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

Groups > sci.physics > #574561 > unrolled thread

page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 22:09 -0700
    Re: page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 15:12 -0700
      Re: page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 21:22 -0700
        Re: page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 13:15 -0500
          Re: page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 15:00 -0700
            Re: page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 18:24 -0500
              Re: page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 22:14 -0700
                Re: page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 07:05 -0500
            Re: page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 06:49 -0500
              Re: page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 16:18 -0700
                Re: page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 12:25 -0500
                  perfect spherical magnet-- any exist? Re: page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 15:00 -0700
                    Re: perfect spherical magnet-- any exist? Re: page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 19:34 -0500
                      Re: perfect spherical magnet-- any exist? Re: page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 23:20 -0700
                    Re: perfect spherical magnet-- any exist? Re: page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 09:00 -0500
                      Re: perfect spherical magnet-- any exist? Re: page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-05 11:11 -0400
                        Re: perfect spherical magnet-- any exist? Re: page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 11:45 -0500
                        would the center be a magnetic pole in a Perfect-EM-Sphere? Re: perfect spherical magnet-- any exist? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 12:59 -0700
                          Re: would the center be a magnetic pole in a Perfect-EM-Sphere? Re: perfect spherical magnet-- any exist? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 16:01 -0500
                            Re: would the center be a magnetic pole in a Perfect-EM-Sphere? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-08 10:42 +0200
                          Re: would the center be a magnetic pole in a Perfect-EM-Sphere? Re: perfect spherical magnet-- any exist? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 16:22 -0500
                            Re: would the center be a magnetic pole in a Perfect-EM-Sphere? Re: perfect spherical magnet-- any exist? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 17:21 -0700
                              Re: would the center be a magnetic pole in a Perfect-EM-Sphere? Re: perfect spherical magnet-- any exist? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 20:35 -0500
                                Re: would the center be a magnetic pole in a Perfect-EM-Sphere? Re: perfect spherical magnet-- any exist? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 23:47 -0700
                                  Re: would the center be a magnetic pole in a Perfect-EM-Sphere? Re: perfect spherical magnet-- any exist? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 08:45 -0500
                                    Re: would the center be a magnetic pole in a Perfect-EM-Sphere? Re: perfect spherical magnet-- any exist? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 19:37 -0700
                                      Re: would the center be a magnetic pole in a Perfect-EM-Sphere? Re: perfect spherical magnet-- any exist? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 22:27 -0500
                              Re: would the center be a magnetic pole in a Perfect-EM-Sphere? Re: perfect spherical magnet-- any exist? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 08:06 -0500
    Re: page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-05-02 14:29 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#574561 — page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

page 4 
Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics 

Now the Democritus Atomic Theory leads very naturally into electricity and magnetism which in science history starts with Thales of Miletus with amber and lodestone of (550 years before De Rerum Natura of Titus Lucretius famous poem describing the Atomic theory). The Democritus Atomic theory was 400 years before De Rerum Natura. 

What Thales observed and noted was that a lodestone attracts other lodestones and attracts iron. So Thales noted in science history the first magnetism of physics. 

This is a famous achievement of noting the world's first magnet and the phenomenon of magnetism. For it starts the process of magnetism and electricity which finally comes to a spectacular summit of science achievements with Ampere, Faraday, and Maxwell and the Maxwell theory as framed in the Maxwell Equations from 1830s to 1860s. 

So, in magnetism such as the Faraday law where you have a closed loop of wire and thrust a bar magnet through the wire, back and forth, you generate a electric current in the wire. We can think of the bar magnet and wire as matter and the space around these two objects as the Void of Democritus Atomic theory. In other words, Void is Space. Void and Matter are complements of one another and both essential to one another.

Physics has a concept of Complementarity which means in essence that something exists only if it has dualing parts or two parts to make the whole. As an analogy or metaphor, picture exists because of the picture itself and the whole entire surrounding Space, picture and space. The most famous Complementary duals is magnetism versus electricity. One complement requires the other complement, and the Existence of a object or phenomenon is this Complement parts. Everything that Exists has two complements. The complement of magnetism is electricity and the complement of a single atom is the space that the atom rests in. 

Other complements are of energy to time; the complement of position is momentum. 

The complement of the electron is the space around the electron and we call that Space the Electric Field. The same is true of the proton. The complement of the two magnetic dipoles is the Magnetic Field or the space around the dipoles. So, the Void in Democritus Atomic theory is the Space around the magnetic dipoles or the Space around the electric charge. 

So, the laws of magnetism and electricity of Maxwell theory describe what is the dipole and the dipole field, and the other describes a electric charge and electric field. It is said that physics calls these two laws of magnetism and electricity as "static laws". For a far better term would have been Descriptive laws of magnetism and electricity and dipole to space-magnetic field and electric charge to space-electric field. 

There are 5 Maxwell/AP theory laws and I added the 5th law-- The law of what there is: 

1. Law of what there is-- Atomic theory, that atoms exist and are composed of subatomic particles and most of an atom in volume is empty space. All the facts of Chemistry along with Atomic Theory is the Law of what there is. Let us name this law the Law of Chemistry-facts.

2. Law of Magnetism 
3. Law of Electricity 
4. Faraday/Lenz law 
5. Ampere/Maxwell law 


Law of Magnetism of Maxwell theory: states that magnetism must always come in a dual complement dipoles of a north and south dipole. Magnetism never comes as a monopole. And that all dipoles, whether alike or unlike attract only. There is no repelling in magnetism, but there is a denial of the same space occupancy which can deceive most people into thinking they repel. 

When you take a bar magnet of its north pole and south pole and cut the magnet into 1/3 and 2/3 cuts, immediately a north pole and south pole are set up where the cut is made and where the two cuts have north and south poles in the same orientation. So these like poles in the magnet are not repelling but rather forming 1/2 of the magnet as like north poles and the other half as like south poles, and every cut of the magnet to smaller magnets issues forth like poles. Now, that does not sound like any repelling force going on, but it does sound like denial of same space occupancy.

Law of Electricity of Maxwell theory: states that electricity comes as the dual complement of electric charge with the electric field, the space around the charge. And here again, in electricity, there is only a force of attraction and no repulsion force. Like and Unlike charge attract, but there is a deception of thinking that like repels when in fact they attract, and the deception is that it is denial of same space occupancy. In chemistry and physics we all know that electrons congregate outside the nucleus, and they congregate together. Is that repelling? No. That is attraction because the nucleus with its protons is also congregated of protons of like charge and so they also are an attraction force only. This is called different names in Chemistry-- only attraction as the Aufbau Principle and the Hund's Rule. In physics the concept of Denial of the Same Space is called the Pauli Exclusion Principle that electrons attract but if tried to occupy the same space, they deny that occupying, and the same goes for protons. We are deluded and fooled if we think there is a force of repelling when all it is, is a denial of same space occupancy.

So Maxwell theory has only the force of attraction. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#574677

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 12:09:44 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> page 4 
> Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics 
> 
> Now the Democritus Atomic Theory leads very naturally into electricity and magnetism which in science history starts with Thales of Miletus with amber and lodestone of (550 years before De Rerum Natura of Titus Lucretius famous poem describing the Atomic theory). The Democritus Atomic theory was 400 years before De Rerum Natura. 
> 
> What Thales observed and noted was that a lodestone attracts other lodestones and attracts iron. So Thales noted in science history the first magnetism of physics. 
> 
> This is a famous achievement of noting the world's first magnet and the phenomenon of magnetism. For it starts the process of magnetism and electricity which finally comes to a spectacular summit of science achievements with Ampere, Faraday, and Maxwell and the Maxwell theory as framed in the Maxwell Equations from 1830s to 1860s. 
> 
> So, in magnetism such as the Faraday law where you have a closed loop of wire and thrust a bar magnet through the wire, back and forth, you generate a electric current in the wire. We can think of the bar magnet and wire as matter and the space around these two objects as the Void of Democritus Atomic theory. In other words, Void is Space. Void and Matter are complements of one another and both essential to one another.
> 
> Physics has a concept of Complementarity which means in essence that something exists only if it has dualing parts or two parts to make the whole. As an analogy or metaphor, picture exists because of the picture itself and the whole entire surrounding Space, picture and space. The most famous Complementary duals is magnetism versus electricity. One complement requires the other complement, and the Existence of a object or phenomenon is this Complement parts. Everything that Exists has two complements. The complement of magnetism is electricity and the complement of a single atom is the space that the atom rests in. 
> 
> Other complements are of energy to time; the complement of position is momentum. 
> 
> The complement of the electron is the space around the electron and we call that Space the Electric Field. The same is true of the proton. The complement of the two magnetic dipoles is the Magnetic Field or the space around the dipoles. So, the Void in Democritus Atomic theory is the Space around the magnetic dipoles or the Space around the electric charge. 
> 
> So, the laws of magnetism and electricity of Maxwell theory describe what is the dipole and the dipole field, and the other describes a electric charge and electric field. It is said that physics calls these two laws of magnetism and electricity as "static laws". For a far better term would have been Descriptive laws of magnetism and electricity and dipole to space-magnetic field and electric charge to space-electric field. 
> 
> There are 5 Maxwell/AP theory laws and I added the 5th law-- The law of what there is: 
> 
> 1. Law of what there is-- Atomic theory, that atoms exist and are composed of subatomic particles and most of an atom in volume is empty space. All the facts of Chemistry along with Atomic Theory is the Law of what there is. Let us name this law the Law of Chemistry-facts.
> 
> 2. Law of Magnetism 
> 3. Law of Electricity 
> 4. Faraday/Lenz law 
> 5. Ampere/Maxwell law 
> 
> 
> Law of Magnetism of Maxwell theory: states that magnetism must always come in a dual complement dipoles of a north and south dipole. Magnetism never comes as a monopole. And that all dipoles, whether alike or unlike attract only. There is no repelling in magnetism, but there is a denial of the same space occupancy which can deceive most people into thinking they repel. 
> 
> When you take a bar magnet of its north pole and south pole and cut the magnet into 1/3 and 2/3 cuts, immediately a north pole and south pole are set up where the cut is made and where the two cuts have north and south poles in the same orientation. So these like poles in the magnet are not repelling but rather forming 1/2 of the magnet as like north poles and the other half as like south poles, and every cut of the magnet to smaller magnets issues forth like poles. Now, that does not sound like any repelling force going on, but it does sound like denial of same space occupancy.
> 
> Law of Electricity of Maxwell theory: states that electricity comes as the dual complement of electric charge with the electric field, the space around the charge. And here again, in electricity, there is only a force of attraction and no repulsion force. Like and Unlike charge attract, but there is a deception of thinking that like repels when in fact they attract, and the deception is that it is denial of same space occupancy. In chemistry and physics we all know that electrons congregate outside the nucleus, and they congregate together. Is that repelling? No. That is attraction because the nucleus with its protons is also congregated of protons of like charge and so they also are an attraction force only. This is called different names in Chemistry-- only attraction as the Aufbau Principle and the Hund's Rule. In physics the concept of Denial of the Same Space is called the Pauli Exclusion Principle that electrons attract but if tried to occupy the same space, they deny that occupying, and the same goes for protons. We are deluded and fooled if we think there is a force of repelling when all it is, is a denial of same space occupancy.
> 
> So Maxwell theory has only the force of attraction.

In this book, I weave back and forth between doing Atom Totality and doing the Maxwell theory which is the axiom system that explains physics. In other words, when the Universe is nothing but Atoms, then electricity and magnetism is the dynamo of atoms, how they work and behave.

AP

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

#574753

It is extremely difficult for a physicist to see that there is no repel force in EM, that a bar magnet does not repel another bar magnet and it is seen as "denial of same space occupancy". Wormley nor Hawking could ever see that, but not even the greats of science-- Feynman, Dirac could see that.

Repulsion in EM is not repulsion but the Pauli Exclusion principle or Hund's Rule or Meissner effect that of DENIAL of Same Space Occupancy. It is a subtle difference.

Repelling and Denial of Same Space is only for the very smart to see that they are different concepts.

AP

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

#574909

On 5/1/2016 11:22 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> It is extremely difficult for a physicist to see that there is no repel force in EM, that a
> bar magnet does not repel another bar magnet and it is seen as "denial of same space occupancy".
> Wormley nor Hawking could ever see that, but not even the greats of science-- Feynman, Dirac
> could see that.
>
> Repulsion in EM is not repulsion but the Pauli Exclusion principle or Hund's Rule or Meissner
> effect that of DENIAL of Same Space Occupancy. It is a subtle difference.
>
> Repelling and Denial of Same Space is only for the very smart to see that they are different
> concepts.
>
> AP
>

Explain why, then, you can place magnets on two carts on a linear air 
track (which removes surface friction under the carts), and arrange the 
carts so that they are initially four centimeters apart -- that is, in 
no danger of occupying the same space -- and the result will be that 
they end up accelerating from rest and moving further away from each other?


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#574985

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 1:15:50 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 5/1/2016 11:22 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > It is extremely difficult for a physicist to see that there is no repel force in EM, that a
> > bar magnet does not repel another bar magnet and it is seen as "denial of same space occupancy".
> > Wormley nor Hawking could ever see that, but not even the greats of science-- Feynman, Dirac
> > could see that.
> >
> > Repulsion in EM is not repulsion but the Pauli Exclusion principle or Hund's Rule or Meissner
> > effect that of DENIAL of Same Space Occupancy. It is a subtle difference.
> >
> > Repelling and Denial of Same Space is only for the very smart to see that they are different
> > concepts.
> >
> > AP
> >
> 
> Explain why, then, you can place magnets on two carts on a linear air 
> track (which removes surface friction under the carts), and arrange the 
> carts so that they are initially four centimeters apart -- that is, in 
> no danger of occupying the same space -- and the result will be that 
> they end up accelerating from rest and moving further away from each other?
> 
> 
Easy to explain, since you fail to provide the magnet strength and fail to include the Magnetic Field. The same space occupancy is not the visual 4 cm apart but the Magnetic Field is invisible.

So, as I said previously, if you have a degree in physics or science, which I suspect you do not, but if so, you do not deserve a degree in science, because you are not scientific but crassly opinionated. You should go back to school and immerse yourself in taking Logic.

AP

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

#575007

On 5/2/16 5:00 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Easy to explain, since you fail to provide the magnet strength and fail to include the Magnetic Field. The same space occupancy is not the visual 4 cm apart but the Magnetic Field is invisible.


   The visibility or invisibility of magnetic fields to human eyes has
   nothing to do with this electromagnetic phenomenon. And magnetic
   fields are an excellent example of EM force being both attractive and
   repulsive.

   Electromagnetism
 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism

 > Electromagnetism is a branch of physics which involves the study of
 > the electromagnetic force, a type of physical interaction that occurs
 > between electrically charged particles. The electromagnetic force
 > usually shows electromagnetic fields, such as electric fields,
 > magnetic fields, and light. The electromagnetic force is one of the
 > four fundamental interactions in nature. The other three fundamental
 > interactions are the strong interaction, the weak interaction, and
 > gravitation.

 > The electromagnetic force plays a major role in determining the
 > internal properties of most objects encountered in daily life.
 > Ordinary matter takes its form as a result of intermolecular forces
 > between individual molecules in matter. Electrons are bound by
 > electromagnetic wave mechanics into orbitals around atomic nuclei to
 > form atoms, which are the building blocks of molecules. This governs
 > the processes involved in chemistry, which arise from interactions
 > between the electrons of neighboring atoms, which are in turn
 > determined by the interaction between electromagnetic force and the
 > momentum of the electrons.
 >
 > There are numerous mathematical descriptions of the electromagnetic
 > field. In classical electrodynamics, electric fields are described as
 > electric potential and electric current. In Faraday's law, magnetic
 > fields are associated with electromagnetic induction and magnetism,
 > and Maxwell's equations describe how electric and magnetic fields are
 > generated and altered by each other and by charges and currents.
 >
 > The theoretical implications of electromagnetism, in particular the
 > establishment of the speed of light based on properties of the
 > "medium" of propagation (permeability and permittivity), led to the
 > development of special relativity by Albert Einstein in 1905.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#575075

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/2/16 5:00 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Easy to explain, since you fail to provide the magnet strength and fail to include the Magnetic Field. The same space occupancy is not the visual 4 cm apart but the Magnetic Field is invisible.
> 
> 
>    The visibility or invisibility of magnetic fields to human eyes has
>    nothing to do with this electromagnetic phenomenon. And magnetic
>    fields are an excellent example of EM force being both attractive and
>    repulsive.
> 

If like charges repel, instead of just **denial of same space occupancy** how do you explain electrons bunching together in a capacitor, or electrons moving together ensemble in a current of electricity flow. Sounds to me that like charges attract, not repel.

Oops, Sam cannot find any literature for that question.

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

#575129

On 5/3/2016 12:14 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> If like charges repel, instead of just **denial of same space occupancy** how do you
> explain electrons bunching together in a capacitor, or electrons moving together ensemble
> in a current of electricity flow. Sounds to me that like charges attract, not repel.

Then you are not applying logic well. You can always FORCE electrons to 
live close to each other by application of a force, such as with an 
electric field (which is how both current in a wire and charge and a 
capacitor work). In much the same way, atoms in a gas like to disperse, 
but because of gravity, the atoms in our atmosphere are more bunched 
together closer to the ground than they are in the stratosphere. This is 
straightforward high school thinking, Archimedes.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#575124

On 5/2/2016 5:00 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 1:15:50 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 5/1/2016 11:22 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> It is extremely difficult for a physicist to see that there is no repel force in EM, that a
>>> bar magnet does not repel another bar magnet and it is seen as "denial of same space occupancy".
>>> Wormley nor Hawking could ever see that, but not even the greats of science-- Feynman, Dirac
>>> could see that.
>>>
>>> Repulsion in EM is not repulsion but the Pauli Exclusion principle or Hund's Rule or Meissner
>>> effect that of DENIAL of Same Space Occupancy. It is a subtle difference.
>>>
>>> Repelling and Denial of Same Space is only for the very smart to see that they are different
>>> concepts.
>>>
>>> AP
>>>
>>
>> Explain why, then, you can place magnets on two carts on a linear air
>> track (which removes surface friction under the carts), and arrange the
>> carts so that they are initially four centimeters apart -- that is, in
>> no danger of occupying the same space -- and the result will be that
>> they end up accelerating from rest and moving further away from each other?
>>
>>
> Easy to explain, since you fail to provide the magnet strength and fail to include the Magnetic
> Field. The same space occupancy is not the visual 4 cm apart but the Magnetic Field is invisible.

Aha. So now since the magnetic field extends through all space, then as 
long as the two magnets are ANY distance apart, then as far as you're 
concerned they are occupying the same space.

But let's look at this logically. You say that the electric force cannot 
repel but it can attract. But the electric field extends through all 
space the same way the magnetic field does. So if you have two 
electrically charged objects attracting each other, and their fields are 
overlapping and therefore occupying the same space, then how do they 
manage to attract to over come the Denial of Same Space law?

>
> So, as I said previously, if you have a degree in physics or science, which I suspect you do
> not, but if so, you do not deserve a degree in science, because you are not scientific but
> crassly opinionated. You should go back to school and immerse yourself in taking Logic.

I'm really trying to follow your logic, I really am. As you can see, I'm 
running into problems with your own thinking.

>
> AP
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#575289

In reply to Odd

There is a distance of two magnets where they snap together, this same distance where the magnetic field denies the occupation of same space

iPhone post

AP

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

#575497

On 5/3/2016 6:18 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> In reply to Odd
>
> There is a distance of two magnets where they snap together, this same distance where
> the magnetic field denies the occupation of same space

You'll notice that this distance varies, depending on the surface the 
magnets are sitting on, and therefore on the coefficient of friction 
between the magnets and the surface.

>
> iPhone post
>
> AP
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#575575 — perfect spherical magnet-- any exist? Re: page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 12:25:28 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 5/3/2016 6:18 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > In reply to Odd
> >
> > There is a distance of two magnets where they snap together, this same distance where
> > the magnetic field denies the occupation of same space
> 
> You'll notice that this distance varies, depending on the surface the 
> magnets are sitting on, and therefore on the coefficient of friction 
> between the magnets and the surface.
> 

Now Odd cannot teach anything about physics because he is not possessing a science mind. He knows no physics innately, only what is written in books, the same as Sam. But, what these outlyers these foreigners of physics can do is stir up the physics in real physicists.

What Odd has stirred up in me from the above is the question of whether a magnet can be a sphere in shape.

I have a magnet that is a disc which is a section of a cylinder. A cylinder has two ends.

So that magnets must have so to speak two ends, so that they have a north and south pole, or, unlike magnetic-charges at one end and at the other.

But a sphere has no-- two ends.

So, the question is, has anyone manufactured a spherical magnet? Now we can have imperfect spheres to make two pole ends. But I mean a perfect sphere that is a magnet.

AP

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

#575617 — Re: perfect spherical magnet-- any exist? Re: page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

On 5/4/16 5:00 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> So, the question is, has anyone manufactured a spherical magnet? Now we can have imperfect spheres to make two pole ends. But I mean a perfect sphere that is a magnet.


   Megnetars are essentially perfect spheres that are magnets.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar

   In my research work at the Ames Lab, I used cylindrical Neodymium...
   magnets. Magnetic spheres are commonplace, AP. DuckDuckGo is your
   friend. You can order from Amazon.com


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#575686 — Re: perfect spherical magnet-- any exist? Re: page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 7:34:29 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/4/16 5:00 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > So, the question is, has anyone manufactured a spherical magnet? Now we can have imperfect spheres to make two pole ends. But I mean a perfect sphere that is a magnet.
> 
> 
>    Megnetars are essentially perfect spheres that are magnets.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar
> 
>    In my research work at the Ames Lab, I used cylindrical Neodymium...
>    magnets. Magnetic spheres are commonplace, AP. DuckDuckGo is your
>    friend. You can order from Amazon.com
> 

Alright, I am dropping my question of the **perfect sphere** regards a magnet geometry of perfect sphere, for that carries me too far afield.

Saw an interesting article on Anomalies in New Scientist about the CMBR having a nonuniform structure, have to get that article.

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

#575706 — Re: perfect spherical magnet-- any exist? Re: page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

On 5/4/2016 5:00 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 12:25:28 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 5/3/2016 6:18 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> In reply to Odd
>>>
>>> There is a distance of two magnets where they snap together, this same distance where
>>> the magnetic field denies the occupation of same space
>>
>> You'll notice that this distance varies, depending on the surface the
>> magnets are sitting on, and therefore on the coefficient of friction
>> between the magnets and the surface.
>>
>
> Now Odd cannot teach anything about physics because he is not possessing a science mind. He
> knows no physics innately, only what is written in books, the same as Sam. But, what these
> outlyers these foreigners of physics can do is stir up the physics in real physicists.

I'm interested in your comment about "knowing physics innately", that 
is, doing physics WITHOUT benefit of what's written in books. I will 
admit that I think there are no such people that make positive 
contributions to physics, but have no reliance on what they've read in 
books. I think people who believe they can are seriously self-deluding. 
If you think you can point to ANY 19th, 20th, or 21st century recognized 
physicist that does physics "innately" without reference to what is in 
books, now's the time to name one or two.

>
> What Odd has stirred up in me from the above is the question of whether a magnet can be a sphere in shape.
>
> I have a magnet that is a disc which is a section of a cylinder. A cylinder has two ends.
>
> So that magnets must have so to speak two ends, so that they have a north and south pole, or, unlike
> magnetic-charges at one end and at the other.
>
> But a sphere has no-- two ends.
>
> So, the question is, has anyone manufactured a spherical magnet? Now we can have imperfect spheres to make
> two pole ends. But I mean a perfect sphere that is a magnet.

What astonishes me is that someone who uses Google for mail and to 
access newsgroups is unable to do a simple Google search:

https://www.kjmagnetics.com/products.asp?cat=12

>
> AP
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#575744 — Re: perfect spherical magnet-- any exist? Re: page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

On 05/05/2016 10:00 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 5/4/2016 5:00 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 12:25:28 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 5/3/2016 6:18 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>>> In reply to Odd
>>>>
>>>> There is a distance of two magnets where they snap together, this
>>>> same distance where
>>>> the magnetic field denies the occupation of same space
>>>
>>> You'll notice that this distance varies, depending on the surface the
>>> magnets are sitting on, and therefore on the coefficient of friction
>>> between the magnets and the surface.
>>>
>>
>> Now Odd cannot teach anything about physics because he is not
>> possessing a science mind. He
>> knows no physics innately, only what is written in books, the same as
>> Sam. But, what these
>> outlyers these foreigners of physics can do is stir up the physics in
>> real physicists.
>
> I'm interested in your comment about "knowing physics innately", that
> is, doing physics WITHOUT benefit of what's written in books. I will
> admit that I think there are no such people that make positive
> contributions to physics, but have no reliance on what they've read in
> books. I think people who believe they can are seriously self-deluding.
> If you think you can point to ANY 19th, 20th, or 21st century recognized
> physicist that does physics "innately" without reference to what is in
> books, now's the time to name one or two.
>
>>
>> What Odd has stirred up in me from the above is the question of
>> whether a magnet can be a sphere in shape.
>>
>> I have a magnet that is a disc which is a section of a cylinder. A
>> cylinder has two ends.
>>
>> So that magnets must have so to speak two ends, so that they have a
>> north and south pole, or, unlike
>> magnetic-charges at one end and at the other.
>>
>> But a sphere has no-- two ends.
>>
>> So, the question is, has anyone manufactured a spherical magnet? Now
>> we can have imperfect spheres to make
>> two pole ends. But I mean a perfect sphere that is a magnet.
>
> What astonishes me is that someone who uses Google for mail and to
> access newsgroups is unable to do a simple Google search:
>
> https://www.kjmagnetics.com/products.asp?cat=12

Odd, you just don't know enough science to understand what Archie is 
saying.

Sure there are magnets that are spheres but they aren't spherical 
magnets! He means a PERFECT sphere. Those aren't perfect.  A prefect 
spherical magnet would have the whole outside one pole and the other 
poll at the center!

You are such a kook!

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

#575793 — Re: perfect spherical magnet-- any exist? Re: page 4, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

On 5/5/2016 10:11 AM, benj wrote:
> Odd, you just don't know enough science to understand what Archie is
> saying.
>
> Sure there are magnets that are spheres but they aren't spherical
> magnets! He means a PERFECT sphere. Those aren't perfect.  A prefect
> spherical magnet would have the whole outside one pole and the other
> poll at the center!

I'm sorry, I'm not following. What on EARTH gives you the impression 
that a spherical magnet has to have one pole at the center? He didn't 
say that. Are you reading things that aren't there?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#575843 — would the center be a magnetic pole in a Perfect-EM-Sphere? Re: perfect spherical magnet-- any exist?

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 10:11:32 AM UTC-5, benj wrote:
(snipped the trash)
> 
> Odd, you just don't know enough science to understand what Archie is 
> saying.
> 
> Sure there are magnets that are spheres but they aren't spherical 
> magnets! He means a PERFECT sphere. Those aren't perfect.  A prefect 
> spherical magnet would have the whole outside one pole and the other 
> poll at the center!
> 

You may have something there in that thought.

A perfect sphere cannot exist in physics but if it did, then the center would be one of the magnetic poles, otherwise the sphere has to be a defective sphere in order for one hemisphere to be north pole while the other is a south pole.

Now, has anyone tried making these sphere shaped magnets into a ball bearing to see how poorly they roll compared to real ball bearings, to enhance how crude of a sphere shape the magnetic sphere is? To highlight the defect?

I do not have time for this detour, but think that it is important for radioactive decay, in that the most-close to perfect sphere would be the helium atom, yet it too is a defective sphere and this defect is what allows some helium to bond to other atoms.

And, perhaps the best sphere possible is the proton, yet it too is slightly defective, and is the reason no-one has ever observed proton decay, yet it is possible since the proton sphere is not perfect.

In a sense, the geometry of a atomic subparticle or atom determines in large part, its radioactivity.

AP

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

#575855 — Re: would the center be a magnetic pole in a Perfect-EM-Sphere? Re: perfect spherical magnet-- any exist?

On 5/5/16 2:59 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> A perfect sphere cannot exist in physics but if it did...

   It might look like a black hole.  :-o

   But here on earth: World's Roundest Object!
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMByI4s-D-Y




-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#576403 — Re: would the center be a magnetic pole in a Perfect-EM-Sphere?

Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/5/16 2:59 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> A perfect sphere cannot exist in physics but if it did...
> 
>    It might look like a black hole.  :-o
> 
>    But here on earth: World's Roundest Object!
>| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMByI4s-D-Y

Fascinating.

See also: 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram#Proposed_future_definitions>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web