>

>

>
> "hanson" quick.net> wrote in message
> news:P53Uj.7140$zw.5622@trnddc04...
> | "Rock Brentwood" aka Mark Hopkins yahoo.com>
> | wrote in message
> | http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/2234efb13bae45a9
> | >
> | "hanson" quick.net> wrote in message
> | news:QzQTj.37306$Bb3.24303@trnddc01...
> | Marki, your lenghty tripe is certainly entertaining and belletristic.
> | But how about an answer to Sanny's question:
> | "Magnetic Field [is caused] by XXXXX?
> | >
> | "Androcles" wrote in message
> | news:27VTj.10001$8q4.9216@newsfe15.ams2...
> | Poor young Insanny wants answers that don't exist, or if they do
> | nobody has yet found and published them.
> | To be sure a magnetic field is created in a solenoid, the conductor
> | of which is attached to the poles of a voltaic cell, [1] but the
> | magnetic field of lodestone exists [1] without electrical stimulation
> | which in the former case doesn't last indefinitely and the latter
> | case does.
> | If the question can be answered at all it is far more profound one
> | than most people realise. [3]
> | The electrical field of the charged particle is caused by YYYYY?
> | The gravitational field of mass is caused by ZZZZZ?
> | >
> | hanson wrote:
> | So, in the solenoid [1] it's the electric current, its moving electric
> | charges that cause the magnetic field,
> | (which in a way, IIRC, is used to define the SI Ampere unit,
> | providing that the defining force is of magnetic nature.)
> | And in the lodestone [2] it's the in place, non-moving, "aligned"
> | electric charges, in their (Weiss) domains, that cause the
> | magnetic field.
> | >
> | If these magnetic fields from [1] and [2] do have the same
> | properties then one can say, that this situation here is one of
> | the many possible starting points for [3] and here is a chance
> | for someone to come up with a wonderful new story that can
> | eventually be called a "theory" that answers Sanny's question.
> | >
> | ... Go for it, Andro!... .. or anybody else for that matter, who is
> | deeply interested in the fundamentals of physics and who is
> | more than just a parrot who regurgitates what is written in text
> | books. Have at it!... ahahaha... ... ahahaha.... ahahahanson
> | >
> | PS:
> | Andro, wait with your response for a day or so, to give
> | someone else a chance to post their own takes.
> | Chances are slim though for someone else to step up to
> | the platter with some original thought... just like in most of
> | your other previous challenges where there were no takers,
> | except for fuming retorts by aggrieved Einstein Dingleberries
> | who cursed you in their sorry state or ignorance... ahahaha...
> | >
>

> Ok, well, my response won't matter anyway since I don't have any
> theories to offer. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (who lived in my neck of
> the woods, same county, along with Charles Dickens) placed these
> words in the mouth of his gumshoe character, Sherlock Holmes:
> ...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,
> however improbable, must be the truth.
> All I do is present the facts and eliminate the impossible.
> The facts are that action at a distance is indeed a fact, however
> puzzling it may have been to one of the greatest scientific minds
> in all history, Sir Isaac Newton, and I certainly cannot class myself
> in his league. As far as these GEM [*] forces go, all anyone has
> ever succeeded in doing is quantifying them. What makes them
> tick is something that will probably remain a mystery for eternity.
> Accept it as a fact and use it as a postulate. Maybe something useful
> will come out of it, we are currently exploring superfluidity and
> superconductivity and seeing some strange phenomena. As an
> engineer I want superconductors for all manner of applications
> but I want them at temperatures I can cope with, not -273 celcius.
> There are Peltier junctions to explore ... science and technology
> go hand in glove, each supports the other. HST is technology
> that enables to the furtherance of astronomy. An electron
> microscope enables the furtherance of biology. Each needs
> the other for its advancement. Exploring Mars without rapid
> communication with the home planet is a risky business, the
> light accelerator would be a useful tool. So why no investment
> when billions are spent on Large "Hardon" Colliders?
> Answer: Because that prat Einstein still has influence.
> Give me those billions and I'll produce two-way communication
> with Mars in under a minute. Why haven't I patented the light
> accelerator?
> Answer: It's not worth my time and trouble busting a gut
> for no reward, just for the benefit of others. I won't live long
> enough to see a man land on Mars anyway.
>
>
> [*]GEM - Gravitational, Electrostatic, Magnetic.
>
> Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of
> natural phenomena. It is not the creation of theories as some
> here choose to believe, and I simply don't have an answer to
> GEM. I can only do a Phuckwit Duck and say what it is not,
> I cannot say what it is.
>
> If you've ever seen Baez's crackpot index (which is mildly amusing),
> Einstein scores 99. The fact that Baez sets Einstein as the standard
> is the most amusing of it all.
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
>
> Why did Einstein say
> the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> the "time" each way is the same?
>
> Totalling Einstein's score:
>
> 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. Score 1
> 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. Score 4
> 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
> correction. Score 9
> 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a
> widely accepted real experiment. Score 14
> 10 points for pointing out that you (Einstein) have gone to school, as if
> this were
> evidence of sanity.
> Score 24
> 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself (Einstein) to
> Einstein,
> Score 34
> 20 points for each claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally
> misguided
> Score 54
> 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were
> fact.
>
> 'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people
> who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only
> another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between Time and
> any
> of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves
> along
> with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time Machine" - 1895.
> Score 74
>
> 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping
> his
> way towards the ideas you (Einstein) now advocate.
> Score 104
> Less 5 given at the start, total is 99 for Einstein.
>
> The score for Baez requires the Richter scale.
>
>