetic force and 
experiments that show parallel-to-current magnetic force » 
https://www.academia.edu/106863205/From_Coulomb_s_force_to_magnetic_force_and_experiments_that_show_parallel_to_current_magnetic_force_letter_ 

https://pengkuanem.blogspot.com/2023/09/from-coulombs-force-to-magnetic-force.html

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#21723

Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear readers, 
> 
> I have been working on new electromagnetism since year 1997 and written 
> many articles which I sent to several journals of physics for publication. 
> But all my articles were turned down. The main reason for the rejection is 
> that I put the Maxwell’s theory into question. Normal physicists believe 
> that the Maxwell’s theory is flawless and think that any challenge to it 
> is absurd.

Which it is absent a repeatable experiment.

Do you have a repeatable, peer reviewed experiment that demonstrates a
flaw in Maxwell’s theory or are you just yet another crackpot?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21724

Le 15/12/2023 à 19:40, Jim Pennino a écrit :
> Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear readers, 
>> 
>> I have been working on new electromagnetism since year 1997 and written 
>> many articles which I sent to several journals of physics for publication. 
>> But all my articles were turned down. The main reason for the rejection is 
>> that I put the Maxwell’s theory into question. Normal physicists believe 
>> that the Maxwell’s theory is flawless and think that any challenge to it 
>> is absurd.
> 
> Which it is absent a repeatable experiment.
> 
> Do you have a repeatable, peer reviewed experiment that demonstrates a
> flaw in Maxwell’s theory or are you just yet another crackpot?

The first experiment is «Continuous rotation of a circular coil 
experiment» 
https://www.academia.edu/33604205/Continuous_rotation_of_a_circular_coil_experiment

The video of this experiment is: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9162Qw-wNow . 
In this video we see a round coil rotating in its plane. Because the coil 
is round the driving force must be parallel to the wire, that is, to the 
current. This force cannot be Lorentz force which is perpendicular to the 
current. A detailed technical explanation is in the paper «Showing 
tangential magnetic force by experiment»  .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21725

Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 15/12/2023 à 19:40, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>> Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear readers, 
>>> 
>>> I have been working on new electromagnetism since year 1997 and written 
>>> many articles which I sent to several journals of physics for publication. 
>>> But all my articles were turned down. The main reason for the rejection is 
>>> that I put the Maxwell’s theory into question. Normal physicists believe 
>>> that the Maxwell’s theory is flawless and think that any challenge to it 
>>> is absurd.
>> 
>> Which it is absent a repeatable experiment.
>> 
>> Do you have a repeatable, peer reviewed experiment that demonstrates a
>> flaw in Maxwell’s theory or are you just yet another crackpot?
> 
> The first experiment is «Continuous rotation of a circular coil 
> experiment» 
> https://www.academia.edu/33604205/Continuous_rotation_of_a_circular_coil_experiment
> 
> The video of this experiment is: 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9162Qw-wNow . 
> In this video we see a round coil rotating in its plane. Because the coil 
> is round the driving force must be parallel to the wire, that is, to the 
> current. This force cannot be Lorentz force which is perpendicular to the 
> current. A detailed technical explanation is in the paper «Showing 
> tangential magnetic force by experiment»  .

And the peer reviews of these experiments are at?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21726

Le 15/12/2023 à 23:55, Jim Pennino a écrit :
> And the peer reviews of these experiments are at?

Not peer reviewed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21727

Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 15/12/2023 à 23:55, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>> And the peer reviews of these experiments are at?
> 
> Not peer reviewed

And why is that?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21728

Le 16/12/2023 à 01:43, Jim Pennino a écrit :
> Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Le 15/12/2023 à 23:55, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>>> And the peer reviews of these experiments are at?
>> 
>> Not peer reviewed
> 
> And why is that?
Because this experiment challenges Maxwell which is not allowed by any 
journal. So, I have put every technical detail in «Showing tangential 
magnetic force by experiment»
https://www.academia.edu/36652163/Showing_tangential_magnetic_force_by_experiment
http://pengkuanem.blogspot.com/2018/05/showing-tangential-magnetic-force-by.html 

for anyone who is interested to be able to repeat it. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21729

Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 16/12/2023 à 01:43, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>> Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Le 15/12/2023 à 23:55, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>>>> And the peer reviews of these experiments are at?
>>> 
>>> Not peer reviewed
>> 
>> And why is that?
> Because this experiment challenges Maxwell which is not allowed by any 
> journal. So, I have put every technical detail in «Showing tangential 
> magnetic force by experiment»
> https://www.academia.edu/36652163/Showing_tangential_magnetic_force_by_experiment
> http://pengkuanem.blogspot.com/2018/05/showing-tangential-magnetic-force-by.html 
> 
> for anyone who is interested to be able to repeat it. 
> 

Get back to us when someone successfully repeats the experiment.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21730

Le 16/12/2023 à 17:24, Jim Pennino a écrit :
> 
> Get back to us when someone successfully repeats the experiment.

I’m here to inform those people who would be interested to repeat this 
simple experiment which will give them a benefit as huge as going to the 
moon, because of Maxwell.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21731

Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 16/12/2023 à 17:24, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>> 
>> Get back to us when someone successfully repeats the experiment.
> 
> I’m here to inform those people who would be interested to repeat this 
> simple experiment which will give them a benefit as huge as going to the 
> moon, because of Maxwell.

Yeah, right.

What "benefit" might that be?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21732

Le 16/12/2023 à 20:02, Jim Pennino a écrit :
> Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Le 16/12/2023 à 17:24, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>>> 
>>> Get back to us when someone successfully repeats the experiment.
>> 
>> I’m here to inform those people who would be interested to repeat this 
>> simple experiment which will give them a benefit as huge as going to the 
>> moon, because of Maxwell.
> 
> Yeah, right.
> 
> What "benefit" might that be?

To be one of those who definitely contribute to revolutionize 
electromagnetism. You know, Quantum mechanics has not been developed by 
one person, but by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born or Erwin 
Schrödinger and many others.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21733

Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 16/12/2023 à 20:02, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>> Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Le 16/12/2023 à 17:24, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>> Get back to us when someone successfully repeats the experiment.
>>> 
>>> I’m here to inform those people who would be interested to repeat this 
>>> simple experiment which will give them a benefit as huge as going to the 
>>> moon, because of Maxwell.
>> 
>> Yeah, right.
>> 
>> What "benefit" might that be?
> 
> To be one of those who definitely contribute to revolutionize 
> electromagnetism.

This is just a pile of arm waving.

How would it "revolutionize electromagnetism"?

What difference would it make in the real world?

What new technology would it enable?

> You know, Quantum mechanics has not been developed by 
> one person, but by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born or Erwin 
> Schrödinger and many others.

As can be said about just about everything from quantum mechanics to
windshield wiper blades.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21734

Le 16/12/2023 à 20:40, Jim Pennino a écrit :
> 
> This is just a pile of arm waving.
> 
> How would it "revolutionize electromagnetism"?
> 
> What difference would it make in the real world?
> 
> What new technology would it enable?
> 

My experiment shows that a magnetic force that is parallel to the test 
current rotates the coil, so parallel-to-current magnetic force exists. 
But it is not described by Lorentz force law because Lorentz force is 
perpendicular to the test current. 

In consequence, parallel-to-current magnetic force cannot be described 
with magnetic field because Lorentz force equal the vectorial product of 
current I and magnetic field B. Then electromagnetism need a field that is 
more then B. This is a radical change in the theory of electromagnetism 
and a revolution.

As for practical applications, they will come later as technique evolves. 
Even Faraday did not know what would be the applications of electricity. 
However, I have in mind an ionic propeller for spacecraft. Ion flow is an 
electric current which can be pushed by parallel-to-current magnetic 
force.

Also, the magnetic confinement of plasma in Tokamak is designed with 
Lorentz force law which does not work with parallel-to-current magnetic 
force. But this force really matters for high temperature ions which bite 
into the wall. So, parallel-to-current magnetic force will surely improve 
the design and the work of nuclear fusion apparatus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21735

Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 16/12/2023 à 20:40, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>> 
>> This is just a pile of arm waving.
>> 
>> How would it "revolutionize electromagnetism"?
>> 
>> What difference would it make in the real world?
>> 
>> What new technology would it enable?
>> 
> 
> My experiment shows that a magnetic force that is parallel to the test 
> current rotates the coil, so parallel-to-current magnetic force exists. 
> But it is not described by Lorentz force law because Lorentz force is 
> perpendicular to the test current. 
> 
> In consequence, parallel-to-current magnetic force cannot be described 
> with magnetic field because Lorentz force equal the vectorial product of 
> current I and magnetic field B. Then electromagnetism need a field that is 
> more then B. This is a radical change in the theory of electromagnetism 
> and a revolution.

Yet more arm waving.

> 
> As for practical applications, they will come later as technique evolves. 
> Even Faraday did not know what would be the applications of electricity. 
> However, I have in mind an ionic propeller for spacecraft. Ion flow is an 
> electric current which can be pushed by parallel-to-current magnetic 
> force.

What you describe is NOT a propeller but a rocket, and ion rockets have
been around for many decades.

So what would change?

> 
> Also, the magnetic confinement of plasma in Tokamak is designed with 
> Lorentz force law which does not work with parallel-to-current magnetic 
> force. But this force really matters for high temperature ions which bite 
> into the wall. So, parallel-to-current magnetic force will surely improve 
> the design and the work of nuclear fusion apparatus
> 

Ions which bite?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21736

Le 16/12/2023 à 23:03, Jim Pennino a écrit :
> Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> My experiment shows that a magnetic force that is parallel to the test 
>> current rotates the coil, so parallel-to-current magnetic force exists. 
>> But it is not described by Lorentz force law because Lorentz force is 
>> perpendicular to the test current. 
>> 
>> In consequence, parallel-to-current magnetic force cannot be described 
>> with magnetic field because Lorentz force equal the vectorial product of 
>> current I and magnetic field B. Then electromagnetism need a field that is 
>> more then B. This is a radical change in the theory of electromagnetism 
>> and a revolution.
> 
> Yet more arm waving.

I do not see what is and what is not arm waving for you. I feel that if 
the thing I say is already understood and accepted by you it is not arm 
waving, if you do not accept, it is arm waving. Imagine that you read the 
theory of relativity, the book does not arm wave, but if it is Einstein 
who tells you that time slows down and that you have no idea about 
relativity, then he is arm waving. 

I said that parallel-to-current magnetic force exists. It is arm waving 
for you. For you to accept this idea, I have to teach the whole theory 
which cannot be done here. However, parallel-to-current magnetic force is 
shown by experiment and is true. I do not know how to explain it without 
you thinking I’m arm waving. 

> 
> What you describe is NOT a propeller but a rocket, and ion rockets have
> been around for many decades.
> 
> So what would change?

Yes, ion rockets have been around for many decades. But ion rocket that is 
propelled by parallel-to-current magnetic force does not. Is internal 
combustion engine not new because steam engine have been around for many 
decades? Internal combustion engines use petrol while steam engines use 
steam. So, ion rocket that is propelled by parallel-to-current magnetic 
force is a new idea, although it is not sure that it will work.

> 
>> 
>> Also, the magnetic confinement of plasma in Tokamak is designed with 
>> Lorentz force law which does not work with parallel-to-current magnetic 
>> force. But this force really matters for high temperature ions which bite 
>> into the wall. So, parallel-to-current magnetic force will surely improve 
>> the design and the work of nuclear fusion apparatus
>> 
> 
> Ions which bite?

Yes, hot plasma melts spot of the wall of the chamber of a Tokamak. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21737

Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 16/12/2023 à 23:03, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>> Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> My experiment shows that a magnetic force that is parallel to the test 
>>> current rotates the coil, so parallel-to-current magnetic force exists. 
>>> But it is not described by Lorentz force law because Lorentz force is 
>>> perpendicular to the test current. 
>>> 
>>> In consequence, parallel-to-current magnetic force cannot be described 
>>> with magnetic field because Lorentz force equal the vectorial product of 
>>> current I and magnetic field B. Then electromagnetism need a field that is 
>>> more then B. This is a radical change in the theory of electromagnetism 
>>> and a revolution.
>> 
>> Yet more arm waving.
> 
> I do not see what is and what is not arm waving for you. I feel that if 
> the thing I say is already understood and accepted by you it is not arm 
> waving, if you do not accept, it is arm waving. Imagine that you read the 
> theory of relativity, the book does not arm wave, but if it is Einstein 
> who tells you that time slows down and that you have no idea about 
> relativity, then he is arm waving. 

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving:

"Hand-waving (with various spellings) is a pejorative label for
attempting to be seen as effective – in word, reasoning, or deed – while
actually doing nothing effective or substantial.[1] It is often applied
to debating techniques that involve fallacies, misdirection and the
glossing over of details.[2] It is also used academically to indicate
unproven claims and skipped steps in proofs (sometimes intentionally, as
in lectures and instructional materials), with some specific meanings in
particular fields, including literary criticism, speculative fiction,
mathematics, logic, science and engineering."
> 
> I said that parallel-to-current magnetic force exists. It is arm waving 
> for you. For you to accept this idea, I have to teach the whole theory 
> which cannot be done here. However, parallel-to-current magnetic force is 
> shown by experiment and is true. I do not know how to explain it without 
> you thinking I’m arm waving. 

See above.

> 
>> 
>> What you describe is NOT a propeller but a rocket, and ion rockets have
>> been around for many decades.
>> 
>> So what would change?
> 
> Yes, ion rockets have been around for many decades. But ion rocket that is 
> propelled by parallel-to-current magnetic force does not. Is internal 
> combustion engine not new because steam engine have been around for many 
> decades? Internal combustion engines use petrol while steam engines use 
> steam. So, ion rocket that is propelled by parallel-to-current magnetic 
> force is a new idea, although it is not sure that it will work.

All the above blather about engines is a perfect example of arm waving.
Nothing you said has anything whatsoever to do with a "new" theory of
electromagnetics.

Nor have you said anything about how your "new theory" ion rocket would
be any different than conventional ion rockets.

>>> Also, the magnetic confinement of plasma in Tokamak is designed with 
>>> Lorentz force law which does not work with parallel-to-current magnetic 
>>> force. But this force really matters for high temperature ions which bite 
>>> into the wall. So, parallel-to-current magnetic force will surely improve 
>>> the design and the work of nuclear fusion apparatus
>>> 
>> 
>> Ions which bite?
> 
> Yes, hot plasma melts spot of the wall of the chamber of a Tokamak. 

Melt and bite are two entirely different things.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21738

Let us try to agree on something that is not Hand-waving. Here is my 
experiment: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9162Qw-wNow 
The coil in this experiment rotates in its plane. Do you agree with that? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21739

Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let us try to agree on something that is not Hand-waving. Here is my 
> experiment: 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9162Qw-wNow 
> The coil in this experiment rotates in its plane. Do you agree with that? 
 
I don't care.

My bottom line is that if there were "other" hitherto unknown magnetic
forces, they would be visible with iron filings on a piece of paper.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21740

Le 18/12/2023 à 22:08, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>  
> I don't care.
> 
> My bottom line is that if there were "other" hitherto unknown magnetic
> forces, they would be visible with iron filings on a piece of paper.

It is OK that you don’t care about my experiment and the 
parallel-to-current magnetic force which are the subject of our 
discussion. If someone does a thing he does not care, the thing is 
worthless for him and he waste his time in doing it. Then have you wasted 
your time? For what purpose? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21741

Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 18/12/2023 à 22:08, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>>  
>> I don't care.
>> 
>> My bottom line is that if there were "other" hitherto unknown magnetic
>> forces, they would be visible with iron filings on a piece of paper.
> 
> It is OK that you don’t care about my experiment and the 
> parallel-to-current magnetic force which are the subject of our 
> discussion. If someone does a thing he does not care, the thing is 
> worthless for him and he waste his time in doing it. Then have you wasted 
> your time? For what purpose? 

My bottom line is that if there were "other" magnetic forces, they
would be visible with iron filings on a piece of paper.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.electromag

csiph-web