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

Groups > sci.physics > #601080 > unrolled thread

Preliminary page, Page21, 3-6, Experiment proof that EM is attraction force only, and any alleged repelling is denial of same space occupancy

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Preliminary page, Page21, 3-6, Experiment proof that EM is attraction force only, and any alleged repelling is denial of same space occupancy Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 00:15 -0700
    Re: Preliminary page, Page21, 3-6, Experiment proof that EM is attraction force only, and any alleged repelling is denial of same space occupancy "Anon Y. Mouse" <nobody@home.invalid> - 2016-10-16 09:04 -0400
      A minded physicist versus B mind //Experiment proof that EM is attraction force only, and any alleged repelling is denial of same space occupancy Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 13:46 -0700
        Re: A minded physicist versus B mind //Experiment proof that EM is attraction force only, and any alleged repelling is denial of same space occupancy "Anon Y. Mouse" <nobody@home.invalid> - 2016-10-17 00:16 -0400
          exclusion principle: no same space occupancy noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 10:09 -0700
      Re: Preliminary page, Page21, 3-6, Experiment proof that EM is attraction force only, and any alleged repelling is denial of same space occupancy Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 14:58 +0200
    turning stupid physics professors into a bit more smart//EM is attraction force only, and any alleged repelling is denial of same space occupancy Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 14:14 -0700
      Re: turning stupid physics professors into a bit more smart//EM is attraction force only, and any alleged repelling is denial of same space occupancy Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 20:16 -0700
        Re: turning stupid physics professors into a bit more smart//EM is attraction force only, and any alleged repelling is denial of same space occupancy "Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@alt.usenet.kooks.xxx> - 2016-10-17 07:34 +0200
          UIUC physics asking for more information Re: turning stupid physics professors into a bit more smart// Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 00:02 -0700
            Re: UIUC physics asking for more information Re: turning stupid physics professors into a bit more smart// noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 11:03 -0700
        Re: turning stupid physics professors into a bit more smart//EM is attraction force only, and any alleged repelling is denial of same space occupancy Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 13:13 -0700
          Re: turning stupid physics professors into a bit more smart//EM is attraction force only, and any alleged repelling is denial of same space occupancy Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 13:48 -0700
            Re: turning stupid physics professors into a bit more smart//EM is attraction force only, and any alleged repelling is denial of same space occupancy noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 14:58 -0700

#601080 — Preliminary page, Page21, 3-6, Experiment proof that EM is attraction force only, and any alleged repelling is denial of same space occupancy

Preliminary page, Page21, 3-6, Experiment proof that EM is attraction force only, and any alleged repelling is denial of same space occupancy

PAGE21, 3-6, EXPERIMENT THAT PROVES EM IS ATTRACT ONLY, a box of magnets never is in configuration of repelling, but everytime we open the box, they are stuck together.

Now, I wonder if there could have been an experiment in the 1860s that Maxwell could have performed to convince him that EM has only a force of attraction and that the repulsion he thought he saw was not a force but was that of Pauli Exclusion Principle of "Denial of Same Space Occupancy". 

Was there some sort of experiment that could have taken place in 1860 so that Maxwell would have proven EM is just attraction only? 

Well, I suppose if someone or anyone carried a box of magnets to Maxwell Lab and tried to arrange them in any manner or fashion possible to arrange, that the magnets always come out in a configuration of "stuck together". And never a situation where the magnets repelled and further distanced themselves. Never was the case where you had magnets and they separated. Meaning: meaning that EM is attract only. 

Now, let us ask, if EM has a force of repelling or repulsion, is that not a contradiction to the very idea that magnets are always dipole, and never monopole. Because if you had a repulsion force, then you must have a magnetic monopole because N and S only attract. And to have a monopole N to N means repel. 

So, here, what I am saying is the Law of Magnetism itself proves there is no magnetic monopole and that there is no force of repulsion. 

So here is a case in physics, where a law is established-- Law of Magnetism that says no magnetic monopole exists, but translated, comes to mean that since all of magnetism is dipole, means that magnetism is attraction force only. 

Now an experiment in which you have X number of boxes with magnets, and never is the moment you open the box and find all the magnets in far flung corners due to repulsion, but rather, every time one opens the box of magnets, they are always stuck together. Now, that does not sound like a Physics Experiment, but, it truly is one, for we all know what the answer is without ever doing the experiment, that there never is a situation in Nature where you find magnets repelling, you always find them in attraction. And when you concoct a situation where you think they are repelling, upon closer notice and attention, you realize they are simply denial of same space occupancy. 
BOX Experiment proving EM is attract force only--Preliminary page, Page21, 3-6, EM theory

Alright, I need the World's most simple, most easy, most well thought out experiment that proves EM theory has only the force of attraction and that it has a "denial of same space occupancy" a Pauli Exclusion Principle which confuses most every person with a weak mind of logic. 

So EM theory and Maxwell equations have just one force-- attraction and they have a "denial of same space occupancy" which ignorants of logic immediately assume is repel, but is only a denial. 

So what are the contours of this Experiment? 

Let us start out with boxes, many boxes and where you place magnets within the boxes and then shake them a little bit, and open them up. Can there ever exist a box when opened up, where the magnets are not joined together? Or, is it the case that in all situations of the box with magnets, that the never are at opposition with each other, but rather, all joined together. 

We sense, in our minds what happens. That only in the special case where we delicately place the magnets, are they never joined but in opposition-- in denial of same space occupancy. 

Now most in physics would say that this is not a Physics Experiment nor proof. Well, that is because they are lacking a logical mind to even be in physics. 

Gravity is not a "suck phenomenon" but rather, gravity is EM attraction of the Maxwell equations. And because we never see a person emitted from Earth due to a EM opposite charges repel is a good reason to see EM is always attract force. Gravity has the same identical math form as the Coulomb force, meaning-- gravity is a EM Coulomb force only 10^40 weaker and that like gravity, Coulomb has only a attraction and has "denial of same space occupancy". 

So, can anyone think of a better Experiment to prove EM is attract force only, never a repel force? I cannot think of any better experiment than this BOX Experiment. 

AP 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#601087

On 10/16/2016 3:15 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Was there some sort of experiment that could have taken place in 1860
> so that Maxwell would have proven EM is just attraction only?
>
> Well, I suppose if someone or anyone carried a box of magnets to Maxwell
> Lab and tried to arrange them in any manner or fashion possible to arrange,
> that the magnets always come out in a configuration of "stuck together".
> And never a situation where the magnets repelled and further distanced
> themselves. Never was the case where you had magnets and they separated.
> Meaning: meaning that EM is attract only.

Poor example. Magnets are dipoles so to any magnetic pole, every other 
magnet in the universe has an attractive end and a repulsive end. If 
that someone carried a box of positive electric charges to Maxwell, they 
would always be in a situation where they were as far as possible from 
each other due to repulsion.

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

#601130 — A minded physicist versus B mind //Experiment proof that EM is attraction force only, and any alleged repelling is denial of same space occupancy

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 8:00:14 AM UTC-5, Anon Y. Mouse wrote:
> On 10/16/2016 3:15 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Was there some sort of experiment that could have taken place in 1860
> > so that Maxwell would have proven EM is just attraction only?
> >
> > Well, I suppose if someone or anyone carried a box of magnets to Maxwell
> > Lab and tried to arrange them in any manner or fashion possible to arrange,
> > that the magnets always come out in a configuration of "stuck together".
> > And never a situation where the magnets repelled and further distanced
> > themselves. Never was the case where you had magnets and they separated.
> > Meaning: meaning that EM is attract only.
> 
> Poor example. Magnets are dipoles so to any magnetic pole, every other 
> magnet in the universe has an attractive end and a repulsive end. If 
> that someone carried a box of positive electric charges to Maxwell, they 
> would always be in a situation where they were as far as possible from 
> each other due to repulsion.

No, rather instead you have a very poor idea of physics, and thus this experiment must take place in order to shake up those with your like mind.

You have been through physics with too much of what I call *in class--idealizations*

Take an ideal mass

Take an ideal electric charge

Take an ideal point of electricity on electron

Take an idealized Space

So, your understanding of physics is mostly in the setting of "ideal" when physics is never ideal.

Physics goes the route of "ideal" in order to try to saddle whatever is idealized with some math equation
and you have never learned that ideal is likely to be not the true physics.

So we need this type of experiment because it gets rid of those physics professors sitting on cloud nine munching away at a Danish roll and drinking coffee.

Devise an experiment in which, you can get a Force of Repulsion with magnets. 

+++ You cannot get repulsion, because what you get is DENIAL OF SAME SPACE OCCUPANCY ---

What you get is the Pauli Exclusion Principle writ large before your eyes. You are not seeing repulsion of N pole to N pole or S to S, but you are seeing Pauli Exclusion Principle-- a principle not a force.

And that is why this experiment is so critical to perform, because the subtlety of Repel and Denial of Same Space, that difference is very difficult for a B minded physicist to understand and to accept. You are a B minded if not less of a physicist. An A minded physicist can immediately recognize what I am saying, not you.

AP

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

#601212 — Re: A minded physicist versus B mind //Experiment proof that EM is attraction force only, and any alleged repelling is denial of same space occupancy

On 10/16/2016 4:46 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 8:00:14 AM UTC-5, Anon Y. Mouse wrote:
>> On 10/16/2016 3:15 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> Was there some sort of experiment that could have taken place in 1860
>>> so that Maxwell would have proven EM is just attraction only?
>>>
>>> Well, I suppose if someone or anyone carried a box of magnets to Maxwell
>>> Lab and tried to arrange them in any manner or fashion possible to arrange,
>>> that the magnets always come out in a configuration of "stuck together".
>>> And never a situation where the magnets repelled and further distanced
>>> themselves. Never was the case where you had magnets and they separated.
>>> Meaning: meaning that EM is attract only.
>>
>> Poor example. Magnets are dipoles so to any magnetic pole, every other
>> magnet in the universe has an attractive end and a repulsive end. If
>> that someone carried a box of positive electric charges to Maxwell, they
>> would always be in a situation where they were as far as possible from
>> each other due to repulsion.
>
> No, rather instead you have a very poor idea of physics, and thus this
> experiment must take place in order to shake up those with your like mind.

You are missing the point. Magnets are a poor example since they are 
dipoles, and each magnetic pole attracts one end of another magnet while 
repelling the other end. The attracted end gets closer while the other 
end gets further. Because of the inverse square law, now the attracted 
end is attracted *more* than the repelled end is repelled, so the other 
magnet as a whole gets attracted. So you get a clump of magnets. This is 
something every 10 year old boy who has played with magnets knows.

Do your experiment with a box full of positive charges. Tell me what 
happens.


> You have been through physics with too much of what I call *in class--idealizations*
>
> Take an ideal mass
>
> Take an ideal electric charge
>
> Take an ideal point of electricity on electron
>
> Take an idealized Space
>
> So, your understanding of physics is mostly in the setting of "ideal" when
> physics is never ideal.

I never mentioned ideal anything.
>
> So we need this type of experiment because it gets rid of those physics professors
> sitting on cloud nine munching away at a Danish roll and drinking coffee.
>
> Devise an experiment in which, you can get a Force of Repulsion with magnets.

Do it with charged objects, tell us the result. Hint: This has been 
something known for probably 200 years.

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

#601277 — exclusion principle: no same space occupancy

g00d thought on dipoles;
dimers have no dipole, so that
H_2 was only dyscivered in space,
somewhat recently

of mcourse, a.p doesn't gAf

> Do your experiment with a box full of positive charges. Tell me what 
> happens.
> 
> 
> > You have been through physics with too much of what I call *in class--idealizations*
> >
> > Take an ideal mass
> >
> > Take an ideal electric charge
> >
> > Take an ideal point of electricity on electron
> >
> > Take an idealized Space
> >
> > So, your understanding of physics is mostly in the setting of "ideal" when
> > physics is never ideal.
> 
> I never mentioned ideal anything.
> >
> > So we need this type of experiment because it gets rid of those physics professors
> > sitting on cloud nine munching away at a Danish roll and drinking coffee.
> >
> > Devise an experiment in which, you can get a Force of Repulsion with magnets.
> 
> Do it with charged objects, tell us the result. Hint: This has been 
> something known for probably 200 years.

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

#601243

> On 10/16/2016 3:15 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

>> Meaning: meaning that EM is attract only.

Real meaning of the above is that the A-bomb does not exist,
as there is no repulsion force competing with strong interaction.

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

#601136 — turning stupid physics professors into a bit more smart//EM is attraction force only, and any alleged repelling is denial of same space occupancy

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 2:15:31 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Now there is a good reason for me to make this a preliminary page, because I need to get the logical potency of my argument, and to do that often requires many rewritings.

> 
> Now, I wonder if there could have been an experiment in the 1860s that Maxwell could have performed to convince him that EM has only a force of attraction and that the repulsion he thought he saw was not a force but was that of Pauli Exclusion Principle of "Denial of Same Space Occupancy". 
> 

You see, what I am fight with is the observation of two magnets to not want to stick together but seem to want to not get close to one another as north-pole to north-pole, and this is a fake interpretation to think it is a repelling when in fact it is a denial of same space occupancy. It is a subtle difference between repel and denial.

So, as you move the magnets around in a closed box by shaking slightly, you never end up with the magnets far away from one another, because, well, EM is attraction only force with a denial of same space, which is minor compared to the attraction force.

> Was there some sort of experiment that could have taken place in 1860 so that Maxwell would have proven EM is just attraction only? 
> 
> Well, I suppose if someone or anyone carried a box of magnets to Maxwell Lab and tried to arrange them in any manner or fashion possible to arrange, that the magnets always come out in a configuration of "stuck together". And never a situation where the magnets repelled and further distanced themselves. Never was the case where you had magnets and they separated. Meaning: meaning that EM is attract only. 
> 

So, what I need to explain initially is the entire concept behind the Law of Magnetism and how that law provides for a ATTRACTION force only supplemented with a denial of same space occupancy, which every human has so far thought it was a force of repelling, even the very best physicists-- Maxwell, Faaday, Newton, Dirac, Rutherford, Bell, all thought EM was attract and repel, when in truth EM is only attract.

> Now, let us ask, if EM has a force of repelling or repulsion, is that not a contradiction to the very idea that magnets are always dipole, and never monopole. Because if you had a repulsion force, then you must have a magnetic monopole because N and S only attract. And to have a monopole N to N means repel. 
> 
> So, here, what I am saying is the Law of Magnetism itself proves there is no magnetic monopole and that there is no force of repulsion. 
> 
> So here is a case in physics, where a law is established-- Law of Magnetism that says no magnetic monopole exists, but translated, comes to mean that since all of magnetism is dipole, means that magnetism is attraction force only. 
> 

So, how does the law of Magnetism make EM an attract only force?

> Now an experiment in which you have X number of boxes with magnets, and never is the moment you open the box and find all the magnets in far flung corners due to repulsion, but rather, every time one opens the box of magnets, they are always stuck together. Now, that does not sound like a Physics Experiment, but, it truly is one, for we all know what the answer is without ever doing the experiment, that there never is a situation in Nature where you find magnets repelling, you always find them in attraction. And when you concoct a situation where you think they are repelling, upon closer notice and attention, you realize they are simply denial of same space occupancy. 
> BOX Experiment proving EM is attract force only--Preliminary page, Page21, 3-6, EM theory
> 
> Alright, I need the World's most simple, most easy, most well thought out experiment that proves EM theory has only the force of attraction and that it has a "denial of same space occupancy" a Pauli Exclusion Principle which confuses most every person with a weak mind of logic. 
> 

The Law of Magnetism, to date, is seen as saying or interpreted to mean that magnetic monopoles do not exist. That is the same as saying only Magnetic Dipoles exist. And now, here is the beauty that no-one ever realized before. When you say that only Magnetic Dipoles exist is the same as saying EM is attraction force only.

Now, let us cut and dice that viewpoint.

You have a magnet with say 1000 N poles and 1000 S poles for a total of 2000 poles, and you cut it in half to be a new total of 1000 poles 500 N poles and 500. Now, if repulsion or repel is a magnetic force, which it is not, but suppose repel exists, then , you would not have 1000 N poles bunched together before the cut. And, you would not have 500 N poles bunched together after the cut.

So, to have Dipole Magnetism is the same as saying EM is attraction force only.

The same thing goes for Electricity, in that you cannot have electrons en masse flowing together if electrons repel electrons. The reason you have electric current is because EM is only Attraction Force, never a repulsion force. But there is the minor feature, the minor characteristic that you have a denial of the same space for magnets and for electrons.


> So EM theory and Maxwell equations have just one force-- attraction and they have a "denial of same space occupancy" which ignorants of logic immediately assume is repel, but is only a denial. 
> 
> So what are the contours of this Experiment? 
> 
> Let us start out with boxes, many boxes and where you place magnets within the boxes and then shake them a little bit, and open them up. Can there ever exist a box when opened up, where the magnets are not joined together? Or, is it the case that in all situations of the box with magnets, that the never are at opposition with each other, but rather, all joined together. 
> 

There neeeds to be this Box Experiment to at least get the stupid people in physics to start talking, because stupid physics people want to ignore true physics and keep on doing their stupid physics chatter.

> We sense, in our minds what happens. That only in the special case where we delicately place the magnets, are they never joined but in opposition-- in denial of same space occupancy. 
> 
> Now most in physics would say that this is not a Physics Experiment nor proof. Well, that is because they are lacking a logical mind to even be in physics. 
> 
> Gravity is not a "suck phenomenon" but rather, gravity is EM attraction of the Maxwell equations. And because we never see a person emitted from Earth due to a EM opposite charges repel is a good reason to see EM is always attract force. Gravity has the same identical math form as the Coulomb force, meaning-- gravity is a EM Coulomb force only 10^40 weaker and that like gravity, Coulomb has only a attraction and has "denial of same space occupancy". 
> 
> So, can anyone think of a better Experiment to prove EM is attract force only, never a repel force? I cannot think of any better experiment than this BOX Experiment. 
> 
> AP

No physicist today wants to admit they were foolish in physics all their life long because they thought magnets repell and they thought that EM was both a force of repel along with attract. No physicist would want to admit that on this very basic level of physics understanding that he/she were stupid idiots of physics. And that is why the BOX Experiment is a must to do and get out, for it gives a demonstration that EM is just Attraction force only and starts the conversation of turning stupid physics professors into a bit more smarter physics professor.

AP

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

#601208 — Re: turning stupid physics professors into a bit more smart//EM is attraction force only, and any alleged repelling is denial of same space occupancy

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 4:14:06 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 2:15:31 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 
> Now there is a good reason for me to make this a preliminary page, because I need to get the logical potency of my argument, and to do that often requires many rewritings.
> 

So at the beginning of this page let me state the Logical Reasoning that EM is an attraction force only and that we can see a denial of same space occupancy, which is often mistaken to be a repel force when it is just a space denial feature.

The Law of Magnetism states that no magnetic monopole exists. It means that all magnets have both a N pole and a S pole. Most magnets are of many N poles, say a 10^20 N poles with the same 10^20 for S poles. Now, the reason that the N poles all bunch up together on one end of the magnet and all the S poles on the other end is not that like to like repel, but because Attraction is the only force in EM, if this were not true, then you cannot have all the N poles on one end of the magnet and you cannot get electrons to flow together if they repelled one another. So, the Law of Magnetism says, no magnetic monopoles, which means magnets are always Dipole, which means that the forces of EM are only attraction, no repulsion, but a denial of same space occupancy (the Pauli Exclusion Principle).

> > 
> > Now, I wonder if there could have been an experiment in the 1860s that Maxwell could have performed to convince him that EM has only a force of attraction and that the repulsion he thought he saw was not a force but was that of Pauli Exclusion Principle of "Denial of Same Space Occupancy". 
> > 
> 
> You see, what I am fight with is the observation of two magnets to not want to stick together but seem to want to not get close to one another as north-pole to north-pole, and this is a fake interpretation to think it is a repelling when in fact it is a denial of same space occupancy. It is a subtle difference between repel and denial.
> 
> So, as you move the magnets around in a closed box by shaking slightly, you never end up with the magnets far away from one another, because, well, EM is attraction only force with a denial of same space, which is minor compared to the attraction force.
> 
> > Was there some sort of experiment that could have taken place in 1860 so that Maxwell would have proven EM is just attraction only? 
> > 
> > Well, I suppose if someone or anyone carried a box of magnets to Maxwell Lab and tried to arrange them in any manner or fashion possible to arrange, that the magnets always come out in a configuration of "stuck together". And never a situation where the magnets repelled and further distanced themselves. Never was the case where you had magnets and they separated. Meaning: meaning that EM is attract only. 
> > 
> 
> So, what I need to explain initially is the entire concept behind the Law of Magnetism and how that law provides for a ATTRACTION force only supplemented with a denial of same space occupancy, which every human has so far thought it was a force of repelling, even the very best physicists-- Maxwell, Faaday, Newton, Dirac, Rutherford, Bell, all thought EM was attract and repel, when in truth EM is only attract.
> 
> > Now, let us ask, if EM has a force of repelling or repulsion, is that not a contradiction to the very idea that magnets are always dipole, and never monopole. Because if you had a repulsion force, then you must have a magnetic monopole because N and S only attract. And to have a monopole N to N means repel. 
> > 
> > So, here, what I am saying is the Law of Magnetism itself proves there is no magnetic monopole and that there is no force of repulsion. 
> > 
> > So here is a case in physics, where a law is established-- Law of Magnetism that says no magnetic monopole exists, but translated, comes to mean that since all of magnetism is dipole, means that magnetism is attraction force only. 
> > 
> 
> So, how does the law of Magnetism make EM an attract only force?
> 
> > Now an experiment in which you have X number of boxes with magnets, and never is the moment you open the box and find all the magnets in far flung corners due to repulsion, but rather, every time one opens the box of magnets, they are always stuck together. Now, that does not sound like a Physics Experiment, but, it truly is one, for we all know what the answer is without ever doing the experiment, that there never is a situation in Nature where you find magnets repelling, you always find them in attraction. And when you concoct a situation where you think they are repelling, upon closer notice and attention, you realize they are simply denial of same space occupancy. 
> > BOX Experiment proving EM is attract force only--Preliminary page, Page21, 3-6, EM theory
> > 
> > Alright, I need the World's most simple, most easy, most well thought out experiment that proves EM theory has only the force of attraction and that it has a "denial of same space occupancy" a Pauli Exclusion Principle which confuses most every person with a weak mind of logic. 
> > 
> 
> The Law of Magnetism, to date, is seen as saying or interpreted to mean that magnetic monopoles do not exist. That is the same as saying only Magnetic Dipoles exist. And now, here is the beauty that no-one ever realized before. When you say that only Magnetic Dipoles exist is the same as saying EM is attraction force only.
> 
> Now, let us cut and dice that viewpoint.
> 
> You have a magnet with say 1000 N poles and 1000 S poles for a total of 2000 poles, and you cut it in half to be a new total of 1000 poles 500 N poles and 500. Now, if repulsion or repel is a magnetic force, which it is not, but suppose repel exists, then , you would not have 1000 N poles bunched together before the cut. And, you would not have 500 N poles bunched together after the cut.
> 
> So, to have Dipole Magnetism is the same as saying EM is attraction force only.
> 
> The same thing goes for Electricity, in that you cannot have electrons en masse flowing together if electrons repel electrons. The reason you have electric current is because EM is only Attraction Force, never a repulsion force. But there is the minor feature, the minor characteristic that you have a denial of the same space for magnets and for electrons.
> 
> 
> > So EM theory and Maxwell equations have just one force-- attraction and they have a "denial of same space occupancy" which ignorants of logic immediately assume is repel, but is only a denial. 
> > 
> > So what are the contours of this Experiment? 
> > 
> > Let us start out with boxes, many boxes and where you place magnets within the boxes and then shake them a little bit, and open them up. Can there ever exist a box when opened up, where the magnets are not joined together? Or, is it the case that in all situations of the box with magnets, that the never are at opposition with each other, but rather, all joined together. 
> > 
> 
> There neeeds to be this Box Experiment to at least get the stupid people in physics to start talking, because stupid physics people want to ignore true physics and keep on doing their stupid physics chatter.
> 
> > We sense, in our minds what happens. That only in the special case where we delicately place the magnets, are they never joined but in opposition-- in denial of same space occupancy. 
> > 
> > Now most in physics would say that this is not a Physics Experiment nor proof. Well, that is because they are lacking a logical mind to even be in physics. 
> > 
> > Gravity is not a "suck phenomenon" but rather, gravity is EM attraction of the Maxwell equations. And because we never see a person emitted from Earth due to a EM opposite charges repel is a good reason to see EM is always attract force. Gravity has the same identical math form as the Coulomb force, meaning-- gravity is a EM Coulomb force only 10^40 weaker and that like gravity, Coulomb has only a attraction and has "denial of same space occupancy". 
> > 
> > So, can anyone think of a better Experiment to prove EM is attract force only, never a repel force? I cannot think of any better experiment than this BOX Experiment. 
> > 
> > AP
> 
> No physicist today wants to admit they were foolish in physics all their life long because they thought magnets repell and they thought that EM was both a force of repel along with attract. No physicist would want to admit that on this very basic level of physics understanding that he/she were stupid idiots of physics. And that is why the BOX Experiment is a must to do and get out, for it gives a demonstration that EM is just Attraction force only and starts the conversation of turning stupid physics professors into a bit more smarter physics professor.
> 
> AP

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

#601221 — Re: turning stupid physics professors into a bit more smart//EM is attraction force only, and any alleged repelling is denial of same space occupancy

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Archimedes Plutonium, in
<news:653ac3d7-6fcc-491d-b6bb-721637c63511@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> So at the beginning of this page let me state the Logical
> Reasoning that EM is an attraction force only and that we
> can see a denial of same space occupancy, which is often
> mistaken to be a repel force when it is just a space
> denial feature.
> 
> The Law of Magnetism states that no magnetic monopole
> exists. It means that all magnets have both a N pole and
> a S pole. Most magnets are of many N poles, say a 10^20 N
> poles with the same 10^20 for S poles. Now, the reason that
> the N poles all bunch up together on one end of the magnet
> and all the S poles on the other end is not that like to
> like repel, but because Attraction is the only force in EM,
> if this were not true, then you cannot have all the N poles
> on one end of the magnet and you cannot get electrons to
> flow together if they repelled one another. So, the Law of
> Magnetism says, no magnetic monopoles, which means magnets
> are always Dipole, which means that the forces of EM are
> only attraction, no repulsion, but a denial of same space
> occupancy (the Pauli Exclusion Principle).

Twaddle. The magnet has magnetic separation of the poles because the
magnetic material is physically preventing the domains from flipping.
It's called magnetic hardness.

The domains of unmagnetized magnetic material are oriented in a
magnetizer which overcomes the magnetic hysteresis sufficiently to
cause the domains to flip to orient to the magnetizer's magnetic
field. After the magnetizer is turned off, some domains flip as the
magnet attempts to minimize its internal energy.

A typical magnet typically has 2 main poles and 4 'pseudo poles'...
some domains flip to minimize the internal magnetic stress and energy
of the magnet (because our materials aren't magnetically hard enough
to resist domain flipping yet), causing some magnetic domains to be of
the opposite orientation to the predominant orientation at each magnet
face.

So two of the pseudo poles are the aggregate of the flipped domains,
on each magnet face. The other two are at the Bloch Wall, where the
two predominant magnetic domain directions meet and cancel, causing a
tilting of the domains at that point (which is, after all, what
creates the Bloch Wall)... if you view a magnet under a ferrocell, you
can see the magnetic lines of flux of the 2 main poles and the 4
pseudo poles. Specifically look at the Bloch Wall, you'll see magnetic
lines of flux exiting and entering there. The sharply defined lines of
flux are the exits, the more diffuse are the entry.

Of course, your understanding of the above is predicated upon your
baseline knowledge that magnetism is mediated by virtual photons, your
sufficient understanding of Quantum Mechanics to know what virtual
photons are and how they mediate magnetism, and your understanding of
how virtual photons affect and are affected by the various fields and
spacetime.

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

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

#601230 — UIUC physics asking for more information Re: turning stupid physics professors into a bit more smart//

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 12:36:35 AM UTC-5, Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1 wrote: (snip the demonization)

Is this Tim Skirvin who stalked AP for decades?
Tim Skirvin ttp://www.math.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/
Robert M. Skirvin   uiuc.edu

Is this Tim Skirvin under the guise of "vote wrangler" with his asking for more information on the Atom Totality to give to his physics teachers?
Sir Peter Mansfield, Anthony J. Leggett, Norman Ramsey, Rosalyn Sussman Yalow, Brian Josephson, John Bardeen, Leon Cooper and J. Robert Schrieffer, Leon Cooper, J. Robert Schrieffer, Murray Gell-Mann, Emilio Segrè, Tsung-Dao Lee, Chen Ning Yang, John Bardeen, Polykarp Kusch, Peter Abbamonte, Peter Adshead, Douglas Beck, Bryan Clark, Lance Cooper, Karin Dahmen, Thomas Faulkner, Jeffrey Filippini, Eduardo Fradkin, Bryce Gadway, Charles Gammie, Nigel Goldenfeld, George Gollin, Robert Leigh, Virginia Lorenz, Kevin Pitts, Klaus Schulten, Stuart Shapiro, Timothy Stelzer



Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 21:28:34 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: page1, 1-1, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing
 Physics, 7th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 04:28:34 +0000


Page1, 1-1, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing Physics, 7th ed.

page1, 1-1, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing Physics, 7th ed. 

Preface: 

Now I said I wanted Clarity, Comprehension, and Logical Flow in this textbook and keep that foremost in mind. In a way, after all these years, 23 of them, I seem to have learned -- how to write a science textbook. By writing preliminary pages and then constant editing. They say practice makes perfect. 

I think this textbook should be of Brevity also, and with the smallest amount of pages possible, under 100 pages. I do not want to ramble on. 

I think the first chapter should be pictures, have some pictures in mind, for pictures with ideas are the most comprehensive teaching, and the first two chapters should be pictures with history to put things in perspective. 

In later chapters this textbook is a planned weaving in and out of the Atom Totality theory for several pages then with the Maxwell/AP equations as axioms that yields physics, for the next several pages, then back to Atom Totality, then back to Maxwell/AP axioms, etc etc. The weaving back and forth keeps the book exciting. 


page1, 1-1 Pictures of Atom-Totality-Universe 

I cannot show pictures except ascii-art in sci.physics, so I refer the reader to the many textbooks listed that shows pictures of what electrons of an atom looks like. 

A large proportion of people reading this textbook, think that an electron is one round ball that revolves around a proton-neutron nucleus of an atom. They are far from the true reality of what the electron looks like. And most people are aghast or stunned to find out that the electron looks like millions of fine grained glass dust evenly spread over a confined space, which in physics is called the electron-dot-cloud. 

One of my earliest ascii-art of the last electron of plutonium was this: 

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH 
ELECTRON 

                ::\ ::|:: /:: 
                 ::\::|::/:: 
                     _ _ 
                    (:Y:) 
                     - - 
                 ::/::|::\:: 
                ::/ ::|:: \:: 

        One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And 
each dot represents another galaxy. 

Look in a quantum physics textbook or a chemistry textbook for pictures of what an electron looks like. An electron is many white dots surrounding a nucleus. This is commonly called the "Electron Dot Cloud". 

Now, look at the night sky and replace those shining galaxies with the white dots of an electron cloud. And there you have the Atom Totality Universe theory in a picture. 

It was on 7 November 1990, woken from sleep that I discovered the Atom Totality Universe and the picture from textbooks that I was thinking of in my mind during the discovery was the Halliday & Resnick picture of what the electron of an atom looks like. And I hope the reader himself/herself looks up that picture in Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended 
Version , 1986, of page 572. 

Research 
Disclaimer: Due to the unconventional and speculative nature of this posting and thread, it would be inadvisable for students to apply any of the contents to their school course work. 
  
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies 

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.      

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe         
Archimedes Plutonium


Page2, 1-2, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing Physics, 7th ed. 

In the 1990s I did a survey in mathematics of math professors doing a Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof in which 84% of them failed to deliver a valid proof, which can be seen in my Correcting Math textbook of 2016. And the reason I bring that issue up is perhaps I should do a survey in physics or all the sciences, asking someone to draw a picture of the electron of a hydrogen atom on a piece of paper with pencil. Will most fail?

Looking at Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended Version , 1986, on page 572. This is a large electron cloud dot picture for which I quote the caption.

  CHAP.26 CHARGE AND MATTER.
     Figure 26-5
      An atom, suggesting the electron
      cloud and, above, an enlarged view
      of the nucleus.
--- end quoting ---

You see, the dots of the electron cloud is one electron itself.

And on the historic day 7 November, 1990, having awoken from sleep and remembering that picture in Halliday & Resnick, did I discover the Atom Totality Universe theory. I put together the idea that the dots of the electron dot cloud are actual galaxies and stars in the night sky.

The dots of the electron dot cloud are actual mass chunks or pieces of one electron.

So that if we had a survey test of scientists, especially physicists, would they draw the hydrogen atom of one electron and one proton as this:

o  .

Where the electron is a ball going around a tiny ball of a proton nucleus? Probably that is their picture of an electron.

They probably would never draw a picture like this for an electron:

       ......
   ..............
.....................
.....................
   ..............
        ......

The picture of an electron that was instrumental in my discovering the Atom Totality Universe theory is the one by Halliday & Resnick. That picture of the atom with dots caught my attention long before 7 Nov 1990 and it was on that day in 7 Nov1990 where I connected the dots of the electron dot cloud
with actual galaxies and stars, and planets, etc. Thus this picture was instrumental in the discovery of the Plutonium Atom Universe theory. But let me emphasize strongly here that none of the electron cloud dot pictures, that I have seen, really show clearly the night sky of shining galaxies and stars. The discovery of a new theory sees more than what is contained in past wisdom and adds something new and pushes it into the new wisdom.

I had seen many pictures of electron cloud dot patterns mostly in books and even in movies and TV. And it was stunning to me for the first time when I understood the electron was not some small ball figure circling around a nucleus, but rather a huge number of dots was the actual electron itself. And this stunning understanding is probably lacking in most scientists even a lot of physicists, but not so much chemists since they encounter pictures of electrons more often than others. So that if this survey of drawing what a hydrogen atom looks like of its 1 electron with 1 proton nucleus were given to scientists and professors, would any of them draw something resembling a dot cloud? I think few if any. It is in their psyche to think the electron is a tiny ball going around the proton nucleus, just like Earth going around the Sun.

Somehow it was the Halliday & Resnick picture which jolted my mind into the discovery stage and although in that picture the
white dots are far too dense to look like the night sky of shining galaxies and stars it was enough that they were white dots and that helped tremendously. In most of the other pictures of
the electron cloud they are black dots or blue dots set
against a light or white background, or they are too fuzzy as shown in a page from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

And, on that fateful day of 7NOV1990, my day was spent in finding out what chemical element would fit the best as our Atom Totality Universe. Was it uranium, or plutonium?

After 7NOV1990 I have searched many texts to find other pictures which have dot pictures of the electron cloud.

Pictures speak a thousand words as the old saying goes, but better yet, pictures remain in the mind longer than written words.
The Atom Totality Universe is very easy to explain and this ease is credit to the theory that it is the truth. When truth comes to physics the ideas are immediate, quick, connecting to past great ideas. For as Feynman said in his Feynman Lectures text 
in the first chapter where he places the Atomic Theory as the
greatest physics idea of all time, and what I do here, is extend the Atomic theory to its utmost reach-- the universe in total is but one big atom.

So on page 6-11 of Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume I, 1963, has a picture of the electron cloud, and quoting the caption:
Fig.6-11. A way of visualizing a hydrogen atom. The density (whiteness) of the cloud represents the probability density for observing the electron.
--- end quoting ---

Well, on my fateful morning of 7 November 1990, I was interpreting those dots more than just probability numbers, but that the electron was those dots and that the dots represent a mass chunk or piece of the electron. Of course, the nucleus of a cosmic atom would have most of the mass, and so, the cosmic atom would be huge for the electron space and massive for the nucleus.

So, if I did a survey on scientists, asking them to draw a electron, would anyone in the survey get it correct by stiplling dots or would they draw some round ball as the electron?

This is the dot picture I used in sci.physics and other newsgroups of Internet. 

                         94th ELECTRON OF 231PU

               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

        One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy.

A larger version of what a plutonium atom looks like
with its 5f6 as that of 12 lobes or as a dodecahedron:

            . \ .  . | .   /.
           . . \. . .|. . /. .
              ..\....|.../...
               ::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
               ::/:::|::\::
              ../....|...\...
           . . /. . .|. . \. .
            . / .  . | .   \ .

Archimedes Plutonium

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

#601507 — Re: UIUC physics asking for more information Re: turning stupid physics professors into a bit more smart//

did you get that from the Bob mooN model, or what?

> A larger version of what a plutonium atom looks like
> with its 5f6 as that of 12 lobes or as a dodecahedron:
> 
>             . \ .  . | .   /.
>            . . \. . .|. . /. .
>               ..\....|.../...
>                ::\:::|::/::
> ---------------      -------------
> --------------- (Y) -------------
> ---------------      --------------
>                ::/:::|::\::
>               ../....|...\...
>            . . /. . .|. . \. .
>             . / .  . | .   \ .
> 
> Archimedes Plutonium

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

#601691 — Re: turning stupid physics professors into a bit more smart//EM is attraction force only, and any alleged repelling is denial of same space occupancy

Now I need a commentary page for this textbook on Maxwell theory and on Atom Totality.

I find myself having far more to say about a subject, even though I finished the chapter section on that particular subject.

I need to talk about the format of the Faraday and Ampere laws.

AP

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

#601706 — Re: turning stupid physics professors into a bit more smart//EM is attraction force only, and any alleged repelling is denial of same space occupancy

Now, is there ever in any of Maxwell's writing where he uses Electric Field in conjunction with Voltage? I doubt it. For one of them is real and reality-- voltage, but the other is a human manmade delusion or illusion-- electric field.

In New Physics, voltage is the electric field, so when you speak of voltage, it is voltage and when you are too dumb, you may say electric field but you mean voltage.

AP

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

#601722 — Re: turning stupid physics professors into a bit more smart//EM is attraction force only, and any alleged repelling is denial of same space occupancy

being transverse properteis of e.m,
both propogate thorugh the electroni & protonic atoms
of free space

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web