Cop>17 Here's Why This Result Was Predicted

[Aaron]

archive

Rosemary,

A thread can be an archive, just define it in the beginning.

[witsend]

Rosemary,

A thread can be an archive, just define it in the beginning.

Ok.

[witsend]

We're experiencing a heat wave. I have NEVER known CT's weather to be so extreme. Global warming looms - guys. I meant to work here today - but the truth is that I can hardly find the energy to keep upright. It's a cooker. I'll try again tonight when the weather calms down - hopefully. Golly.

[Jbignes5]

We're experiencing a heat wave. I have NEVER known CT's weather to be so extreme. Global warming looms - guys. I meant to work here today - but the truth is that I can hardly find the energy to keep upright. It's a cooker. I'll try again tonight when the weather calms down - hopefully. Golly.

Like I said before everything we see is based off of what we think is going on. A magnet in my eye is a motavator. The charges are the potential to move or the action of that move. Without either the magnet doesn't work. It is the proof or the tangable you are looking for. I am not trying to change your views only guiding your path. But that is the point of all this right. To define what the fundamantal path is.
Weather you are right or wrong doesn't matter it is the movement of your own purpose that brings new insights.
My attempt was only to show you that you are indeed on the right path but we are talking about the unseen here and you have to look at the effects of the unseen and then logically guess at the method it implies. Because this will never be seen with our current devices and mathematics we need to best guess and hope it holds.
With that being said has anyone thought about the internal configuration. Might I suggest you look at the experiments of the liquid ferrous material being subjected to a high single pole magnetic field. That curious shape is the method that is formed in a magnet. The dopant that they use will not only conduct but the iron forms into the main mass that becomes the magnetic diode with the dopant being the opposite polarity I guess. I suspect it actually look like two of them back to back. kinda like a flower with a north half and a south half. Also I might have been in error in my thinking knowing that most magnets exit the energy from the mid point of the poles seeing that the charge would start to be repelled out of the magnet.
The one truth is that on the macro scale it has to conform to the micro as well if it does then it becomes the true path. One thing in my life mary that I have learned is that if I am wrong or feel that I am wrong in my thinking, not implying you are only me, I adjust the thinking to what I observer.
The basic fundamental process can indeed be infered from observasion. We can indeed look at the magnet and infer how it works thru observation of the process. The energy you look for can be expessed as a static charge without motive force and the particle is the motavator or the method of those forces to use the potential. I am sorry if this doesn't conform to your building thoery but I thought I would put it here to maybe help you out from what I have seen.
This post has nothing to do with trying to subvert or debate. It is only an attempt to discuss this openly. If that is not what you wanted then I appologize and will continue with my own search for the truth.

[Jbignes5]

Jbigness5 - while I'm tolerant of all comments regarding the field model - THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT ALLOWED. I think that Aaron has been excessively generous to you and, frankly, I'd prefer it that you withdraw this sentence. Whatever happens here guys - I absolutely will not let this thread regress into another infantile romp into ego and nonsense. Aaron has made more than his share of concessions here. This is definitely where I draw the line. Inappropriate and absolutely undeserved. Read his post again. Then please delete this from your own. Then I, in turn, can delete this.

Done. I am sorry I will leave I am not trying to argue and only said that because I didn't want to start anything. Again my opalogies and I will leave and do what was suggested start my own thread. I was only trying to help in a good way and I am sorry it was taken out of the spirit it was intended.
As for Aaron I took it as an attack because we have a history. I thought this was your thread Mary but I apparently I am wrong about that.

[witsend]

Thanks Jbigness5, very much. We're back on track. I've got your PM's by the way. I'll get around to answering in due course. And I shall look out for your thread JB. That's good news indeed. But, for the record, I've noted your comments about magnets and they certainly seem in line with my own.

[witsend]

Having suggested these extraneous 'binding' fields I actually also need to first justify that these fields are indeed there. I am aware that everyone knows and understands that 'fire' is a chemical reaction. Let's just recap where we know there is evidence of heat - flame - fire - of whatever type. Firstly we have evidence of fire as the fire that lights the hearth - the thing that burns matches, that can ignite whole forests as we've seen happen in Europe and California and, indeed, is a regular occurance - as 'bush fires' in both Africa and Australia. Fire is something we know. And according to mainstream thinking - fire is a chemical reaction that depends on oxygen to sustain it. Then we have nuclear fire. Thanks to Hubble we've had photographic evidence of this. We are all familiar with the sight of the sun's hot surface burning at such improbably high temperatures that it would vapourise our earth should we spin too near it. Then we're familiar with the fire that comes from a resistor or electric element. Here - except under extreme conditions, there is no flame. Rather it seems as if the heat is somehow contained within the body of the material itself. It can indeed, burst into flame. But it's not an 'inevitable' consequence. And that element can get 'white hot' without flaming. It is almost as if the 'fire' is somehow contained within the material - possibly in the same way that the sun keeps its fire inside the body of the sun.

[witsend]

I've already argued that the magnetic dipole may have the property of velocity. The argument is that the faster the dipole the less visible and the slower the dipole the more visibe. Now I'm introducing another variable. It goes like this. The faster the smaller the colder. And conversely the slower, the bigger the hotter. In other words the particle also has caloric values associated with it and these are manifest provided that the magnetic dipole is also slow enough to somehow reach into our measurable dimensions.

So. If this is correct - then let us also consider what would be the effect then if we interrupted the orbit of a binding field of magnetic dipoles rather as the earlier proposal was that God himself interrupted the orbit of a string of magnetic dipoles to create the singularity of a nebula.

[witsend]

Here's what I propose would happen - and I need now to return to the analogy of the burning stick. The proposal is that the superficial binding fields are susceptible to this applied friction. By the application of pressure or friction, we break the orbit of those magnetic fields. The little dipoles, or magnets then manifest from their fast small cold state to slow down to a slow, big hot state. It sparks. The dipoles are only magnets. Magnets 'conjoin'. They follow each other in a path. Perhaps not in an orderly arrangement. But that spark would grow as more and more magnets moved into that general area. The spark would grow to a flame and - as more and more of these strings unravelled, the flame would grow into many flames and - eventually into a full blown fire. And during this unravelling process, the atoms would be liberated from their previously bound state and would systematically disassociate to move into the air as molecules or liberated atoms or they'd remain in a loosely bound condition of ash.

But what would be perfectly answered is this. If the binding of these atoms were precisely a measure of the amount of energy that was first introduced to that system - that stick - then the unbinding would also be precisely proportionate to the 'unbinding' of those same atoms. It suggests an equivalence in the transfer of energy that is precisely and perfectly managed. That's got to appeal to our classicists.

[witsend]

This does not argue that fire is the result of 'magnetic dipoles' somehow made manfest in our dimensions. At this stage all I am proposing is that it may be. It has often struck me that to light a fire is relatively easy. It only takes the application of friction or flame in one easy move. The mere striking of a match. The resulting conflagration can be vastly disproportionate to that initial 'input' of energy. It has also always struck me that here alone is a result that defies classical equivalence in the transfer of energy. But - provided it is seen within the context of this unbinding and this liberation of a previously bound state - and provided only that these fields remain extraneous to the atom that it binds, then, indeed, there is an equivalence in the transfer of energy and it would be precisely proportionate the amount of energy first applied to bind those atoms.

[witsend]

What has also occurred to me is that fire - of itself - does nothing to change the properties of the atom. Only nuclear fission or fusion alters the atom. Otherwise the atom remains inviolate. A kind of closed system within a prescribed range of variants relating to its ionised state. Fire does not change the atom. Whatever chemistry comes into play - as proposed by classicists - the simple fact is that the atom remains. It is not materially altered by this 'unravelling' of its bound state. This was my first justification for proposing that these binding fields are extraneous to the atom itself.

But what is also significant is this. If these proposals are half way right, and if, in defiance of classical thinking, it may be that 'flame' or 'fire' is simply the result of binding magnetic fields losing their oribital integrity then it would also suggest that these dipoles have two distinct properties. They can be manifest in our dimensions as heat - or they are not manifest at all.

[witsend]

Which brings me to the second evidence that may justify these proposals. If the atoms within a resistor are bound by these same magnetic dipoles, always in fields and always extraneous to the atom, then, if something - some voltage imbalance - is applied to these fields then then too would 'unravel'. They would then get big and hot and visible. They would expand the material of the resistor. They would be evident as heat. And they would, under extreme manifestation as a result of extreme voltage imbalance, entirely degrade the structure of that resistor. All such is evident. In other words, thus far, there is evidence that is consistent with this argument. It is indeed possible that the thing which we experience as 'heat' may in fact be the evidence of these magnetic dipoles that were first and are always, hidden inside bound material. And in as much as their manifestation degrades that 'bound' condition, then correspondingly, it may be that they were and are responsible for any amalgam's bound condition.

And if these proposals are right then it suggests that energy itself may be nothing more than plastic fields of magnetic dipoles moving through and around in in matter in some way changing the bound condition of that matter as they move towards establishing some innate need to move towards a condition of balance.

[witsend]

The third analogy is to nuclear 'heat'. I need to get back to this point.

For now I think a short synopsis is required to cover all these points. The proposal is that magnetic field may be a primary force. These magnetic fields may comprise magnetic dipoles. If so, then the most balanced or most symmetrical expression of pure magnetic field would take the shape of a toroid. A field of magnetic dipoles may sustain a 'smoothness' required in a field, provided that the charge distribution throughout the field is balanced. And provided too that the particles in the field share a justification. Both conditions would be satisfied by the single justification of these particles in an orbit. This 'particulate' definition of the field is consistent with known properties of charge in a magnetic field and are consistent with Faraday's conceptual 'lines of force' provided only that they are 'embellished' with arrows intended to show a fixed direction or justification on a path.

[witsend]

Given that quantum theories require an essential 'fundamental' symmetry - required by Bell's theorems, then a magnetic field may provide the required symmetry. But particles in the field are not evident. Therefore it is proposed that the particles may be hidden from view precisely because their velocity exceeds light speed. This would suggest that there must be some property in the field that 'propels' it to that velocity. And the proposal is this. Magnets obey the laws of charge. Therefore if the field is particulate then its particles would also obey the laws of charge. In the 'field' like charge would always be in the lateral juxtaposition of other closed strings in the field. This would compel like charge to move away. Any movement of one dipole would result in the displacement of all the dipoles in the closed string. This would result in an orbit and that orbit would then be continually sustained by all the closed strings that make up the magnetic field. This because the 'like charge' potential' would be a cascading event, as it would be impossible to adjust its position away from like charge, given the physical constraints of a a closed string in a field of many such strings and the dipolar properties of the particles in those strings.

[witsend]

It was also argued that there is a relationship between speed and size. This suggested that the faster the particle the less measurable or visible therefore it's size would be indeterminate and 'out of range'. But the analogy was then drawn to fire where the suggestion was made that fire or flame may be the physical evidence of these dipoles when they have 'lost' their integrity in the smooth field and they unravel into our dimensions. Literally, therefore, the proposal is that 'flame' may be the physical manifestation of these fields. This suggests that there is some caloric property to the magnetic dipole which renders it hot and big and slow - as it manifests in our dimensions - and outside the field. Or it would be cold and small and fast - as it manifest in a hidden dimension inside the field. So. The proposal is this. Break the field effect and we have the physical manifestation of these magnetic particles directly in our dimensions, measurable and exploitable as heat.