Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[CANGAS]

@TA: I am so embarrassed. I just realized that you have won a free question, but I didn't notice it until now.

FREE QUESTION FOR TA .......Tell me what Michael Faraday concluded re the motion of the magnetic field after he glued the magnet to his Faraday Disk Generator and spinned it up and measured the current output. 1832 I think.

Also tell me the result of the Cramp Norgrove experiment. 1934 I think.

If you answer correctly I will notify my Nigerian branch office to immediately send you a large reward check. Or wire it directly to your bank account. Please give me your banking information in the post with your answer. 


CANGAS 54

[ramset]

CapZro
Naaaah
we don't tar and feather here anymore  [Stefan doesn't approve ] and Steel cage matches are temporarily suspended  [something about Biting ??]


just good old fashioned discussion will have to do for now [hopefully with respect]







Thx
Chet

[CANGAS]

@TA: I am so embarrassed. I just realized that you have won a free question, but I didn't notice it until now.

FREE QUESTION FOR TA .......Tell me what Michael Faraday concluded re the motion of the magnetic field after he glued the magnet to his Faraday Disk Generator and spinned it up and measured the current output. 1832 I think.

Also tell me the result of the Cramp Norgrove experiment. 1934 I think.

If you answer correctly I will notify my Nigerian branch office to immediately send you a large reward check. Or wire it directly to your bank account. Please give me your banking information in the post with your answer. 


CANGAS 54

An obscure hint for TA:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[The NASA Astrophysics Data System]    
The Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System
   [NASA]
Home    Help    Sitemap    

    Fulltext Article
    Find Similar Articles
    Full record info

Nature of a Magnetic Field
Cramp, William
Nature, Volume 134, Issue 3378, pp. 139 (1934).

    IN a paper read before Section A of the British Association last year, I gave some account of experiments made by Dr. Norgrove and myself on cylindrical magnets and solenoids spinning about their axes. These experiments forced us towards the conclusion that even in the strongest permanent magnet there was no evidence of any attachment between the metal and the system of tubes of induction to which it is supposed to give rise. All our tests then and since have only confirmed Faraday's words as to the ``singular independence of the magnetism and the bar in which it resides''.

DOI: 10.1038/134139b0
[SI logo] The ADS is Operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory under NASA Grant NNX09AB39G

CANGAS 55

[Cap-Z-ro]

CapZro
Naaaah
we don't tar and feather here anymore  [Stefan doesn't approve ] and Steel cage matches are temporarily suspended  [something about Biting ??]


just good old fashioned discussion will have to do for now [hopefully with respect]




You have your reference crossed Chet...try googling br'er rabbit and the tar baby.

Regards...





Thx
Chet

[TheoriaApophasis]

An obscure hint for TA:

Yes, I know that quote, see below


That space is posterior to all fields, and that there are no "fields expanding into space" (my ongoing assertion) was backed up using the formulas and conclusions of the well acclaimed Oleg D. Jefimenko

jefimenko
(October 14, 1922, Kharkiv, Ukraine - May 14, 2009, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA) - physicist and Professor Emeritus at West Virginia University.

Biography
He received his Ph.D. at the University of Oregon (1956).In 1956, he was awarded the Sigma Xi Prize. In 1971 and 1973, he won awards in the AAPT Apparatus Competition. Jefimenko has constructed and operated electrostatic generators run by atmospheric electricity.






Several authors have asserted that the magnetic field due to an electric current is a relativistic effect. This assertion is based on the fact that if one assumes that the interaction between electric charges is entirely due to the electric field, then the relativistic force transformation equations make it imperative that a second field - the magnetic field - is present when the charges are moving. However, as is shown in this paper, if one assumes that the interaction between moving electric charges is entirely due to the magnetic field, then the same relativistic force transformation equations make it imperative that a second field - this time the electric field - is also present. Therefore, since it is impossible to interpret both the electric and the magnetic field as relativistic effects, one must conclude that neither field is a relativistic effect. The true meaning of the calculations demonstrating the alleged relativistic nature of the magnetic field and of the calculations presented in this paper is, therefore, that the idea of a single force field, be it magnetic or electric, is incompatible with the relativity theory.



As is clear from equations (1)–(15) and (23), relativistic
force transformation equations demand the presence of
an electric field when the interactions between electric
charges are assumed to be entirely due to a magnetic
force. We could interpret this result as the evidence
that the electric field is a relativistic effect. But the
well known fact that similar calculations demand the
presence of a magnetic field, if the interactions between
the charges are assumed to be entirely due to an electric
force, makes such an interpretation impossible (unless
we are willing to classify both the magnetic and the
electric field as relativistic effects, which is absurd).
We must conclude therefore that neither the magnetic
nor the electric field is a relativistic effect
.
The only correct interpretation of our results must
then be that interactions between electric charges that
are either entirely velocity independent or entirely
velocity dependent is incompatible with the relativity
theory. Both fields—the electric field (producing a force
independent
of the velocity of the charge experiencing
the force) and the magnetic field (producing a force
dependent
on the velocity of the charge experiencing
the force)—are necessary to make interactions between
electric charges relativistically correct. By inference
then, any force field compatible with the relativity theory
must have an electric-like 'subfield' and a magnetic-like
'subfield'





if force is defined as the cause of acceleration, then the
equation F = ma , where F  is the force and a  is the acceleration, is a causal equation by
definition.

Force IS (coeternal) MxA, not Force "is the product of (CAUSATION)" ma

Proving again, that there causation is spatial, and space are in fields, but no fields in space.






Let us apply these considerations to the basic electromagnetic field laws. Traditionally
these laws are represented by the four Maxwell's equations, which, in their differential form,
are
∇ · D = ρ,  (1)
∇ · B =  0,  (2)
∇ Å~E = −∂B
∂t
,  (3)
and
∇ Å~H = J  +
∂D
∂t
,  (4)
where E  is the electric field vector, D  is the displacement vector,H  is themagnetic field vector,
B  is the magnetic flux density vector, J  is the current density vector, and ρ  is the electric charge
density. For fields in a vacuum,Maxwell's equations are supplemented by the two constitutive
equations,
D = ε0E  (5)
and
B = μ0H,  (6)
where ε0  is the permittivity of space, and μ0  is the permeability of space.
Since none of the four Maxwell's equations is defined to be a causal relation, and since
each of these equations connects quantities simultaneous in time, none of these equations
represents a causal relation. That is, ∇ · D  is not a consequence of ρ  (and vice versa),∇ Å~E
is not a consequence of ∂B/∂t  (and vice versa), and∇ Å~H  is not a consequence of J  + ∂D/∂t
(and vice versa). Thus, Maxwell's equations, even though they are basic electromagnetic
equations (since most electromagnetic relations are derivable from them), do not depict causeand-
effect relations between electromagnetic

It is traditionally asserted that, according toMaxwell's equation (3), a changing magnetic field
produces an electric field ('Faraday induction') and that, according toMaxwell's equation (4),
a changing electric field produces a magnetic field ('Maxwell induction'). The very useful
and successful method of calculating induced voltage (emf) in terms of changing magnetic
flux appears to support the reality of Faraday induction. And the existence of electromagnetic
waves appears to support the reality of both Faraday induction and Maxwell induction. Note,
however, that as explained in section 1, Maxwell's equation (3), which is usually considered
as depicting Faraday induction, does not represent a cause-and-effect relation because in this
equation the electric and the magnetic field is evaluated for the same moment of time. Note also
that in electromagnetic waves electric and magnetic fields are in phase, that is, simultaneous
in time, and hence, according to the principle of causality (which states that the cause always
precedes its effect), the two fields cannot cause each other (by the principle of causality, the
fields should be out of phase if they create each other).


And there is one more fact that supports the conclusion that what we call 'electromagnetic
induction' is not the creation of one of the two fields by the other. In the covariant formulation
of electrodynamics, electric and magnetic fields appear as components of one single entity—
the electromagnetic field tensor (dielectric). Quite clearly, a component of a tensor cannot be a cause of
another component of the same tensor, just like a component of a vector cannot be a cause of
another component of the same vector.
electromagnetic field tensor (sometimes called the field strength tensor, Faraday tensor or Maxwell bivector) is a mathematical object that describes the electromagnetic field of a physical system.







Hence electromagnetic induction as a phenomenon in which one of the fields
creates the other is an illusion. The illusion of the 'mutual creation' arises from the facts
that in time-dependent systems the two fields always appear prominently together, while their
causative sources (the time-variable current in particular) remain in the background1 .


1 The author has been unable to determine by whom, where and why it was first suggested that changing electric and
magnetic fields create each other. One thing appears certain however—the idea did not originate with either Faraday
or Maxwell.






Presenting electromagnetic theory in
accordance with the principle of
causality
On the other hand, equations (7) and ( show
that in time-variable systems electric and magnetic fields are always created simultaneously,
because these fields have a common causative source: the changing electric current [∂J/∂t ]
(the last term of equation (7) and the last term in the integral of equation ().
It is important to note that neither Faraday (who discovered the phenomenon of
electromagnetic induction) nor Maxwell (who gave it a mathematical formulation) explained
this phenomenon as the generation of an electric field by a magnetic field (or vice versa).
After discovering the electromagnetic induction, Faraday wrote in a letter of November
29, 1831, addressed to his friend Richard Phillips [4]:
'When an electric current is passed through one of two parallel wires it causes at first a
current in the same direction through the other, but this induced current does not last a moment
notwithstanding the inducing current (from the Voltaic battery) is continued. . . , but when the
current is stopped then a return current occurs in the wire under induction of about the same
intensity andmomentary duration but in the opposite direction to that first found. Electricity in
currents therefore exerts an inductive action like ordinary electricity (electrostatics, ODJ) but
subject to peculiar laws: the effects are a current in the same direction when the induction is
established, a reverse current when the induction ceases and a peculiar state in the interim. . . .'
Quite clearly, Faraday speaks of an inducing current , and not at all of an inducingmagnetic
field . (In the same letter Faraday referred to the induction bymagnets as a 'very powerful proof'
of the existence of Amperian currents responsible for magnetization.)


where ε0 is the permittivity of space, and μ0 is the permeability of space. Since none of the four Maxwell's equations is defined to be a causal relation, and since each of these equations connects quantities simultaneous in time, none of these equations represents a causal relation. That is, ∇ · D is not a consequence of ρ (and vice versa),∇ Å~E is not a consequence of ∂B/∂t (and vice versa), and∇ Å~H is not a consequence of J + ∂D/∂t (and vice versa). Thus, Maxwell's equations, even though they are basic electromagnetic equations (since most electromagnetic relations are derivable from them), do not depict cause-and-effect relations between electromagnetic reactions




As per:  "instantaneous action at a distance (within fields)" Of course there is, within fields 'instant action at a distance' without propagation speeds

(as proved by Tesla and Dollard and others regarding longitudinal field propagation).

But that the entire PREMISE is 100% flawed, regarding the statement of: "instantaneous action at a distance"

Field pressure gradients are not IN space nor therefore a modality of time.

So what is going on "instantly" is merely field inductions, pressures occurring "under" and preceding space which is merely a modality of any field.

So, taking the common phrase regarding fields (mag, grav, dielectric): " "instantaneous action at a distance"

we have removed the "INSTANTANEOUS" part as merely a human perceptual flaw of immanent fields within which there is space (but never a field IN space, rather space as attributional to or of a field).

"ACTION" can be removed, since we are only talking about field pressure gradients, inductions, charges and discharges. There are no "moment actions", since actions are comparators over 2 points in time. However the case is is that what something is in Principle it is in Attribute, likewise therefore deductively we can speak of X as both a THING/PRINCIPLE, and an ACTION/ATTRIBUTE, ........such as light-illumination, or will-willing. The very co-eternal principles, also, of and to any field.

"DISTANCE" can likewise therefore be eliminated, since we are talking about the attribute and EFFECT WITHIN any field(s). There are no "distances" , since this is a conceptual abstraction of fields which are impinging/interacting within / to/ against etc. each other.


ANY retardations of field action-propagation are logically only merely resistances encountered from intervening field-modality inductions/capacitance; or field voidance or counter-voidance pressures


So, having eliminated all 3 main words within "instantaneous action at a distance", whats left? Only fields logically. .... Well, we are left with "AT"

Field pressure AT another field
Electricity terminating AT X as magnetism
Magnetic moving its attribute (space) AT a dielectric ( which = dielectric inertial plane torque = electrification)
Your body AT a location in space AT which another body's centripetal convergent gravitational field is acting AT yours.



By the way, for the GREEKS, space IS an attribute of a field (χώρα). "Look at the wide open space here (IN THE FIELD IM STANDING IN)" !
again, space is a field-effect-attribute.


Space as a principle, cannot , shall not , may not, never will definitionally be anything other than a concept when speaking about merely "space (ltself)".