A hypothesis about magnetic force

[Donut.Hole]

To starter of thread: Wha? I thought magnets were just a collection of charges moving in one way, cause the domains are lined up.

[thedarkshade]

I thought magnets were just a collection of charges moving in one way, cause the domains are lined up.

They are!

[Zephir]

...so one pole is positive charged and the other negative charged...

While I like the "surface charge" concept in your explanation, your hypothesis wouldn't work at the case of magnetic field of solenoid. Here are no protons on its end, which should be capable of electron trapping.

 

[elas]

The Wikipedia diagram uses positive and negative signs for opposite spins, this is misleading as they could be mistaken for electrons and positrons. A better way of seeing this is to use a graph of 1s electron pairs where the waves generated by particle spin can be clearly seen to rotate in opposite directions but both particles are, of course; negative (i.e. electrons).

Most diagrams use lines as shown in the diagram posted by Zephir. To some extent they to are misleading, the correct view is that of waves moving in the direction of the lines:

 

)))))))))))))))

(((((((((((((((

[Zephir]

..the correct view is that of waves moving in the direction of the lines..

Why waves?

 

The diagram presented by me illustrates the stationary magnetic field of fixed current, passed through solenoid.

[Graviphoton]

The Wikipedia diagram uses positive and negative signs for opposite spins, this is misleading as they could be mistaken for electrons and positrons. A better way of seeing this is to use a graph of 1s electron pairs where the waves generated by particle spin can be clearly seen to rotate in opposite directions but both particles are, of course; negative (i.e. electrons).

Most diagrams use lines as shown in the diagram posted by Zephir. To some extent they to are misleading, the correct view is that of waves moving in the direction of the lines:

 

)))))))))))))))

(((((((((((((((

 

 

Or even better, they can be mixed up with proton and electron influences.

[Zephir]

Analogy of Faraday-Lentz force and Newton-Magnus-Robbins force by AWT.

 

 

The magnetic field transforms the vacuum into field of many tiny vortices, through which the charged particle with spin is moving along curved path, being dragged by vortex field.

[Klaynos]

Maths!

[Zephir]

Maths!

Why? It's just another hypothesis about magnetic force...

Why I received warning for it, while babbling about magnetic force caused by electrons is tolerated here whole week? Lets analyze this.

[swansont]

AWT is to be discussed in the speculations forum only. Not as an answer to discussions in the physics section. This is not a difficult concept.

[Klaynos]

Why? because you are making statements and then posting images... that is not evidence, at least if you posted some formula it might be possible to understand where you're coming from and how it parallels with accepted electrodynamics and differs resulting in the possibility of experimental evidence for or against you.

[Zephir]

AWT is to be discussed in the speculations forum only. Not as an answer to discussions in the physics section. This is not a difficult concept.

My question was, why the theories of other members are discussed here whole months, while my post receives a warning in virtually few second period?

 

 

Do you have some explanation of it - or should I explain this phenomenon alone?

[ydoaPs]

My question was, why the theories of other members are discussed here whole months, while my post receives a warning in virtually few second period?

 

 

Do you have some explanation of it - or should I explain this phenomenon alone?

 

Pseudoscience goes in the pseudoscience forums(not in mainstream science threads). Don't hijack threads about real science with your pseudoscience. There's a whole forum for your pseudoscience; when you post maths and evidence, you can get it moved out.

 

 

How hard is that to understand?

[Klaynos]

The first post probably should have been in psudoscience and speculations imo... but it's not my decision to make, and I support the staff in their decisions, even ones I disagree with, because they run the site in their free time...

 

Of course that's no reason to hijack with non-standard ideas.

[Zephir]

When you post maths and evidence, you can get it moved out.

Well, my question still is, why the theories of other members are discussed in Classical Physics section whole months without maths and/or evidence, while my posts are receiving warning in few seconds?

 

2Klaynos: Thank you for your interest, but this was question for those, who gave me that warning, not for sympathizers. You cannot know about their reasons, which I'm asking for by now.

 

Ludwig Börne: "When Pythagoras found out his famous theorem, he offered hundred oxes to the gods. From that times all oxes are shuddering when a new truth comes out in the light."

...because they run the site in their free time....

Hitler has offered his utterances in his free time, too. Does it mean, we should be loyal with him? If not, where's the problem?

BTW "They" don't run this site. This site is runned by server. These guys are just censoring it - this is not the same.

...that's no reason to hijack with non-standard ideas.....

It's surprising, how many people here are interested about "standard ideas", which they can read everywhere. Do you know about the signs of closed sectarian community?

 

Such community doesn't grow spontaneously. It must be selected by careful long-term censorship of their members. Do you know the Lubos Motl blog, for example? Lubos is clever guy, but his blog is pronouncedly antialarmistic and all critical opinions are censored from there immediately with no mercy (..well, not so clever, maybe). No wonder, its regular posters are all anti-alarmists. This is simply how the mutations, selection and evolution works. And this is how I can distinguish every forum by its posters without any knowledge of their moderators.

________________________________________________________

 

Well, back to physics. In fact, the connection between fluid vorticity and electromagnetism is known for years. Whole the Maxwell's theory was based on inertial fluid concept, which Maxwell has used for explanation of his displacement current concept. No wonder, Maxwell's equations are all isomorphous with Navier-Stokes equations. The most pronounced analogy we can met at the case of hydrodynamic analogy of Biot-Savart law.

 

 

Richard Cunningham Patterson Jr.: If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

 

Well, the vacuum is probably a dense fluid. Which fluid? A fluid composed of its own scale invariant vortices as a boson condensate. But this concept explains just a hydrodynamic properties of vacuum, its vorticity in particular, which can be described by tensor fields. Therefore it belongs into realm of relativity theory, the LQG and twistor theory in particular.

 

For explanation of quantum mechanics properties of vacuum we are forced to adhere on foam model of vacuum. Only one real-life system covers both aspects of vacuum by analogy: its a condensing supercritical fluid, which can be described both fluid, both foam at the same moment. And this is where the AWT has started after one hundred years, when it was left abandoned by Sir Oliver J. Lodge, who had proposed it in 1904.

[swansont]

My question was, why the theories of other members are discussed here whole months, while my post receives a warning in virtually few second period?

 

If you mean in this thread, it's because the bulk of the discussion was explaining how magnetism actually works and correcting misconceptions. The OP was more about a misconception of physics than a serious proposal of an alternative explanation. I mean, it didn't have swirly gifs or drawings or anything like that, so how serious could it be?

 

Your post received a warning quickly because I was online at the time, and you've been warned — amply — about this before, and yet persist in the same behavior.

[Klaynos]

Well, my question still is, why the theories of other members are discussed in Classical Physics section whole months without maths and/or evidence, while my posts are receiving warning in few seconds?

 

Probably because yours where posted in someone elses thread, if you feel the OP is in teh wrong forum report it.

 

2Klaynos: Thank you for your interest, but this was question for those, who gave me that warning, not for sympathizers. You cannot know about their reasons, which I'm asking for by now.

 

Don't make it in a public forum then.

 

Ludwig Börne: "When Pythagoras found out his famous theorem, he offered hundred oxes to the gods. From that times all oxes are shuddering when a new truth comes out in the light."

 

OK?

 

Hitler has offered his utterances in his free time, too. Does it mean, we should be loyal with him? If not, where's the problem?

 

Are you familiar with Godwin's Law?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

 

Or reductio ad Hitlerum?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

 

BTW "They" don't run this site. This site is runned by server. These guys are just censoring it - this is not the same.

 

"runned" -> run

 

And it is run by them, the server is not magical it does what it's told.

 

Also if you go and find science forums without any moderation you will see that they are terrible people join ask questions and leave with just some crap...

 

You also get the problem that I will use this thread as an example of, the OP made by hello1 was answered, he may well have left to read up more on proper physics, you then come along and spout some non-accepted speculation, he may have subscribed to this thread and gets a mail about it and all the subsequent posts including this one which are WAY off topic, he gets annoyed and when he gets more questions about physics doesn't come back, therefore each post you hijack you removed 1 member from the forums. I've been on unmoderated boards in the past and they're useless... Get over it!

 

It's surprising, how many people here are interested about "standard ideas", which they can read everywhere. Do you know about the signs of closed sectarian community?

 

You know if you compare youself to a dead scientist you will have flagged all the crackpot criteria? Really understand how science works before saying crap like that, and there's the speculations board for you.

 

Such community doesn't grow spontaneously. It must be selected by careful long-term censorship of their members. Do you know the Lubos Motl blog, for example? Lubos is clever guy, but his blog is pronouncedly antialarmistic and all critical opinions are censored from there immediately with no mercy (..well, not so clever, maybe). No wonder, its regular posters are all anti-alarmists. This is simply how the mutations, selection and evolution works. And this is how I can distinguish every forum by its posters without any knowledge of their moderators.

 

We're used to crackpots who post pretty pictures and no science, and then when questions start screaming that it's because we are all believing in the religion of science.

 

________________________________________________________

 

Well, back to physics. In fact, the connection between fluid vorticity and electromagnetism is known for years.

 

Yep. I know, interesting....

 

Whole the Maxwell's theory was based on inertial fluid concept, which Maxwell has used for explanation of his displacement current concept.

 

I wouldn't say it was bassed on fluid concepts but it's results do show a stark similarity to fluid equations, mainly imo because flux has the similra laws "what goes in must come out" kinda thing, they're results of the derivation not the method of derivation though.

 

No wonder, Maxwell's equations are all isomorphous with Navier-Stokes equations. The most pronounced analogy we can met at the case of hydrodynamic analogy of Biot-Savart law.

 

 

Richard Cunningham Patterson Jr.: If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

 

Well, the vacuum is probably a dense fluid. Which fluid? A fluid composed of its own scale invariant vortices as a boson condensate. But this concept explains just a hydrodynamic properties of vacuum, its vorticity in particular, which can be described by tensor fields. Therefore it belongs into realm of relativity theory, the LQG and twistor theory in particular.

 

For explanation of quantum mechanics properties of vacuum we are forced to adhere on foam model of vacuum. Only one real-life system covers both aspects of vacuum by analogy: its a condensing supercritical fluid, which can be described both fluid, both foam at the same moment. And this is where the AWT has started after one hundred years, when it was left abandoned by Sir Oliver J. Lodge, who had proposed it in 1904.

 

OK, but I want to know how from AWT you can derive maxwell's equations. I don't want to hear "well they look just like the fluid equations so it must be a fluid".

[swansont]

Discussion of AWT as it pertains to Maxwell's equations and EM has been moved

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32772

[elas]

Why waves?

 

The diagram presented by me illustrates the stationary magnetic field of fixed current, passed through solenoid.

 

Sorry about the delay in reply, I have not received the usual notification email.

 

I think I am right in saying that current teaching is that the current is generated by particle spin, this can be seen in a graph of the pair of 1s electrons for all isotopes listed in 'The Elements':

Graphs of the plots for the red and blue waves are shown on the right (the dark blue diamonds belong to the main graph); although currently referred to as 'opposite spin' this might also be interpreted as 'opposite phrase'.

Plots of equal force form lines from right to left.

'The Elements' lists only the main isotopes, so there are gaps that I cannot fill.

[swansont]

You really need to explain what that graph is, starting with the axes. Then what you mean by red and blue waves.