Thread: who knows "electromagnetism" to answer this......

In my research of your contemporary understanding of physics, I understand that your current theories for magnetism suggests that a magnetic field is directly associated to electricity, to charge.

However, take one solenoid and run electricity through it: sure, you acquire a magnetic field through the solenoid. Now though, wind another solenoid around that one, identical, and reverse the current, and presumably you get a reversal in the magnetic field, leading to no magnetic field at all.

Basically, you have two electrical solenoid fields creating a null magnetic field.

How does modern physics properly explain this as "electromagnetism"?

Simply, we have a situation where an electrical field exists, well, two, with no apparent magnetic field.

What has happened to that magnetic field?

Has it disappeared into a type of "unseen force"?

What is that "unseen force", that energy field, the magnetism we know that is directly associated to electricity…….what is it?

You understand the concept that forces of opposite sign nullify each other without disappearing, do you? :?

No.

This is not about "opposite forces" nullifying one another out.

This is about a huge GAP in theoretical physics..........:two opposing magnetic fields of the same strength, yet opposing direction, cancel one another out.

My point is, "two electrical fields exist, yet no magnetic field is apparent".........ON IT'S OWN, how can that be called "electromagnetism"?

........on it's OWN as a phenomena?

I understand that you seek someone from a contemporary point of view, to then, after fielding such questions, request any "new ideas"?

That remains to be seen.

Still, I admire your respect.

My question still stands.

"Is it possible to explain let alone present a theory on atomic particles that explains this feature of charge and magnetism"......///:as contemporary physics has failed to?

If there is any explanation, I want those plans: I want them immediately!

I have an explanation, but, out of respect..........of course.

Yes.

You are beginning to tantalize me, when no tantalizing is necessary.

I need people to answer this question who presume to know contemporary physics more than challenging it.

I am a source of concern without being too worried..........I therefore need to appeal to those who feel concerned, like I don't care.

I dread, though, doing a "Bush" appearance in a "pre-school".........it rings of a "9-11"............

...........still.............I am told nothing has been learnt, on either side.

........maybe I can be idenitifed in an even bigger "pre-school"?

/......for all you "apocalyptic maniacs", of course..........looking for your reason.........to at least answer a simple question of logic..........one even I can ask.............

..........do you even bother yourself to know what those who already feel bothered without your attention to KNOW?

.......to KNOW an answer bigger than your explanations of "issues" of "granduer" not yet properly realised.................??

Is anyone going to "SUGGEST" how to........

..........out of respect...........???????????

.................................................. .I want an answer.

Whoever or whatever is pussy-whipped..........show me the cAt you are worried about.

If I can get through this silence..........without being too silent..........understandably............and what an achivement already...........

.........moments pass by me.........moments you have failed to "take advantage of".

At least warn me of some type of "impending doom"...........!Q

No, clearly..........

I am trying to look stupid for a theory on what you call "electro-magnetism"...............while having to make stupid comments as well................

Booooo.

Now, imagine me looking back on thses attempts of communication............

........the failure I need to accept.

Hey.

If an answer exists, don't let it bug you out.

Wait for someone who can make a statement be allowed to make a statement.

You spook people more than I do.

I won't.

I thought a minor tantrum would help intice even an amatuer like you into this discussion.

It worked.

Now.......how much longer will (even) YOU wait for someone more expert (than yourself) to answer this question........the one presented regarding an a-priori of eletricity and magnetism?

Originally Posted by looking4recruits

I won't.

I thought a minor tantrum would help intice even an amatuer like you into this discussion.

It worked.

Now.......how much longer will (even) YOU wait for someone more expert (than yourself) to answer this question........the one presented regarding an a-priori of eletricity and magnetism?

Wow.

Stick with your post if you would rather (otherwise) make an example of someone who is not yet able to make a decent comment.

........basically, I also want to see you make an impact.........BUT, I doubt anyone will admit you are right in proving the problem they cannot define..........obviously........

Should I rephrase the simple question already offered in what you would term "plain english"?

Electrcity and magnetism.

Conditions exist for electricity to exist, two-fold, in the absence of magnetism..........yet still "electro-magnetism" seems to be a "statement" of "scientific justice".

............elaborate............anyone.

Is there not a net force still in effect pushing between the two magnets? (or pulling)

No.

There are no magnets in this situation.

Two solendoids that create perfectly opposing magnetic fields.

Once again, "how" can that be called "electromagnetism" if no magnetic field is apparent in using such electrical fields?

It sounds like it's as when you touch the positive and negative terminals of a battery together. There's still no net loss of energy. If nothing else it creates heat in the wires.


It seems that you're saying that, because 2 solenoids can be arranged so that the electricity going through them doesn't generate a magnetic field, that nullifies term "electro-magnetism"

What if, instead of 2 magnetic fields, no magnetic field is even being created? The electricians will still want to pretend there are 2 fields opposing one another in their equations because it makes the math simpler, but that doesn't mean it's really the case.

That's right.

There are conditions that exist that suggest electiricty/charge is a mutually exclusive construct to magnetism, that magnetism and charge are independent entities, although linked in a way science explains as "electromagnetism".

I suspect that "magentism" is actually an AS-YET defined atomic construct. Just like an atom roughly has protons, neutrons, and electrons, I am of the mind there exists a fourth construct, a magneticon, whatever the term will be, that descrtibes perfectly what it is that makes a magnetic field a magnetic field. As yet, that fourth construct is only explained as a tag-along feature to a flow of charge. I am thinking it is an as-yet atomic construct that is associated to the electron's behavior, and indirectly a protons behavior. I am also of the mind that it has not been witnessed as an atomic entity, defined entity, because it is actually not a "defined" construct, but more like a phantom construct when associated to an electron, perhaps.

To understand this magneticon, a theory would need to describe perfectly the mechanics of space-time to suggest there exists 4 basic gross contructs to an atom........neutron, proton, electron, and magneticon (whatever the term will be).

I actually think that the magnetic point construct is not identifiable to our awareness......yet as the "field effect" in association with an electron and proton, it is.

If what I suggest is true, then physics as we know it will have to be entirely reviewed.........ALL the theories of space-time, field forces, and so on.

Thus my search for this theory, and the associated redefinition of the the "forces".

Why has not science raised this possibility?

I am guessing you want someone of the physics fraternity to comment on your post question.

But, I can't help but notice you want what I can provide.

You see, with my theory of space-time, using a new theory for time, three dimensions, past present and future, I am able to deduce 4 basic atomic points. The only thing is, one of them is not visible to awareness, it is "non-existent" to our awareness, unlike an electron which is existent to our awareness. A proton and neutron represent points we perceive based on, as we know, electrons we fire at them. It means that we would not have picked up this point, this "m" point, in the lab.

Yet, it seems you want something from physics, something with solid backing and research from well-known scientific entities.

Not necessarily.

If your theory can explain the field forces, all of them, you have my attention.

The theory can.

Basically, the theory explains how space-time exists in a mathematically "unfolded" construct. It is though when the points of space-time are folded onto one another like folding a sheet of the fabric of space-time, then that's what we call a force. Basically, electromagnetism is the folding of the "e" points and "m" points together, and the strong and weak nuclear forces the folding of the "p" and "n" points onto one another. But note, we don't actually "perceive" an "m" point.

Gravity is basically how space-time balances matter, in the overall folding equation.

Check it out. No one else seems to want to.

You could have a bright future ahead of you if you are correct......but if you are as smart as you say you are, you would already know that. You would have already developed a "master-plan".

I will be in touch.